Red, Green & Blue: Is it Time for a “New” Environmentalism?
The thunder here rolled for hours and hours before something long-absent in my neck of the woods finally arrived: rain. That’s when I had an epiphany. It’s come to this, I realized: I am in awe of the rare occurrence of something I used to take for granted. Because my part of the country, like so many other areas, is deep into an exceptional drought.
That led to another flash: in this large, beautiful and stunningly complex world — Gaia — it’s crazy to believe our messing with nature’s delicate balance won’t have consequences. And I think any serious strategy for reversing those consequences will have to be as all-encompassing as Gaia herself. That means we need a new approach to environmentalism that is holistic, rather than piecemeal. Saving the Earth now goes far beyond simply saving the polar bear or cutting greenhouse gas emissions, however noble those individual goals are.
So what do you think? Is it time for a more complete, whole-Earth kind of environmentalism and, if so, what form should it take? (Here’s one suggestion.)
Tags: environmentalism, Gaia, holistic, Red, Green and Blue
Posted in:
- Uncategorized
July 24th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
It would seem we are necessarily living a Divine plan then Shirley… wouldn’t you agree?
July 24th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Jimmy, I don’t believe this new approach toward environmentalism by necessity indicates a divine plan. Whether you believe in an omnipotent Creator or can simply sit in awe of the beautiful complexity of nature viewed from a purely scientific perspective, either viewpoint demands us to honor and wisely (i.e., sustainably) use the resources the Earth offers.
Some of the most profound environmental or Gaia-oriented-type thinkers haven’t been religious leaders or philosophers, but brilliant men of science or mathematics: Albert Einstein ("God does not play dice."), Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Feynmann, Oliver Sachs and Douglas Hofstadter ("Godel, Escher and Bach" and the new and fascinating "I Am a Strange Loop.")
July 24th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
That article about the Hard Greens was very interesting. Where are you on that scale?
July 24th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
As for the drought… you’re not confusing weather with climate are you?
July 24th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I had a feeling you’d leap on that drought-climate/drought-weather comment, Jimmy!
No, I’m not implying anything beyond the fact that many parts of the country are in severe drought right now — for whatever reason. My purpose in bringing that up was that, because of the drought, the sudden, welcome and rare appearance of rain became fraught with meaning, even for someone (like me) who isn’t a farmer or rancher (although I do try, with limited success to grow a few herbs in the side yard — my thumb is less than green!)
As to the Hard Greens article, I have mixed feelings. I don’t necessarily advocate making human existence and welfare the absolute center of our environmental efforts. However, I do agree with the author that environmentalism could in some cases be more successful if green types worked in the greater context of human society, rather than in the context of, say, saving the polar bears just for the sake of saving the polar bears. (Not, to quote Seinfeld, that there’s anything wrong with that!)
I did find this comment in the article illuminating, though … which is why the story came to mind as I was beginning this week’s post:
"Despite what you may read in the papers, we’re in absolutely no danger of extinguishing life on this planet. ‘We can surely destroy ourselves, and take many other species with us, but we can barely dent bacterial diversity and will surely not remove many million species of insects and mites. On geological scales, our planet will take good care of itself and let time clear the impact of any human malfeasance,’ says (Stephen Jay) Gould."
I actually believe that’s true. In the case of global warming, that might in fact be the best argument to make: "We’re going to make ourselves sick, miserable and under increased threat of drought, disease, disaster, you name it, if we don’t start curbing greenhouse gases." Rather than, "We’re drowning polar bears, wiping out rare tropical frogs, killing marine life, etc. And, oh yeah, it’ll be bad for people too."
July 24th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
My wife has a paraphrase of that she says all the time:
“Oh… we’re not going to kill the earth… we may make it totally uninhabitable for human beings but we aren’t going to kill it.”
Again I think it boils down to me being just a little more optimistic about all of it than you seem to be, Shirley. I’ve been hearing about the imminent doom and end of the earth my whole life. AGW isn’t going to get us any more than Ozone, or Y2K, or the Population bomb or any of those over-exaggerated fears.
I think we should encourage a sustainable lifestyle because it’s just a good way of life. Excess can be poison to the soul and people usually learn it soon enough especially if others are showing the way by example. I think that’s what GreenOptions.com helps to do. All of the Malthusian end of world garbage is more of a stick than a carrot and I believe it distracts from the cause.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
The carrot is certainly better than the stick, which is why I brought up the need for a new approach toward environmentalism: I see a whole slew of environmental issues, not just one, converging to pose some serious coming challenges to society, and the traditional piecemeal approach (Sierra Club here, Center for Biological Diversity there, etc. — as worthy as their efforts are) doesn’t seem adequate. Many of these challenges are interconnected (i.e., fossil fuel affects global warming, global politics, human health, agriculture, manufacturing, etc.) so it seems an equally interconnected effort at resolving them would be the best way to go.
This article in Orion Magazine made an interesting point, for example, that as goes oil, so goes medicine. Fuel for thought!