Trusted, Automoderated users
5,366
edits
Environmentalism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Greta.png|thumb]] | [[File:Greta.png|thumb|Greta Thunberg.]] | ||
'''Environmentalism''' is the goal of keeping the environment intact in near or far future. | '''Environmentalism''' is the goal of keeping the environment intact in near or far future. Similar to [[eugenics]], its proponents tend to be ideological and tend to get overly enthusiastic due to runaway [[virtue signaling]] and may overlook the difficulties involved, for example that discouraging procreation will create [[incels]] and completely demotivated males, and that any attempt at regulating consumption might increase economic inequality. | ||
In 2019, [[blackpill]]ed incel forums took part in making fun of Greta Thunberg, a Swedish environmentalist, suggesting a slight anti-environmentalist slant of blackpillers. | In 2019, [[blackpill]]ed incel forums took part in making fun of Greta Thunberg, a Swedish environmentalist, suggesting a slight anti-environmentalist slant of blackpillers. | ||
== History of anti-natalism in environmentalism == | == History of anti-natalism in environmentalism == | ||
In 1968, a Stanford biologist named Paul Ehrlich published the bestselling book The Population Bomb and co-founded the organization Zero Population Growth (later renamed Population Connection), arguing that the growth in global population would lead to famines and ecological crisis. He also suggested that people have no more than two children. | In 1968, a Stanford biologist named Paul Ehrlich published the bestselling book The Population Bomb and co-founded the organization Zero Population Growth (later renamed Population Connection), arguing that the growth in global population would lead to famines and ecological crisis. He also suggested that people have no more than two children. | ||
Between 1978 and 1995, [[wikipedia:Ted Kaczynski|Ted Kaczynski]], a young assistant professor at University of California, Berkeley, also known as Unabomber, killed and injured various of his colleges with mail bombs, driven by the conviction that everybody should be adopting his Green anarchism. | Between 1978 and 1995, [[wikipedia:Ted Kaczynski|Ted Kaczynski]], a young assistant professor at University of California, Berkeley, also known as Unabomber, killed and injured various of his colleges with mail bombs, driven by the conviction that everybody should be adopting his Green anarchism. | ||
In the 1990s, at least one public environmentalist became even more radically anti-copulation, bordering on radical [[volcel]]dom. | In the 1990s, at least one public environmentalist became even more radically anti-copulation, bordering on radical [[volcel]]dom. A member of Zero Population Growth named Les Knight launched the ''Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)'' with the goal of “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed”. He launched a 1996 website explaining his goals.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/anti-natalists-childfree-population-climate-change</ref> | ||
== History == | == History == | ||
Until the 1990s, environmentalism was mainly a bipartisan concern. Republicans Richard Nixon (EPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.)<ref>https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2010/06/providing-americans-clean-air-and-water/</ref> and Theodore Roosevelt (U.S Forest Service, etc.) passed the most comprehensive environmental bills of our time with broad bipartisan congressional support. Other notable conservatives who spoke in favor of environmentalism include Margret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, William Ruckelshaus, Patrick Moore (Greenpeace co-founder), Gifford Pinchot, Russell Train, and Sherwood Boehlert.<ref>https://www.acc.eco/blog/2018/10/11/the-top-eleven-american-conservative-leaders-who-embraced-environmentalism</ref> | |||
Although anti-environmentalism existed is small quantities prior to the 1990s, many if not most US conservatives turned against environmentalism slowly starting around 1995 after Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. Newt found he could win races easier by opposing shut-down of traditional energy companies, taking inspiration from a local John Bircher Democrat who opposed the EPA and national parks and consistently won in West Georgia.<ref>https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environmentalism</ref> | |||
Although anti-environmentalism existed is small quantities prior to the 1990s, many if not most US conservatives turned against environmentalism slowly starting around 1995 after Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. | |||
Democrats in the USA have consistently signaled support for environmentalism, however some feel they do not go far enough, hence the existence of the Green Party and conservative offshoots of the Green Party such as the IGP. | Democrats in the USA have consistently signaled support for environmentalism, however some feel they do not go far enough, hence the existence of the Green Party and conservative offshoots of the Green Party such as the IGP. | ||
One could argue environmentalism is a fundamentally conservative position, making today's politics a bit odd, though most vocal proponents of environmentalism belong to influential elites. | One could argue environmentalism is a fundamentally conservative position, making today's politics a bit odd, though most vocal proponents of environmentalism belong to influential elites. | ||
== Generational conflict == | == Generational conflict == | ||
[[File:How_dare_you.jpg|thumb]] | [[File:How_dare_you.jpg|thumb]] | ||
Even though there is merit to the claim that the environment needs to be maintained to prolong future life and avoid a generational conflict between younger and older generations, there is a trade-off to be made between ensuring current social harmony and creating a livable future of the offspring as large-scale economic restructuring is associated with substantial risks. Examples of large-scale, centrally planned projects that have catastrophically failed are plentiful, leaving little optimism that a peaceful world-wide reduction in consumption is even feasible, especially considering complex market interdependencies in the modern world. What should also not be overlooked is that the next generation will benefit from the prosperity that is being accumulated in the meanwhile as long the planet remains livable. | Even though there is merit to the claim that the environment needs to be maintained to prolong future life and avoid a generational conflict between younger and older generations, there is a trade-off to be made between ensuring current social harmony and creating a livable future of the offspring as large-scale economic restructuring is associated with substantial risks. Examples of large-scale, centrally planned projects that have catastrophically failed are plentiful, leaving little optimism that a peaceful world-wide reduction in consumption is even feasible, especially considering complex market interdependencies in the modern world. What should also not be overlooked is that the next generation will benefit from the prosperity that is being accumulated in the meanwhile as long the planet remains livable. | ||
== Growth vs environmentalism == | == Growth vs environmentalism == | ||
Much of social harmony appears to depend on economic growth as it provides a strong incentive to get more stuff from newly created capital rather than from other people. Without growth, things tend to turn into zero-sum games instead, meaning whenever someone wants more he has to get it from others, if necessary by force (e.g. theft, wars etc.). Transitioning to a post-growth economy will inevitably risk this and thus has the tendency to divide people. Once it is socially acceptable to put high priority on the planet to be preserved, it is easy to conclude that the world is overpopulated and hence authoritarian leaders may decide for drastic measures of decimating the population (for their own automated paradise of course). | Much of social harmony appears to depend on economic growth as it provides a strong incentive to get more stuff from newly created capital rather than from other people. Without growth, things tend to turn into zero-sum games instead, meaning whenever someone wants more he has to get it from others, if necessary by force (e.g. theft, wars etc.). Transitioning to a post-growth economy will inevitably risk this and thus has the tendency to divide people. Once it is socially acceptable to put high priority on the planet to be preserved, it is easy to conclude that the world is overpopulated and hence authoritarian leaders may decide for drastic measures of decimating the population (for their own automated paradise of course). | ||
Growth is synonymous with carbon emissions and environmental degradation until cleaner energy sources are deployed/discovered or ways of consuming less, which is aggravated by the fact that women prefer men who consume a lot.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Women_are_1.2C000x_more_sensitive_than_men_to_economic_status_cues_when_rating_attractiveness</ref> | Growth is synonymous with carbon emissions and environmental degradation until cleaner energy sources are deployed/discovered or ways of consuming less, which is aggravated by the fact that women prefer men who consume a lot.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Women_are_1.2C000x_more_sensitive_than_men_to_economic_status_cues_when_rating_attractiveness</ref> | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
* [[Anti-natalism]] | * [[Anti-natalism]] | ||
| Line 44: | Line 32: | ||
* [[Eugenics]] | * [[Eugenics]] | ||
* [[Feminization]] | * [[Feminization]] | ||
{{Redpill}} | {{Redpill}} | ||
{{Blackpill}} | {{Blackpill}} | ||