Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (685)	3/11/1999 4:20:00 PM
From: Philip S. LaMar Jr., J.D.	Respond to of 36921

I believe we are in complete agreement!!! Thank you for the feedback. Philip

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (685)	3/17/1999 10:46:00 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 36921

<<All too often however, radical environmentalists are not as concerned about the environment as they are about expressing their resentment about some other issue. They see environmentalism as an acceptable channel through which to vent other feelings. Some who have no interest in functioning in the corporate or business world are embittered by this fact and by the success of their peers. Through environmentalist causes, they can lash back at those who have succeeded in these realms>> Im in agreement totally. Ive found that most hardcore environmentalists are usually venting against other issues, using "mother earth" as a means. Most of the time, these are pampered suburban white kids out on crusade not against ecological destruction, but against industrial society itself. Its what I call neo-neolithism, a sort of pastoralism of which Pol Pot would be proud. They pay no mind to what other people value, or what is of value to people. It is a sort of socialism with bad anthropology thrown in, a desire to "return to the land." Which of course means the wholesale starvation of millions. It is a reaction against modern conveniences and comforts which have made life easier and our lives longer and healthier. It is a sort of know-nothing movement which seeks to destroy all progress and revert humanity back to the stone age. It is an advocacy for the value of nature and a damnation of the valuers. It is, in short, a backwards and spiteful movement which is cloaked in good intentions. I am not against responsibility and good sense. I am not against sustainable development where it respects the liberties and dignity of human life. I am not against keeping corporations responsive for their damage, but that is not achieved through the bankrupt institution of government. I am not against conservation as long as conservation is aimed at its only legitimate end: conservation of ecosystems which I (and others) value for its aesthetic and ecological importance. Not the nonsensical (in the strict sense) notion of intrinsic value of nature, as if value had a meaning apart from a valuer.