6 ms·

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 abo

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?
- redthrow 10y ago
  > Steven didn't make a clear distinction between naive environmentalists and other kinds But you do agree that he did NOT say people who desire clean air are like religious fundamentalists, right? Isn't it clear from context that he's talking about the intrusive kind of environmentalists who try to impose their preference onto others (not people who want clean water for their kids)? It was clear to me at least. I think some words (like "environmentalist" or "feminist") are so tainted by bad actors (who mostly rely on superstition and indoctrination) who label themselves as such that good actors (who mostly rely on reason and evidence) who used to call themselves that no longer want to use those words to describe themselves, and I think it's an understandable sentiment. I think fossil fuels are great, and I eat meat every day and I appreciate factory farming that allows me to do so, and I don't recycle. I don't have any data on this but I think most people who call themselves environmentalists probably don't want to call someone like me an environmentalist, and I'm fine with that.

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?

redthrow 10y ago
> Steven didn't make a clear distinction between naive environmentalists and other kinds But you do agree that he did NOT say people who desire clean air are like religious fundamentalists, right? Isn't it clear from context that he's talking about the intrusive kind of environmentalists who try to impose their preference onto others (not people who want clean water for their kids)? It was clear to me at least. I think some words (like "environmentalist" or "feminist") are so tainted by bad actors (who mostly rely on superstition and indoctrination) who label themselves as such that good actors (who mostly rely on reason and evidence) who used to call themselves that no longer want to use those words to describe themselves, and I think it's an understandable sentiment. I think fossil fuels are great, and I eat meat every day and I appreciate factory farming that allows me to do so, and I don't recycle. I don't have any data on this but I think most people who call themselves environmentalists probably don't want to call someone like me an environmentalist, and I'm fine with that.