Whose Environment?


Ed Hudgins

Recommended Posts

Whose Environment?

by David Kelley

I was walking back to the office one day, not long after The Atlas Society moved to Washington, when a young woman accosted me on a street corner. "Got a minute for the environment?" she asked, thrusting a leaflet in my direction.

Welcome to Washington, I thought. In New York, where I used to live, people passing bills on the street were usually selling one of two things: men's suits or sex. But Washington is a political town. Here we sell causes.

I didn't stop. I didn't have a minute for her, or for much of anything except getting back to work. Besides, it seemed a little presumptuous of her to claim to represent the environment. And what did she mean by "the environment," anyway? What does the term refer to? And then it struck me: that is an interesting question.

The street-corner environmentalist expected passers-by to understand what she meant, as do editorialists who speak of "environmental policies," as do companies that tout their products as "Earth-friendly," as do "environmentally conscious" consumers who conspicuously drive hybrid cars. No one is puzzled by these references. Everyone seems to understand what the environment is.

Yet "environment" is a highly abstract concept. It refers to the totality of external conditions that an organism of a particular type can interact with and that affect its survival, as opposed to its internal structure and processes. For every species there is a different environment, set by its nature. The environment of a garden flower in Florida is not the same as the environment of a Siberian tiger. "Environment" is a relational concept, like "husband" and "wife." You can't be a husband unless someone is your wife, and there can't be an environment except as the environment of something. There is no such thing as the environment.

So what do people mean by that term? The next time I heard the "Got a minute…" pick-up line, I asked, "Which environment do you mean? Whose environment?" The question seemed to startle the person. "You know, the environment. Like, the Earth." The Earth? No, that can't be the referent of "the environment," not literally. As a the third planet from the sun, the Earth doesn't need a minute of our help staying in orbit, nor is it in danger from anything short of astrophysical calamity. As the sphere that all living things occupy, the Earth includes human beings and everything they have created, along with all other living things and inanimate matter. Again, that's clearly not what is meant.

Perhaps the intent is to distinguish what is natural from what is man-made. That's a rough-and-ready distinction, valid as far as it goes. But the realm of the natural doesn't really coincide with the range of things people seem to include in "the environment." On the one hand, environmentally correct organic produce is just as man-made as any other kind. On the other hand, digestion is a natural function and so, therefore, are its waste products and the pollution they cause if left untreated. In fundamental terms, the distinction between natural and man-made flounders on the fact that human beings are part of nature, and that it is our nature as a species to live by production. The artificial is natural to man.

This is obviously not the conception that environmentalists invoke and expect everyone to understand. So, again, what do they mean? What is the referent of "the environment"? The answer is that the term doesn't have a referent, because it is not intended to do real cognitive work. It is a political code-word, like "family values," that signals allegiance to a set of causes. These causes relate in diverse ways to our physical environment. Some of the particular causes are reasonable, some are not. But my point is that they are not held together by a coherent ideology, even a false one. They are held together by various unexamined assumptions (e.g., resources are limited, business is rapacious), feelings (fear of exhausting resources, guilt about prosperity), and images (dark satanic smokestacks, the beautiful blue-green planet from space). In this respect, "the environment" is what Ayn Rand called a floating abstraction, which acquires its content through emotions and associations rather than by derivation from reality.

Many observers have noted that the core themes of environmentalism have striking parallels to religion. The idolization of primitive societies living in balance with nature is a secular version of the Garden of Eden. Guilt about production, prosperity, and resource use are the environmentalist form of original sin. Like Hebrew prophets, environmentalists warn that the end is near, from global warming or some other apocalypse, unless we change our sinful ways and atone through ritual sacrifices of recycling, meatless Mondays, and abstinence from the demon drug carbon.

We can now see yet another parallel. The religious narrative presumes the existence of God, but theologians have never been able to define or even give definite content to the idea of God. The idea at the very heart of religion is vaguely imagined, imbued with feelings of hope, dread, and awe but incapable of definition except (at best) in negative terms. God is outside nature, outside time, not finite, and above all not man. "The environment" likewise has a floating content of images and feelings, incapable of coherent definition but with a similar negative cast: the environment is that which is not man. It's the way the world would be if humans weren't in it.

I don't expect that this analysis will have much impact in current debates about global warming, "cap and trade," pesticide use, and the like. Epistemology is a long-range weapon, of limited use in a street fight. But I do not think we will ever succeed in creating a free, rational, and—in the literal sense of the term—a fully humane society until we establish the right conceptual framework in which to think about specific issues.

There is such a thing as the environment of human beings as a species. But this valid concept of environment is poles apart from the one that environmentalists invoke. For one thing, humans do not have a fixed environment set by nature. As a species that lives by production, we constantly transform our environment, investing the stuff of "raw" nature with layer upon layer of man-made things. From cropland that has been tilled for generations, to the animals we breed for food and other uses, to the cities most of us live in, to the communication networks we use every day, we live in surroundings pervasively shaped by human effort. In any environment that humans occupy today, disentangling the man-made from the natural would take the most complex investigation, if indeed it is possible at all.

As social animals, moreover, we produce institutions and networks for trading, exchanging knowledge, and other forms of interaction. So our environment is not solely physical. It includes the economy in which we produce and trade. It includes the culture in which we acquire knowledge and seek rejuvenation in art. It includes the political environment of rights and laws. "For always roaming with a hungry heart," says the Greek hero Ulysses in Tennyson's poem,

Much have I seen and known; cities of men

And manners, climates, councils, governments…

Cities of men and manners, councils and governments—all of these are as much a part of the human environment as climate, because all of them affect our survival and, together, form the set of factors we interact with.

This human environment is the one I care about. For this, I do have a minute—and much more.

-------

Kelley is the founder and executive director of The Atlas Society, the center for Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was delighted to see this article by David. I've often thought, when people say, "Don't you care about 'The ENVIRONMENT'?", "WHICH environment? I care very much about my own environment, but a man sitting alone in his apartment in Sao Paulo, Brazil smoking a cigar is polluting his environment, and I couldn't care less."

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, did that enviro-chicklette run into the wrong guy, or what?

I do believe the overall state of the biosphere is always worth looking at, and working on. To use our massive engineering prowess in a way that is harmonious with the earth is an ongoing project. And we have fine folks that are doing that, as always.

But that is not the point here, is it? It is more about in sales what we call the "assumptive close," or, more accurately, the built-in-guilt-trip. I could be wrong, but I doubt that enviro-chicklette knows jack-squat about the actual operants, and efforts. It is code, indeed. The assumption is that if you do not agree to what amounts to a very uninformed, nebulous-at-least premise, you are a Bad Guy.

She needs something to give her purpose in life, even if it is an uninformed one. She doesn't know what she is talking about, who she is trying to sign up for what, or, for that matter, the motives of her own handlers.

Her heart is in the right place, but she has jumped into something without doing the homework.

And then she runs into David Kelley. Jeez, talk about bad luck. It appears he went pretty easy on her, poor thing.

rde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] "Environment" is a relational concept, like "husband" and "wife." You can't be a husband unless someone is your wife [...]

2d93hqx.jpg

Portia di Rossi and Ellen DeGeneres, shown in 2008 shortly after their marriage in California, which was upheld by the state's Supreme Court, Proposition 8 notwithstanding

Kelley writes a thoughtful essay, and I respond by treating him as if he's feeding me a straight line. Sorry about being a smart-ass, but this lovely picture popped into my head upon reading that. So, Kelley, stop being a homophobe {/FacetiousSarcasm}

I despise Proposition 8, which deserves to be overturned along with other prohibitions of same-sex marriage, just as much as those against interracial marriage were invalidated over 40 years ago. (If you don't see the federal constitutional case, you should call for tossing out the relevant part of the 14th Amendment as well.)

My apologies for the tangent. Please take any discussion of same to another thread. End of digression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By 'environment' the environmentalist mean the context of life collectively rather than for a specific species (garden flowers or tigers in the Kelley example). As pointed out they assume that the human environment is unnatural and set in opposition to the larger environment thus it is GIGO (garbage in garbage out). This article is helpful in questioning the assumptions of the 'environmentalist'. In Objectivism, especially 'The Fountainhead' the human environment and nature can get along beautifully, represented by the architecture of Howard Roark. I always envisage Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water house when I hear talk about environmental issues. I suspect that this view of human activity is outside the range of most environmentalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get approached by these clipboard people all the time trying to rope me into their causes whether it be greenies, sponsoring starving kids in Africa or whatever. I'm not sure if they are volunteers or get paid, but I usually just shake my head and keep walking. Sometimes if they are trying to get me to sponsor a child I will tell them I have my own special needs child at home and that's enough for me thank you. But then they say God bless you which is also irritating. :blink:

Maybe next time I'm approached by a green activist I'll tell them my environment is just dandy and giving them money won't make it an dandier... I dunno. Need a good wisecrack.

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting article, and it's a smooth move to question standard social definitions that are somewhat hazy.

I'm reading a book by Daniel Quinn entitled Ishmael. Very interesting book. He attempts to have readers question their paradigms about man's place in nature (among other things). Here, nature refers to the ecosystems existing on the planet. In his book, Quinn likens man's view of being in nature to the historical Christian belief that the Earth was the center of the universe. Just as man once believed he was the center of the universe, today he believes he is the center of the ecosystem. Of course the Earth is not the center of the universe. Likewise, is it appropriate or even accurate to assume that man is or should see himself as centrally defining to the planet's ecology? Perhaps the truth is that we co-exist non-centrally on the planet with millions of other organisms. While I believe man should survive, part of that survival depends on understanding our place in nature. According to Objectivism, an inaccurate view of reality leads to lower survival value. As Quinn argues, our belief about man's centrality in nature may be leading to the demolition of diversity in the ecosystem and homogenization of our food sources. These may potentially leave us vulnerable to far greater survival risks than minor roadblocks to production/consumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Kelley's Bad Argument

After having just today commented favorably on the Glenn Beck programs on Hayek and on Atlas as good examples of successful persuasion (hard evidence: the instant, steep rise up the Amazon bestseller lists of "The Road to Serfdom", of "Atlas Shrugged", and of the two other books Beck discussed on the same show), I was in an upbeat mood about chances of changing the culture.

Then I read David Kelley's latest and I experienced a sense of frustration and dismay.

It is very long-winded and unnecessarily detailed even as an epistemological analysis of the alleged vagueness or problematic nature of the term 'environment'. But more importantly, that premise is completely false.

Kelley says: "“The environment”..has a floating content of images and feelings, incapable of coherent definition." But every one of you or of the general public reading this piece knows very clearly what is meant if you are asked "Are you in favor of protecting the environment?"

The environment is clearly not discussed by the public or as a political topic on as broad or abstract a level as Kelley states: "the totality of external conditions that an organism of a particular type can interact with and that affect its survival." People are not graduate students in he philosophy of biology.

And it is not baffling. It's not as if you were asked if you are in favor of transcendental harmonics. Environmental issues are "are negative aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment...Major current environmental issues may include climate change, pollution, environmental degradation, and resource depletion" [wikipedia]

That's hardly something incapable of definition. Imagine Kelley going on a tv show and, when asked if he's worried about those four environmental issues, seeming like an evasive person from another planet and saying let's spend ten minutes of the two minutes I'm getting on this program trying to struggle honing our definitions.

There -are- topics where you can't get anywhere without precise definition because they are ambiguous or because people don't really know what they mean. Environmentalism, after decades of discussion and being on every news channel, is not one of them.

(A final, minor, problem with the piece is that, at 1260 words, it's too long for an op ed or to be published in almost any newspaper. So who is the audience it is aimed at? Hardcore Objectivists only?)

David Kelley is capable of writing much better stuff than this.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting article, and it's a smooth move to question standard social definitions that are somewhat hazy.

I'm reading a book by Daniel Quinn entitled Ishmael. Very interesting book. He attempts to have readers question their paradigms about man's place in nature (among other things). Here, nature refers to the ecosystems existing on the planet. In his book, Quinn likens man's view of being in nature to the historical Christian belief that the Earth was the center of the universe. Just as man once believed he was the center of the universe, today he believes he is the center of the ecosystem. Of course the Earth is not the center of the universe. Likewise, is it appropriate or even accurate to assume that man is or should see himself as centrally defining to the planet's ecology? Perhaps the truth is that we co-exist non-centrally on the planet with millions of other organisms. While I believe man should survive, part of that survival depends on understanding our place in nature. According to Objectivism, an inaccurate view of reality leads to lower survival value. As Quinn argues, our belief about man's centrality in nature may be leading to the demolition of diversity in the ecosystem and homogenization of our food sources. These may potentially leave us vulnerable to far greater survival risks than minor roadblocks to production/consumption.

Where is the center of the universe that we know earth isn't in?

-Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting article, and it's a smooth move to question standard social definitions that are somewhat hazy.

I'm reading a book by Daniel Quinn entitled Ishmael. Very interesting book. He attempts to have readers question their paradigms about man's place in nature (among other things). Here, nature refers to the ecosystems existing on the planet. In his book, Quinn likens man's view of being in nature to the historical Christian belief that the Earth was the center of the universe. Just as man once believed he was the center of the universe, today he believes he is the center of the ecosystem. Of course the Earth is not the center of the universe. Likewise, is it appropriate or even accurate to assume that man is or should see himself as centrally defining to the planet's ecology? Perhaps the truth is that we co-exist non-centrally on the planet with millions of other organisms. While I believe man should survive, part of that survival depends on understanding our place in nature. According to Objectivism, an inaccurate view of reality leads to lower survival value. As Quinn argues, our belief about man's centrality in nature may be leading to the demolition of diversity in the ecosystem and homogenization of our food sources. These may potentially leave us vulnerable to far greater survival risks than minor roadblocks to production/consumption.

Where is the center of the universe that we know earth isn't in?

-Brant

We're not talking perspectives within the universe, we're talking about the fundamental organization of the universe. The Christians believed the sun (and everything else) rotated around the Earth. Copernicus could tell you the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the center of the universe that we know earth isn't in?

-Brant

The cosmos has no center. Try this analogy. Consider the surface of a three-sphere. What is the central point of that surface? There is none. No one point on the surface of a three sphere is THE center. Or if you prefer, every point on the surface of a three-sphere is a center.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kelley says: "“The environment”..has a floating content of images and feelings, incapable of coherent definition." But every one of you or of the general public reading this piece knows very clearly what is meant if you are asked "Are you in favor of protecting the environment?"

Do they? Or have they just heard it so many damned times that they THINK they know what it means? Repetition and familiarity can sometimes substitute for knowledge, but when you ask someone to define a term like that, they end up waving their hands around their heads and saying, "Well, YOU know -- EVERYONE knows what that means...".

Environmental issues are "are negative aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment...Major current environmental issues may include climate change, pollution, environmental degradation, and resource depletion" [wikipedia]

Back in the '60s when people first started talking about this stuff, they used concrete terms. "Pollution" is a concrete term that one can understand. That's probably why no one talks about "pollution" anymore. What in hell is "environmental degradation"? "Climate change" was recently invented when "global warming" was discredited and is intended to include global warming, global cooling, and whatever the hell else they want to blame on humans, and as such is inherently vague. Resource depletion again is concrete and capable of being understood.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get approached by these clipboard people all the time trying to rope me into their causes whether it be greenies, sponsoring starving kids in Africa or whatever. I'm not sure if they are volunteers or get paid, but I usually just shake my head and keep walking. Sometimes if they are trying to get me to sponsor a child I will tell them I have my own special needs child at home and that's enough for me thank you. But then they say God bless you which is also irritating. :blink:

Maybe next time I'm approached by a green activist I'll tell them my environment is just dandy and giving them money won't make it an dandier... I dunno. Need a good wisecrack.

Kat

Yeah, I always hope I can think of the right wisecrack on the fly.

"Ma'am, do you know Jesus?"

"Yeah! Jesus Martinez. Mows my lawn. Great guy. I see you've met him too."

(*blink*; *silence*)

"See ya. Gotta go."

"I mean Jesus Christ."

"Hmm. No, I don't know a Jesus Christ, but I do know Mike Crist. He pronounces it with a short "i", though. He's a lawyer down the street. Owns a BMW. Maybe he's a relation to Jesus Christ."

"Ma'am, I mean Jesus Christ, the lord of the universe."

"Hmm. No, none of Mike's relatives have any delusions of grandeur. He and his family are known for humility, even though he's a lawyer. Well, gotta go..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Kelley says: "“The environment”..has a floating content of images and feelings, incapable of coherent definition." But every one of you or of the general public reading this piece knows very clearly what is meant if you are asked "Are you in favor of protecting the environment?" -- [Phil, #8]

> Do they? Or have they just heard it so many damned times that they THINK they know what it means? -- [Judith, #12]

David Kelley said in "Whose Environment?", above: "What is the referent of "the environment"? The answer is that the term doesn't have a referent, because it is not intended to do real cognitive work...[it] is what Ayn Rand called a floating abstraction, which acquires its content through emotions and associations rather than by derivation from reality...[it] has a floating content of images and feelings, incapable of coherent definition."

Judith, if you agree with Kelley and believe that the environment and protecting it are fuzzy floating abstractions incapable even of definition and you don't like the descriptions I gave from wikipedia, here's several more -- all of them pretty clear as to what their 'referents' are:

1) "Environmentalism is a broad philosophy and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the state of the environment."..."More important [issues are] climate change, species extinction, pollution and old growth forest loss. " [wikipedia] -- NOTE: Climate change, today, is a synonym for global warming.

2) "The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe....Nature, they insist, has “intrinsic value,” to be revered for its own sake, irrespective of any benefit to man...The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature." [ARI op ed]

3) "Their basic premise is that human activities to develop natural resources constitute a desecration of nature -- that, in fact, nature exists for its own sake, not for human use and enjoyment...Their basic agenda, therefore, is to stop the "assault" and "onslaught" of human activity: to place every possible impediment to man's further development of the earth and its resources." [Robert Bidinotto, econot.com]

4) "In various ways, environmentalism claims that living things other than humans, and the natural environment as a whole, are deserving of consideration in reasoning about the morality of political, economic, and social policies...Environmental thought and the various branches of the environmental movement are often classified into two intellectual camps: those that are considered anthropocentric, or “human-centred,” in orientation and those considered biocentric, or “life-centred.” This division has been described in other terminology as “shallow” ecology versus “deep” ecology" [britannica.com]

5) "...the social and political movement to control environmental pollution. Other specific goals of environmentalism include control of human population growth, conservation of natural resources, restriction of the negative effects of modern technology...problems such as global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the danger of transboundary pollution from nuclear accidents." [answers.com]

6) "‘Environment’ is derived simply from the French verb environner, to surround. Our environment, literally, is no more and no less than our surroundings." [answers.com]

7) "The natural environment, encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof." [wikipedia]

The only distinction in the above definitional material is between everyday environmentalism dealing with concrete issues (clean up pollution, preserve the forests, prevent global warming) and what ARI and Bidinotto call 'deep' environmentalism, the idea that human intervention in nature is evil. But in each of those two cases, the meaning of environment, environmental, environmentalism is crystal clear. Not ambiguous. Not a floating abstraction. Not something one can't define.

In order to fight the vicious environmental ideas, you *damn well better be able to define them -- so you can then systematically refute them*!! You will not get anywhere claiming you simply don't know what your opponents are talking about. After you do that, they simply won't trust a single other word you have to say.

(Plus, they'll think you are from some distant planet and haven't read a newspaper for a quarter century.)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting article, and it's a smooth move to question standard social definitions that are somewhat hazy.

I'm reading a book by Daniel Quinn entitled Ishmael. Very interesting book. He attempts to have readers question their paradigms about man's place in nature (among other things). Here, nature refers to the ecosystems existing on the planet. In his book, Quinn likens man's view of being in nature to the historical Christian belief that the Earth was the center of the universe. Just as man once believed he was the center of the universe, today he believes he is the center of the ecosystem. Of course the Earth is not the center of the universe. Likewise, is it appropriate or even accurate to assume that man is or should see himself as centrally defining to the planet's ecology? Perhaps the truth is that we co-exist non-centrally on the planet with millions of other organisms. While I believe man should survive, part of that survival depends on understanding our place in nature. According to Objectivism, an inaccurate view of reality leads to lower survival value. As Quinn argues, our belief about man's centrality in nature may be leading to the demolition of diversity in the ecosystem and homogenization of our food sources. These may potentially leave us vulnerable to far greater survival risks than minor roadblocks to production/consumption.

Where is the center of the universe that we know earth isn't in?

-Brant

We're not talking perspectives within the universe, we're talking about the fundamental organization of the universe. The Christians believed the sun (and everything else) rotated around the Earth. Copernicus could tell you the story.

I'd have to say the center of the universe for humans is where humans is. This is the human perspective and it's the only one we have until we receive a slug of decipherable data from alien beings. Objectively we know we are not at the center of our galaxy, but I'm not being objective except that the subjective is always derivative from the objective, the primary category of all reference.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to say the center of the universe for humans is where humans is. This is the human perspective and it's the only one we have until we receive a slug of decipherable data from alien beings. Objectively we know we are not at the center of our galaxy, but I'm not being objective except that the subjective is always derivative from the objective, the primary category of all reference.

--Brant

Then you see the claim Quinn is making - that we are within an ecosystem and not necessarily the gravitational center of it (nor perhaps should we be). Therefore, Quinn might conclude that we should pursue an approach of integration rather than deconstruction/reconstruction, with the former posing greater survival value to man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the '60s when people first started talking about this stuff, they used concrete terms. "Pollution" is a concrete term that one can understand. That's probably why no one talks about "pollution" anymore. What in hell is "environmental degradation"? "Climate change" was recently invented when "global warming" was discredited and is intended to include global warming, global cooling, and whatever the hell else they want to blame on humans, and as such is inherently vague. Resource depletion again is concrete and capable of being understood.

Judith

Quite so. This shift in semantics apparently was contrived to blame any kind of climatic variation on the capitalists. No matter what happens, the capitalists are to blame.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) "Environmentalism is a broad philosophy and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the state of the environment."..."More important [issues are] climate change, species extinction, pollution and old growth forest loss. " [wikipedia]

Phil, who writes Wikipedia? Have you seen any of the articles by those challenging "climate change" who say that when they try to put anything about their own views up there the articles are taken down in a matter of minutes?

-- NOTE: Climate change, today, is a synonym for global warming.

No it isn't. It's also intended to cover the increased incidences of hurricanes and any other unpleasant weather that "environmentalists" want to blame on humans.

2) "The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe....Nature, they insist, has “intrinsic value,” to be revered for its own sake, irrespective of any benefit to man...The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature." [ARI op ed]

3) "Their basic premise is that human activities to develop natural resources constitute a desecration of nature -- that, in fact, nature exists for its own sake, not for human use and enjoyment...Their basic agenda, therefore, is to stop the "assault" and "onslaught" of human activity: to place every possible impediment to man's further development of the earth and its resources." [Robert Bidinotto, econot.com]

I agree with these points. But would you say that these so-called "definitions" would be agreed upon by one's opponents in a debate? These aren't definitions.

6) "‘Environment’ is derived simply from the French verb environner, to surround. Our environment, literally, is no more and no less than our surroundings." [answers.com]

Yes. That's the proper definition of environment.

7) "The natural environment, encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof." [wikipedia]

Again, who writes Wikipedia? This so-called definition is devoid of meaning. If not on Earth, then where? Is the term "environment" meaningful with respect to anyplace other than Earth as long as we're unaware of alien life forms? They've taken the term and applied it to the entire freaking planet. Nowhere on Earth is not "The ENVIRONMENT" by this definition, and that's the exact intention. And, by means of arguments such as David's and mine, one must attempt to make people aware of such attempts to subvert meanings.

But in each of those two cases, the meaning of environment, environmental, environmentalism is crystal clear. Not ambiguous. Not a floating abstraction. Not something one can't define.

I think it has been made DELIBERATELY vague, for the reasons I've stated above and in my previous posts.

In order to fight the vicious environmental ideas, you *damn well better be able to define them -- so you can then systematically refute them*!!

Exactly. One must be able to define them when one's opponents cannot, and one must always say what one means and mean what one says. And one must also define the opponent's terms when the opponent refuses to do so -- which is what this subject is really all about.

You will not get anywhere claiming you simply don't know what your opponents are talking about. After you do that, they simply won't trust a single other word you have to say.

(Plus, they'll think you are from some distant planet and haven't read a newspaper for a quarter century.)

Nonsense. By pointing out attempts to muddy the waters and by calling things by their right names one brings clarity to the table and subvert's one's opponent's attempts to confuse people.

I think we're talking past each other here. I suspect we have different views about the meaning of "definition".

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to say the center of the universe for humans is where humans is. This is the human perspective and it's the only one we have until we receive a slug of decipherable data from alien beings. Objectively we know we are not at the center of our galaxy, but I'm not being objective except that the subjective is always derivative from the objective, the primary category of all reference.

--Brant

Then you see the claim Quinn is making - that we are within an ecosystem and not necessarily the gravitational center of it (nor perhaps should we be). Therefore, Quinn might conclude that we should pursue an approach of integration rather than deconstruction/reconstruction, with the former posing greater survival value to man.

Oh, I'm not really addressing Quinn. However, his agenda, as you describe it, requires collectivism and is contra freedom. Before there was "deconstruction/reconstruction" there was construction and before that we huddled in caves fighting off giant bears, which is what I strongly suspect "integration" will take us back to.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm not really addressing Quinn. However, his agenda, as you describe it, requires collectivism and is contra freedom. Before there was "deconstruction/reconstruction" there was construction and before that we huddled in caves fighting off giant bears, which is what I strongly suspect "integration" will take us back to.

--Brant

Not quite, but then, you haven't read him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now