Summing up a Green position on SSPS

>
> I must admit to being a bit mystified by this list's view of
> environmentalists as deranged fanatics. While there are deranged
> fanatics that call themselves environmentalists, they are a tiny
> minority -- probably a smaller fraction than deranged fanatical
> Christians or Muslims. I consider myself an environmentalist, as
was
> Teddy Roosevelt and many others. I believe a large majority of
> Americans consider themselves as such (although my data on that
is
> old).

I humbly suggest you need to go out and consort with the current
crop of environmentalists to see what passes for environmentalism
today. The prevalent mode is the watermelon, green on the outside
and red on the inside. The Marxist politics and ant-modernity of
this dominant group is quite open.

I'm surmising that you probably identified yourself as an
environmentalist years ago, I know that I did decades ago. The thing
of it is that the environmentalist ethos I held years ago, while
remaining unchanged in my beliefs, no longer qualifies me as an
environmentalist by the standards of today.

Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't be an environmentalist today. The best
categorization for Roosevelt, and for those who have a concern for
the environment but don't ascribe to the anti-science, anti-human,
anti-modernity, and anti-capitalist ethos of the environmentalist
movement, is conservationist.

I disagee with your assessment of the percentage of whackos in the
movement being less than that seen in other religious movements. The
die-hard environmentalists of today are fanatic. If your primary
interest is preservation of the environment and you don't have the
agenda of societal reordering, then you're a conservationist and not
an environmentalist. The terms are no longer synonomous.

TangoMan