Topic: What is environmentalism, really? - page 10. (Read 7902 times)

It's also not true, at least not in any practial sense.  In my own experience, those who "wish to be green" and are willing to use government to compell others to also do as they would wish are religious zealots, not scientists.  They, as a rule, are impervious to new facts or data that may not have been available (or not widely available) at the time of their religious conversion.  I'm no less committed to the environment than I ever have been, I've just come to the conclusion that most of the actions that are proposed by the Green movement are ineffective at best, and terriblely counterproductive otherwise.  Even one of the founders of Greenpeace has done an about face concerning civil nuclear power, and nuclear power was one of the scientific issues that started me down my alternate path.  I love watching "Stossel" on Fox Business Network each thursday, and this past one had a bit on the EPA that I agree with compeletly.  Stossel (himself a well known former liberal turned libertarian) stated the issue well for myself, by saying that when the EPA was founded, there was much need for it, but since all of the low hanging fruit has been dealt with over the past 40 years, all remaining gains are economicly very costly and thus result in job losses.  I also agree with his libertarian position that, although it's true that in a libertarian world the public could class action sue major industrial polluters, in practice our justice system is too screwed up for that to be a practial solution.  Thus the EPA must continue to exist as a reflection of our society's collective desire to restrict pollution to the economicly necessary minimum possible but no further.  My greatest complaint about the EPA is that they have no authority over the greatest pollutors within the USA, namely government institutions themselves (particularly the US Military), so further gains from federal actions cannot be expected.

Ever heard of the Spotted Owl and the controversy surrounding it? What was all that about?

The Spotted Owl is a top level predator in the northwest. It was declared an umbrella species (otherwise known as a keystone or flagship species), and listed as endangered. The timber industry had an issue with this. Here's why. The purpose of listing the Spotted Owl as an umbrella species was because in order to preserve the Spotted Owl population, the old growth forests in the northwest would have to be preserved as well. That meant the timber industry would not be allowed to harvest existing old growth forests.

Why are old growth forests important? Because they offer all the ecosystem services outlined in my last post. Secondary growth forests do not offer all those ecosystem services, nor at the same level that the old growth forests do. And that's it in a nutshell. It has been demonstrated that the Spotted Owl can live in secondary growth forests, but it cannot viably breed in secondary growth forests.

Thus, species such as the Spotted Owl are declared umbrella species to act as a protective umbrella for their respective environments as a way to protect those environments in perpetuity, because once they're all gone, the possibility of regaining all those ecosystem services that those ecosystems provide is pretty much nil.

I would contend that environmentalism begins with understanding the basic ecosystem services provided by the ecosystem naturally to us.

As long as we don't disrupt natural ecosystems, they will provide everything listed below:

- Freshwater supply and flood control
- Generation and maintenance of soils
- Ocean flood protection
- Natural pest control
- Amelioration of the weather
- The cycling of nutrients
- Pollination of plants

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published in 2005, breaks it down like this:

Supporting Services:

- Nutrient cycling
- Soil formation
- Primary production
- Preservation of genetic resources

Regulating services:

- Climate amelioration
- Flood control
- Agricultural pest control
- Water purification

Provisioning services:

- Food
- Timber and fiber
- Fresh water
- Fuel

Cultural services:

- Esthetic
- Spiritual
- Educational
- Recreational

What disrupts the above?

Reduction in the number of top level predators. Top level predators, such as raptors, wolves, cats, etc. regulate the ecosystem by preventing overgrazing of vegetation, which plays a role in providing habitat to the smaller organisms, all the way down to the microscopic level, which in turn plays a role in nutrient cycling, water purification, soil formation, etc. In other words, top level predators ultimately affect the health of the entire ecosystem.

Edge effects. See this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ecosystems-edge-effects-and-related-environmental-issues-92952. The fracturing of an ecosystem disrupts its viability, by inhibiting migration, reducing territorial area needed by top level predators (see above), and this ultimately reduces biodiversity, which reduces genetic information, a resource required for medicine, material science, engineering, computer science, etc.

Other disruptive effects to the ecosystem services enumerated above include harvesting resources (collateral damage), toxic waste, atmospheric pollution, garbage waste, over harvesting (fish), pesticides, noise, etc.

I could go into much greater detail, and I hope to, but I have little time right now.

I think on all of those levels, we hold others to a higher standard than ourselves.

Individuals blame the government, government blames the idividuals.
Business doesn't give a shit, if they are forced by law or expectation to adopt new measures the can always use it as good publicity that they do so.

Wow, never thought of it that way.

If society as a whole takes measures, humanity will continue its Golden Age.

If too many individuals are not willing to take measures themselves, we will likely witness a collapse akin to the fall of Rome.

I believe that Environmentalism represents the idea that the society as a whole is more important than individuals, but individuals make up society as a whole. The Green movement aims to extend the lifetime of exploited resources of our environment.

Do you mean at the individual level, or at the level of a business, or at the level of one nation vs. another?

There is a lot of hypocrisy involved,
expecting everyone else to make measures we're not always wiiling to make ourselves.

This thread arose out of a discussion between TheBitcoinChemist and myself. It's so we can continue our discussion, with the participation of others, regarding what it means to be green, how people perceive environmentalism, what the benefits of it are, how it should be implemented, whether it's important, why it fails or succeeds, the character of those who embrace it or call it foolishness, and the science behind it.

I could begin by explaining what the point of contention between TheBitcoinChemist and me was, but I'd like to get a fresh start. I'll let BitcoinChemist begin, unless I choose to write a second post before he gets to it. Also, anybody else can jump in right now if they wish.