27 ms·

> He forfeits any reasonable discussion automatically by comparing a general desire to have clean air and water with religious fundamentalism This doesn't seem

• dahart 10y ago
  > I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I think there are some things that can be done to improve the environment. Then you are an environmentalist. It's hard not to be one, if you're a human and want to live. > not buying clutter in the first place would be a good thing to do Yes!! > I'm interested in progressive consumption tax Me too! > poor people in poor countries have is indoor air pollution, and the use of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels is one solution there. [...] Fossil fuels are essential to fight poverty too I can agree that fossil fuels may be good solutions to the immediate problems of today like poverty and indoor pollution. But I see from your wording you already understand, as I do, that fossil fuels are only one option, and may not be the ideal solution in the future. G7 countries are now setting goals to reduce dependance on fossil fuels. Why? Is their belief in cleaner energy a religious cause with only faith and no evidence? No, there are both environmental and economic reasons for the US to start avoiding fossil fuels. > This doesn't seem like a fair characterisation of his position. Which part of his essay did he compare people who desire clean air/water with religious fundamentalists? He didn't, right? Wrong. And it's not just me, The American Enterprise Institute characterized this article of Landsburg's explicitly as "Why naive environmentalism is like religious fundamentalism", which is accurate since that's exactly what Landsburg said. http://www.aei.org/publication/why-naive-environmentalism-is-like-religious-fundamentalism/ http://www.aei.org/publication/why-naive-environmentalism-is... Just a few direct quotes from Landsburg: "We consider environmentalism a form of mass hysteria akin to Islamic fundamentalism or the War on Drugs." "The naive environmentalism of my daughter's preschool is a force-fed potpourri of myth, superstition, and ritual that has much in common with the least reputable varieties of religious Fundamentalism." "The underlying need to sacrifice, and to compel others to sacrifice, is a fundamentally religious impulse." That point was stated explicitly multiple times, and is more or less the entire thrust of this divisive, mean spirited, and self-righteous rant from beginning to end. Are you reading the same thing I'm reading? You yourself adopted and used the term "religious" to describe recycling already in this thread, by what leaps of logic are you suddenly claiming to be not aware of this? Forget the fundamentalist angle, just calling it "religious" is an attempt to discredit the environmental position as lacking any evidence or logical thought. Calling someone's reasons religious, without understanding them and when they wouldn't describe them that way is not just disrespectful, it's intentionally ignorant, it's trying to not understand and trying to disagree, self-righteously so. It's too bad Landsburg doesn't recognize the deep hypocrisy of his own self-righteousness, nor the fact that like you and I, he does actually believe that clean air and clean water being available now and to future generations is a mission worth fighting for. He, like you, is an environmentalist. You might think Landsburg's writing sounds great, and that it makes a good reference in a discussion like this, but he said a lot of disrespectful things about a vague unspecified group of people without a single piece of evidence. He only states that their position is unreasonable and zealous, but hasn't shown that even once, nor clarified who he's even talking about. This paper is really weak, you are doing a much better job explaining your views on recycling than Landsburg did explaining his. You'd certainly make your points quicker and more agreeably if you left his writing out and spoke for yourself instead.
  • redthrow 10y ago
    Landsburg says it's naive environmentalists that are similar to religious fundamentalists (which I fully agree). Those are the kind of people who don't care about e.g. the cost-benefit analysis of recycling and simply believe recycling is A Right Thing To Do and attack people who don't share their view. I don't want to call myself an environmentalist for the simple reason that I want to distance myself from those naive environmentalists (I view these people very negatively). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mojiBJ55G2g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mojiBJ55G2g But you are right that economists (and people who apply economic thinking to policy matters) are usually the best kind of environmentalists. I don't think we need a separate category called "environmentalists". We need people who can do calm and cold cost-benefit analysis of given policies (environmental or otherwise), which most people who identify as "environmentalists" can't seem to do.
    • dahart 10y ago
      > Landsburg says it's naive environmentalists that are similar to religious fundamentalists (which I fully agree). Well, I suppose good luck to you both in your quest to sway any reasonable people, if you want to carry on with your ad hominem attacks. The comparison is flat-out inaccurate, and you know it. But worse, it's attempting to escalate the disagreement rather than find common ground. As far as I can tell, you and Landsburg are both reacting to people acting self-righteously. Yeah, it happens. It happens everywhere in all subject matters and all corners of the earth. Smart people do it, and dumb people do it. Religious people do it, and secular people do it. It's fairly human for someone who is certain they are right to act self-righteously and attempt to demean the opposition with less than pure logic and evidence. I can point out examples of where both you and I have said self-righteous things in this thread. I will refrain from comparing you or me to Islamic fundamentalists, you're welcome, but I'm happy to identify the double-standard you've established for yourself. Wouldn't it be better to identify as the kind of environmentalist you want to see other people being, and give it a better name, than to exaggerate your way to negativity and hate? Steven didn't make a clear distinction between naive environmentalists and other kinds, didn't define what "naive" means, and did not qualify every intentionally inflammatory reference to religious environmentalism with the word "naive". Both the title and the very first quote I cited above fail to qualify with "naive", they are talking fairly unambiguously about all environmentalists. The implication was made absolutely and repeatedly clear that he's saying environmentalism is naive, not that there's a slice of environmentalism that is rational and right. It sounds to me like you don't fully agree with what he's saying. > But you are right that economists are usually the best kind of environmentalists. We need people who can do calm and cold cost-benefit analysis of given policies (environmental or otherwise) I appreciate the attempt to bridge our gap. I do agree that considering the larger benefits of environmental policy is a good idea. I disagree that economists are the "best" environmentalists - I'm not convinced economics is the best framework for evaluating the benefits of environmental policy. http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/323/ http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/323/ > which most people who identify as "environmentalists" can't seem to do. Do you want to provide some evidence for this claim? One of the problems with your argument, fueled by Landsburg, is you're providing only random amateurs as evidence against, and limiting to only the ones acting badly. You're happy to provide a line of professionals to support you, but you don't seem to be seeking out the professional contrary position. How about debating the people who've established some of the current recycling policy, rather than worrying about what people in a parade think when they're provoked?