July 09, 2004
Enviromental Ignorance
I've run across a couple of bloggers blithely discounting the importance of things like trees and other species (although the first post might be seen simply as a criticism of a particular policy). Both posts run along essentially the same lines and assume that whatever happens to the other parts of the ecosystem, it won't really affect humans. Thankfully, there are bloggers willing to correct or mock them. Of course, in this case, Yglesias's high profile gets him a lot of responses—which some people think is why he wrote that post in the first place—whereas Alice's is unlikely to generate such a storm (I say this with no knowledge of her traffic). Hers, however, is the more odious post. In it, she conflates the simplified arguments from a children's cartoon with all environmental defenses:
Environmentalist arguments generally follow the pattern:
1. "self-evident" (ie unsubstantiated) argument: (trees take a long time to grow! the ozone layer is disappearing! there won't be any more dolphins!)
2. Scare-story extrapolated from 1. (no trees- no oxygen! no ozone layer- everyone toasted to death! no dolphins- world deprived of superintelligent species that would have taken over and saved us all!) etcArguments with environmentalists therefore usually follow the pattern:
1. Where is your evidence that this is true? (there never is any)
2. Why does it matter anyway? (often no reason)
3. How do you prove that A will lead to B and thence to Z, other than through wild speculation? (they don't)
Maybe she's just calling for better evidence from the extreme eco-doomsday types. There's certainly a lot of chicken littles in that debate, but discounting the entire argument because there's some overly vocal idiots making a weak version of it isn't the way to go. There's plenty of scientific evidence for climate change. Just because some people can't provide it on demand doesn't mean it isn't there. Deforestation is a serious and real problem, despite the market demand for paper. It's simply irresponsible to ignorantly assume everything will work out.
Now I think I'll go hug a tree.
Yglesias, I think, was at least partially joking (I mean, he had to be, right?). And Alice is a fucking moron. I don't think it's about using logic to convince troglodytes of the reality of the environment's importance, I think it's more about exposing the truth behind corporate greenwashing campaigns and other, more subtle manipulations. Everyone at least pays lip service to the environment these days, even while rolling back the Endangered Species Act, because it's recognized that most people understand that it's important. The small minority who mock the very concept of environmentalism are pretty much automatically banished to an intellectual ghetto.
Strange. Only this morning I used the word "troglodytic" for the first time in what seemed like forever. Formerly one of my favorite insults.
Yglesias was indeed joking, although I commend him for not bleating out his indignance in the face of such scathing comments. If it were me, by about mean comment number two, I would have buckled and posted some sort of mealy-mouthed explanation for why it was a joke. Kudos, MY.
As for Alice, well, she buys her oxygen down at the Circle K, so what use has she of the environment?
The small minority who mock the very concept of environmentalism are pretty much automatically banished to an intellectual ghetto.
They should be, but too often they're not. Don't forget that Bush denies the evidence of global climate change. I think he pays some lip service to environmental concerns when forced to, but he doesn't believe they're at all important.
I thought for a while before posting my response (thanks for the link) to Yglesias's post. Yes, I figured it could be a joke. The problem for me was that joke or not, it didn't have any joke-markers -- even moderately subtle ones -- to activate the irony. So joke or not, it reads straight enough to make a lot of sense to the many, many ignorant readers who salivate over prominent lefty bloggers dissing an important and monetarily costly environmental issue.
I do think it's important to challenge these sorts of errors (and many other kinds as well) given the stakes involved, but I sort of doubt that the people who deny the need for concern about the environment were waiting for Yglesias to support their beliefs. Maybe they would be inclined to use his post as some anecdotal support ("see? even lefties think it's dumb!"), but that's probably a small minority. It seems a bit of an exaggeration to say there are "many, many" readers salivating over those sorts of remarks. At least, I haven't come across any. Then again, I tend to avoid most comments sections on other blogs (especially the high traffic ones). Have you come across those sorts of comments on his post?
No, actually not.
Doesn't look like Yglesias is joking to me. Occasionally he says some dumb and infuriating things without giving it much thought. If he didn't have the arrogance to say shit like this, he wouldn't be so interesting to read.
Yglesias' comment is related to a Rawlsian wing of Environmental Ethics that says only the rights of humans must be respected. Or if one is thinks like a utilitarian, then only benefits to humans or human interests should be taken into account when we analyze what we should do.
I happen to believe this is essentially correct. That is, animals shouldn't be granted intrinsic rights and environmental desicions should come down to human interests and human rights. But preserving biodiversity IS in many ways essential to human flourishing. Speaking for myself, I want to preserve the red wolf for my sake, not the sake of the wolves-and that is a purely aesthetic concern. Many types of flora and fauna are actually important for scientific endeavours and for the existence of the human habitat.
Yglesias' post is one more reason to be wary of environmental ethics based theories that don't take scientific, experiential and aesthetic concerns into account.
Thanks Scott. I read MY's post and then another one and I really didn't think he was making a joke either but sleep and david's comments made me think I must be missing something.
Also, good comment; very interesting.
Well, I think some events do speak for themselves:
Unseasonal cold brings snow to Bavarian Alps
Sun Jul 11,10:45 AM ET Yahoo News
GARMISCH-PARTENKIRCHEN, Germany (AFP) - Unseasonal summer cold brought 10 centimeters (four inches) of snow overnight to the Germany's highest mountain, the Zugspitze in southern Bavaria, meteorologists revealed.
File Photo
The mercury dipped to minus six degrees Celsius (21 Fahrenheit), the lowest July temperature recorded in the region in the past decade.
MORE:
Mall flooded, traffic snarled in Edmonton
How has the summer weather been in your area so far?