xavier wrote:
It's actually not a discussion of global warming, if you read the top post (even though the intro to it is based on the topic). The issue I have is with radical environmentalist tactics and viewpoints, which have been counterproductive to their cause, and I was expressing my regret that in general, the environmental lobby not only resorted, but came out of the gate with, the same scare tactics that many attribute to the Bush administration. In the spirit of "you can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar", I just find it unfortunate that emotions often overrule common sense in many camps on that side of the issue.
In general, no one is going to say "yeah, let's pump all the smoke we can into the air and dump all the trash we can into the sea". I challenge anyone to find any credible person on this planet who would say that. It's also unfortunate that there is tons of rhetoric and no compromise with the most vocal environmentalists, but few practical solutions. Gavin Newsom is a practical environmentalist, and it's unfortunate that he can't get the support or ear of the environmental lobby, because those people are so steeped in rhetoric and demagoguery that they can't give an inch now, or risk losing face.
And that's another basic element of human nature -- the common inability to give an inch on a topic in which you have verbally overextended yourself.
And you cannot deny that in general, the human being is interested most in gaining more for him/herself. That is the essence of greed, that's all I am saying. And if you want to change human behavior, you have to address the basic human nature. Very few people in this world can be called truly altruistic, so pandering to the largely non-existent altruistic nature of the overall human population puts you exactly where the environmental lobby is now: nowhere further than they were 30 years ago.
FWIW, since you seem to have fixated on it somewhat, the analogy to animal behavior is accurate in that where there is no imminent, visible threat, you can't scare people into changing their behavior.
And it is in that spirit that not only I, but many of the overall population, tend to see environmentalists as nutjobs. It's again unfortunate, because most people who identify themselves as environmentalist, have had that identity tarnished by the deleterious actions of a fanatic few that also label themselves such.
You do a good job of clarifying your viewpoint, and there are some things I agree with here:
* The cause of environmentalism would be furthered by making it as financially feasible as possible. (the "greed" argument)
* Environmentalism is furthered by a practical approach, as much as possible.
* there are certainly a fanatic few who make ridiculous claims in the name of environmentalism. Still, the hope is that a reasonable person can distinguish between serious, scientific-based studies, and these ridiculous claims.
This earlier post (not by Xavier) shows this exact problem:
One could be concerned .. reasonably, without panicking and calling people to stop using toilet paper because rain forests are dying.
Or blindly agitating against genetically modified crops which have a potential to feed millions currently starving people.
Equating these two things (one a topic of serious scientific inquiry, the other some off-handed comment made by Sheryl Crow, if I remember correctly) means you're unwilling or incapable of seriously thinking about the topic of environmentalism.
The fact you consider environmentalists nutjobs because of the "deleterious actions of a fanatic few" (in your words) strikes me as being very closed minded. It's very easy to condemn entire countries, religions, or political systems for the atrocities committed by a few, but this is not the mindset of a rational person, nor the avenue to a reasonable debate.
--------
But fundamentally, I think this conversation does hinge around global warming (not just because of the title of this thread). This is because your argument seems to hinge on the assumption that global warming is not real. This is implied when you refer to environmentalist claims as "radical", and "scare tactics", as well as when you call environmentalists "nut jobs". If many environmentalist claims are in fact true or even plausible (say for the sake of argument, some of those made in "an Inconvenient Truth"), then neither of these terms apply, and reasonable environmentalists aren't resorting at all to the kind of propaganda you're claiming they are.
