Environmentalism: “Why is it that a point of view that is so false, so impractical, and in my view, so immoral—why has it had such a following?"
"'You’ve just launched a new book...'
"'I’ll hold it up for you here. It’s called 'A Rebel in Eden,' and its subtitle is 'The War Between Individualism and Environmentalism.' ...
"'I asked myself the question, “Why is it that a point of view that is so false, so impractical, and in my view, so immoral—why has it had such a following? Why has that following persisted with such intensity for so many decades? What’s that all about?”
"'The book, in I think a unique way, tries to address that by pursuing two different paths. One is the appeal of environmentalism in some elements of human psychology. And the other is on a parallel track; and that is the popularity of basic premises of environmentalism that go back into Western mythology and Judeo-Christian mythology, way back into antiquity. Many of the core premises of environmentalism are part of the indelible mythological history of the West. And I believe that the roots of environmentalism and the source of its popularity come from both of those sources: from aspects of human psychology, which we can go into a bit; and from this mythological legacy of the West—a mythological legacy that, in many little-understood ways, has transported some of the most radical principles of environmentalism into the 21th century, where they now blossom and flourish.'"
I think that's essentially right. It has both a psychological and philosophical component. Psychological in the sense that we're evolved to have an affinity with and reverence for the natural world, for good practical (survival) reasons. Philosophical in the sense that if we adopt the wrong ideas, that rightful psychological tendency can be corrupted into something destructive to human flourishing.
I'd suggest the latter destructiveness often results from not having a sufficient connection to the natural world in everyday life. Consider for instance that most Green party supporters are urban dwellers who are more disconnected from the natural world than say farmers who would rarely vote Green, but have a more earthy existence. I sense the explanation for that lies in a combination of trying to compensate for what you're lacking, making up for in ideological terms what you lack in your everyday life; and a simple disconnection from the practical realities of the natural world, to the extent you build a fantasy around it.
1 comment:
I think that's essentially right. It has both a psychological and philosophical component. Psychological in the sense that we're evolved to have an affinity with and reverence for the natural world, for good practical (survival) reasons. Philosophical in the sense that if we adopt the wrong ideas, that rightful psychological tendency can be corrupted into something destructive to human flourishing.
I'd suggest the latter destructiveness often results from not having a sufficient connection to the natural world in everyday life. Consider for instance that most Green party supporters are urban dwellers who are more disconnected from the natural world than say farmers who would rarely vote Green, but have a more earthy existence. I sense the explanation for that lies in a combination of trying to compensate for what you're lacking, making up for in ideological terms what you lack in your everyday life; and a simple disconnection from the practical realities of the natural world, to the extent you build a fantasy around it.
Post a Comment