Environmentalism as Religion?
Thursday, December 6th, 2007
Despite all their lambasting of Environmentalism, the last thing Anti-Environment pundits want to do is engage in a scientific debate on global warming, collapsing ecosystems, pollution, or overtaxing natural resources. That’s because they don’t have any science to support their side of the political aisle.
So what do you do when you don’t have facts to back up your arguments? You go on the attack and you go meta on your opponents’ assi*. Using mischaracterizations, metaphorical conceptualization, and free association, you substitute your opponent’s factually-based arguments with a faith-based fantasies, lumping them in with the Flat-Earthers, Scientologists, Heavens Gaters, and Reganomicers.
Conservative pundits attack Environmentalism as a sacrificial cult. Michael Crichton dismisses it as “a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.” Demagogues have even secured the domain name environmentalism.com to attack environmentalism as a religious belief.
The “Environmentalism as Religion” argument goes something like this:
Environmentalists believe people should make sacrifices to save the Earth; therefore, Environmentalists put the Earth above people; therefore, they see the Earth as their god (or goddess), and wish to sacrifice people to it.
How far can you stretch a metaphor before it finally snaps??? Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s a direct quote:
Environmentalism is not about a desire to have cleaner water and air. It is now a full-fledged religion, and its main tenet is “raw nature” as god-like, and Mankind as a plague infecting it. If you support environmentalism, the fact is that you’re supporting an idealogy (sic) that promotes the destruction of Mankind - and concretely, that includes yourself and everyone you care about. (environmentalism.com)
What’s grotesque and dangerous about this sort of Post-Modern Deconstructionist Ideological Relativism is that it’s a form of rhetoric whose intention is to call into question all scientific knowledge. If we’re going to call concern for environmental health based on scientific evidence a religion, then we can call believing in any scientific fact a religion.
Environmental Science tells us that we are apes, and that a web of life so complex we understand only a fraction of it supports our existence. This same Science logically conjectures that we should #$&% with that web of life as little as possible until we know more about it.
The anti-environment movement says that collapsing fish stocks don’t matter, mercury in the environment means nothing, oil supplies will last forever, and science will magically solve all our problems despite research funding cuts and watering down of politically inconvenient scientific facts.
Which of these sounds more like a religion?
* Plural of “ass.”
Despite all their lambasting of Environmentalism, the last thing Anti-Environment pundits want to do is engage in a scientific debate on global warming, collapsing ecosystems, pollution, or overtaxing natural resources. That’s because they don’t have any science to support their side of the political aisle.
So what do you do when you don’t have facts to back up your arguments? You go on the attack and you go meta on your opponents’ assi*. Using mischaracterizations, metaphorical conceptualization, and free association, you substitute your opponent’s factually-based arguments with a faith-based fantasies, lumping them in with the Flat-Earthers, Scientologists, Heavens Gaters, and Reganomicers.
Conservative pundits attack Environmentalism as a sacrificial cult. Michael Crichton dismisses it as “a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.” Demagogues have even secured the domain name environmentalism.com to attack environmentalism as a religious belief.
The “Environmentalism as Religion” argument goes something like this:
Environmentalists believe people should make sacrifices to save the Earth; therefore, Environmentalists put the Earth above people; therefore, they see the Earth as their god (or goddess), and wish to sacrifice people to it.
How far can you stretch a metaphor before it finally snaps??? Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s a direct quote:
Environmentalism is not about a desire to have cleaner water and air. It is now a full-fledged religion, and its main tenet is “raw nature” as god-like, and Mankind as a plague infecting it. If you support environmentalism, the fact is that you’re supporting an idealogy (sic) that promotes the destruction of Mankind - and concretely, that includes yourself and everyone you care about. (environmentalism.com)
What’s grotesque and dangerous about this sort of Post-Modern Deconstructionist Ideological Relativism is that it’s a form of rhetoric whose intention is to call into question all scientific knowledge. If we’re going to call concern for environmental health based on scientific evidence a religion, then we can call believing in any scientific fact a religion.
Environmental Science tells us that we are apes, and that a web of life so complex we understand only a fraction of it supports our existence. This same Science logically conjectures that we should #$&% with that web of life as little as possible until we know more about it.
The anti-environment movement says that collapsing fish stocks don’t matter, mercury in the environment means nothing, oil supplies will last forever, and science will magically solve all our problems despite research funding cuts and watering down of politically inconvenient scientific facts.
Which of these sounds more like a religion?
* Plural of “ass.”
