There are a few bits were it gets all preachy and goofy (including a rap song!), but the principles are pretty cool, especially considering the proven unsustainability of the “green revolution” on marginal farmland in India, Africa, and South America, and the desire to increase efficiency, rather than just prevent population growth for ecology’s sake.
approx. 20:00-35:00 is the best part.
I’d figure someone would at least criticize me by now…
Environmentalism “sucks” by definition.
Ah, there we go
Being kind to the environment, not polluting excessively, etc. are pretty popular notions, and I like them myself. I think the state is doing more to harm the environment (unnecessarily) than anything else. Libertarian arguments are really the best pro-environment arguments around, in my opinion.
Agreed. I find it amusing that libertarians are usually knee-jerk anti-environmentalists (see above), when their positions are nearly identical:
Libertarians argue that economic systems are spontaneous orders, and warn of the unintended consequences of intervention.
Environmentalists argue that ecological systems are spontaneous orders, and warn of the unintended consequences of intervention.
Clearly these are two groups that need to talk to each other.
Also see Long’s magnificent post here arguing for a Green/Libertarian alliance.
The idea of a “big tent” Libertarian movement is very appealing to me.
I also like permaculture because of the emphasis on efficiency, rather than the bleeding heart guiltiness of altering the surrounding landscape.
Totally wrong description of environmentalism. Environmentalism is a narrowminded obsession with preserving the planet as it is untouched by humanity.
I agree. If you take the environmentalist creed to its logical extreme, you’ll find that it’s a fundamentally anti-human doctrine. Off course, they don’t say that they want absolutely no pollution. But how much is too much? It’s a purely arbitrary notion and they’ll never reach a point where they’ll be satisfied. Therefore, in order to be principled, they must advocate for no pollution, no killing of animals (by humans), etc. All those things imply an end to human civilization.
You can find plenty quotes from presidents/founders of the leading environmentalist organizations suggesting viruses to kill off humanity and other nasty schemes. I was an environmentalist maniac in my youth. I know first hand how the hippie mind works. Sustainability is a red herring. The real goal is preservationist communism. Make no mistake. It’s all part of the same mentality.
Well sure, some environmentalists say that, but most wouldn’t (for example, myself). And if the non-crazy position is the strongest interpretation, then the principle of charity requires addressing that position.
I don’t count non-crazy positions as environmentalist. What is your non-crazy idea?
And that is an extremely narrow-minded definition of environmentalism.
I can see where you are coming from, but from the standpoint of ecology and permaculture, it would be a massive benefit to humanity to understand and harness natural cycles, rather than constantly fight them. I think it is a false dichotomy to assume that nature and humanity are separate, and always antagonistic. I would agree that some environmentalists are overly zealous and fundamentalist, but I think the same could be said about the anti-environmentalist types.
There’s your problem. My idea is what I wrote above: ecological systems are spontaneous orders, and blindly intervening in them has unintended consequences.
It’s that, but it’s also crude rent-seeking. The affluent Granola Greg who doesn’t want land developed because he wants to hike it from time to time is essentially the same as the Carolingian ruler who didn’t want land cultivated because he wanted to hunt on it from time to time.
Bingo-Bango. Central planning does not work. [;)]
Obviously, I’d rather be where there’s clean air and there isn’t a shortage of natural resources. But those things aren’t an end in and of themselves. I only care about the environment in so far as it’s helpful to humans. As I’m sure we’d all agree, the proper way to achieve that is by property rights.
But that’s a world away from what your typical environmentalist is in favor of. The preservation of the environment is their ultimate end. As I said, that, in principle, is an anti-human doctrine. There is a dichotomy between human prosperity and preservation of the environment in that sense.
Sure, that’s why permaculture is so cool IMO. Good for people, good for the enviroment, win, win.
And knowledge (which is more important IMO)
But there doesn’t have to be. Check out the video, or take a look at some proper forest conservation techniques.
That’s why the post is titled “Environmentalism that doesn’t suck”
Tell that hippie to buy it, or start a land trust.