3 ms·
Well, yes. Because environmental activism is basically an instrument of NIMBYism, not anything based on facts, evidence or logic. Nobody really protests when fa
by corty 6y ago
Well, yes. Because environmental activism is basically an instrument of NIMBYism, not anything based on facts, evidence or logic. Nobody really protests when farmers spread their poison, because that would be inconveniently far away, lots of work, etc. But protesting about the destruction of the neighbouring daisy habitat is an easy feel-good measure, and if you can NIMBY you way into higher value of your real estate by scarcer ground for housing construction, all the better.
- qayxc 6y agoAnd you don't see the contradiction there? On the one hand you say that the environment is protected more than the people yet here you argue that it's actually the people who benefit instead of nature. Which is it?
- corty 6y agoPeople at large aren't really protected in any way here. Neither is the environment at large. There are just a small number of people who advance their interests by selectively pretending to protect some insignificant part of the environment. That this sometimes has big repercussions like cancelling major projects is sold as a big win for the environment, when it actually is a tiny, insignificant and non-proportional one. So in the presentation, we are doing a lot and sacrificing a lot for the environment (not really, but it is presented that way) when we are actually just doing nothing but to hinder progress in other areas.