Talk:Environmentalism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article had been moved to Environmental movement in the United States. See Talk:Environmental movement in the United States for the past history. I have moved and cut'n'pasted relevent info back to this page (Environmentalism). I feel there is justifiction for an Environmentalism page and an Environmental movement page. Along with Environmentalist it divides the subject up neatly and avoids a cluttered Environmental movement article. It seem to me that moving a page on the international environmental movement with some stuff about the US to Environmental movement in the United States was a little geographically blinkered. Alan Liefting 07:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It needs a lot more work, and what's on the page as of the end of 2006 isn't about the political theory of environmentalism but rather about the environmental movement mostly in the US. There's merit to filing this under both philosophy and religion and keeping the politics in country-specific pages to avoid the USPOV creeping back in.
There's certainly not enough "international" comment now. It's absurd to claim that environmentalism began 400 years ago with one specific group of people. People have always protected ecosystems they relied on and this has always been done by law. There were haram ("forbidden") watersheds and such in medieval Arabia, and laws against killing the King's deer (which presumably the King rarely pursued himself) in medieval England. So maybe this article is about popular environmentalism rather than about elite environmentalism which enlightened rulers had always practiced?
The article in general does a very poor job of linking to the philosophical and psychological precepts, and instead focuses on politics. That's what environmental movement is for.
The article should list and link the specific intellectual concepts up front and devote its space to reconciling and explaining how those interface to each other, not on the political history of the movement.
And finally where is the disambiguation link to environmentalism (psychology) ?
I would welcome any input to the article (which is generally lacking) of information about earlier forms of environmentalism, and that of environmentalism in other places in the world. My edits (especially the History: Modern Environmentalism) are fairly US based, this is because it was fairly hard to find information about environmentalism in other places. Also a lot of the core beliefs of environmentalism as an ideology did come from the U.S. (but more info is needed from the rest of the world). I am going to try and put in something about the Chipko movement in India. I think the politics is needed in this article as it is (in part) a political ideology as well as philosophical one. The individual parts of environmentalism fit together and it really would help to view them as a whole.
BTW I don't how much the King of England protected his deer for there own intrinsic right (what environmentalist would do) but because they were his assets, that he would hunt and allow his barons to hunt as a political reward.--0jam0 12:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] File under Religion?

Should this article be filed under Religion. From a neutral POV, the following quote indicates to me that environmentalism is just another religion.

"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them."

Njh 10:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
njh. Dont be absurd. Environmentalism is not a religion! (Well only in the sense that capitalism is).. Unsigned comment by 81.137.168.249
Yes but capitalism is also such a belief system, and capitalism mentions that angle.
The quotation (which you did not reference) comes from a Michael Crichton speech. Environmentalism is no more a religion than is say sport or shopping etc. One can have a passion for environmentalism (or sport, or shopping) with a religios zeal but is does not make it a religion. Like many words religion has more than one meaning. In his speech Crichton tries to write off the environmental movement as if it were a fringe religion. It is an oft quoted speech on Wikipedia but the central tenet of the speech is not widely held. Alan Liefting 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Crichton is, politically, a crank. No one agrees with the poor deluded fellow much any more.

[edit] religion ?

hello sorry, my english isnt good, but I can object something : from an encyclopedian point of view there are different streams of environmentalism, including some very materialistic, economical-driven streams (some speak of green capitalism). others point out the spiritual aspects perhaps but from an ethical point of view. And others pragmatic, including a lot of NGO, reformists want to apply precaution principle, international conventions protecting flora and fauna because they only "see" the pollution, the decline of biodiversity, the deforestation, the climate change ... and there are lots of reports, counterreports made by scientifics, they try to analyse the reality of the impact, not just "believe". the United nations (with de world bank) is also alarmed : they create a lot of initiatives, voluntary, non volontary : UNEP, protocole, conventions, global impact ... another metaphor ; if i'm living like diane fossey, seing how they kills gorillas, i didn't need to be in a religious mood : poacher kills and destroys the country; collectively it would be ok to obtain collective consensus to solve the problems. --Ayanoa 17:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

i think that at least a connection with religion should be mentioned - or a "criticism" section added with an excerpt and reference to http://www.maxeiner-miersch.de/new_piety_e.htm ? gregor

Read eco-capitalist and if you want a critique of environmentalism try Ayn Rand's of the Eden seeking or Alvin Toffler's of eco-theocrats.

[edit] Suggested merges: environmentalism and ecologism

This article should be merged with environmentalism. -- Centrx 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Comment moved from talk:environmentalist by habj

That is, environmentalist should be merged with this article. -- Centrx 21:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, having one article on the ideology and another of those who share it makes no sense.
It does if there is not one ideology, or any ideology, but many. And also if this article is not about the actual ideas.
The article ecologism was also labelled as a possible merge, and I agree on that one two although not equally strong. Ecologism might be a slightly different thing than environmentalism, but the concepts are close enough to probably be better explained in the same article. // Habj 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about it to say, but if, in fact, "ecologism" is nothing more than what is stated in the ecologism article, then it should be merged here. Even if it is somewhat different, if it is just a subset or branch of environmentalism, but still falls into the class "environmentalism", then it should be included here unless and until it becomes so massive that it wouldn't fit. -- Centrx 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that ecologism and environmentalism should be merged. Ecologism is not a commonly used term at present so a seperate article for it is not justified. Alan Liefting 09:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It's becoming more common: ecologism sees ecology as an objective source of knowledge, maybe the only such source. That is a far narrower view than what's being attributed here to "environmentalists" most of which don't know any ecology whatsoever but take an aesthetic stance.
Environmentalism and environmentalist should have seperate articles. Both articles are hardly stubs and I am also in the "small article is beautiful" camp. Both articles may well grow in time. The environmentalist article is also a suitable place for those who end up at Category:Environmentalists. Alan Liefting 09:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
How is an environmentalist anything other than someone who believes in or supports environmentalism? -- Centrx 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
environmentalists do things - environmentalism is presumably some set of ideas (though we all share them to some degree)
I am not claiming that envionmentalist and environmentalism are not linked by my stance of having seperate articles. Having the environmental movement (environmentalism) seperate from the people (environmentalists) allows for two neatly packaged pages rather than one cluttered one. The pages also do not have any overlap. I am quite sure that the two pages will grow with time especially given that it is a contentious subject. There is a recommendation that pages are kept under a certain size. At some point these pages may reach that point and will have to be split. Keeping them as seperate pages for the start is a cleaner way of allowing the pages to evolve. Alan Liefting 02:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What belongs in environmentalist that does not more properly belong in environmentalism? Right now, the only thing that would belong in environmentalist is the last sentence about derogatory names, which, being simply a dictionary definition and slang at that, hardly deserves its own article. -- Centrx 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Environmentalist and Environmental movement should be merged into this article. Sunray 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's only because this article is wrongly focused on the movement not on the specific ideas in philosophy, religion and so on which are much broader than politics.

[edit] Text from Ecologism

Ecologism, is the ideology of caring for nature, environment. There are different streams in ecologism, some emphasing, caring more for nature than men (directly) because the initial thought is that nature will sort things out and help mankind itself if we devoted more energy to it than ourselves, others emphasizing the responsability of human beings (The Imperative of Responsibility).
People with this ideology are often called environmentalists, and an example of that is Green Peace.
Whoever wrote this doesn't even know the name of Greenpeace. A better statement is certainly possible.

[edit] Copy of the old text

I don't know about administration of article "history", but just in case i copy the definition, perhaps something come up for the final result. --Ayanoa 21:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WIkipedia never forgets! The old version of the page is still available. Incidently, the word "ecologism" is not listed on a couple of the more comprehensive online dictionaries the I checked. Alan Liefting 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
but I can forget, juste to help (copying), and if we don't use the definition, we clean. for ecologism and environmentalism, I can't help; I'm french speaker and we use more environnementalisme than ecologisme, and sometimes as simple synonym (so it is in french wikipedia,(except that fr:ecologisme is the name of the article) some authors (but I 've no references) use ecologism for the radical wing. --Ayanoa 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fundamental difference

Ecology basically deals with the interaction of plants and animals. Environmentalists more look at physical stuff and how they effect ecosystems.

example desertification an environmental scientist will be mostly interested in the climate wheras an ecologist in the plant life and animal life

an environmentalist may try and reclaim the desert by planting trees wheras the ecologist will try and work out how to best support the existing ecosystems.

of course there is much overlap but i hope u get it now--Rainbow Warrior 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Crichton and environmental religion

Michael Crichtons speech to the Commonwealth Club, where he compares religion to environmentalism, seems to crop up quite often on this page. I have removed from the article the word "Some" linked to his speech. One opinion is not the same as some. Alan Liefting 07:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmentalism as a distinct political ideology

A question: should there be some discussion of Environmentalism as a political ideology?

That's ALL this article should be about: not the specific politics or who practices it or when it became popular. Just what the specific ideas are and what authorities advanced them. An intellectual history not a social or political one.

I have found this listed in Wikibooks on .[1]Political Theory. If so, there is a case for not merging this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adamasao (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If this is an important political theory—though apparently never attempted and with no major philosophers as adherents—then it would likely belong in its own article and is irrelevant to the mergers. —Centrx→talk • 05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"Never attempted"? Nonsense. What is a "major philosopher", please? Does Jane Jacobs or Lynn Margulis or Donella Meadows qualify? I would say they do. You may not - because they aren't male maybe.

[edit] Wikipedia for Environmental Education

What about creating a page about local environmental problems and easy, practical solution for each countries using local language? This will turn wikipedia into education tool for the younger generations. The environmental problems in one country is different from other country. The solution is not demonstration on the street, "extreme actions" (like greenpeace, ecoterrorism), but simple everyday action: energy and water conservation, recycling, using alternative energy etc.

Why the "environmental concern" is put inside Geography page of every country? Is it better to put "Environmental Concern" of each country in a separate page, complete with possible practical solution?

[edit] US bias

It has been a very poor article for quite some time and as with what happened with the environmental movement page a systemic bias towards the US has crept in. Alan Liefting 21:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This is a problem. The history section is particularly poor. I am starting an Environmentalism in the UK page -it would be good to see other national/regional pages Halon8 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analogous movements

Would it be appropriate to mention in this article those movements that are starting to emerge that can be understood as analogous to environmentalism? As an example, the term Cultural environmentalism might be appropriate.

--Cgranade 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evangelical environmentalism

On 10/12/06, PBS aired Is God Green?, a look at a growing subset of American Evangelical Christians who are embracing, in their own way, the environmental movement/lifestyle etc. After searching around Wikipedia, I found nothing. Does anyone know of any article on Wikipedia which address this? If not, I'd like to create an article and would like suggestions on article names, proper categorization, what to include etc. Any ideas?-- Feel free to respond at my talk pageHraefen Talk 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental Determinism

Could someone add a link to environmental determinism at the top of this page? I would but I have not figured out how to do such.

In the field of geography Environmentalism is the common word for Environmental Determinism, and I was very confused in looking for the article on Environmentalism in the Geographic contex. Thank you.

Done.Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWV vs US content

I think this is a great page on Environmentalism in the US, and before we start hacking at it to make it more WWV-compatable, perhaps we should copy its contents into a US specific page, and then start cutting and altering to make it more WWV. The Gomm 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How about incorporating facts from the Kyoto_Treaty to the article? The United States and Australia are the only two countries that have not signed the protocol. Bearly541 talk 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biodiversity - I need a reminder

Before I write a bit on biodiversity and breeding programs, can anyone remind me of the proper name for that white Arabian deer or related creature that went extinct in the wild before breeding of captive ones before being released back? Thank you. Wiki-newbie 19:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you be thinking of the Arabian Oryx? It was successfully bred in captivety and reintroduced back into Arabia in 1962. S.dedalus 05:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Inconvenient Truth

Has anyone thought of incorporating this to the article? Bearly541 talk 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The film is about an environmental issue not about environmentalism. Alan Liefting 03:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Environmental issues affect environmentalism. Sorry i already added before reading this. I suggest u read carefully before editing. Ofcourse it does need editing. But what i have written is a good starting point.

[edit] Greenpeace?

Shouldn’t there be something about Greenpeace in this article? Under the heading Environmental Organizations maybe, and also a link to the Greenpeace page at the bottom. They defiantly have been one of the most influential environmental groups and my be the biggest. S.dedalus 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like all environmental organizations have been broken out to a separate article, List of environmental organizations. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn’t it be best to ether expand the “Environmental organizations” section in this article or else remove this section and simply have a link at the bottom? It seems sort of redundant when there already is an “Environmental organizations and conferences” section near the top of the page. Is this heading really necessary? S.dedalus 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The article certainly seems to be in an "under construction" state at the moment; if you see something that you think should be changed, take a shot! I haven't paid much attention to the article myself...it got added to my watchlist as a side effect of clearing up vandalism. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Haha, thanks, I’ll get to work. :-) S.dedalus 06:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good! BTW, I'm in Vancouver (the real one, not the other one down by Portland :-), so if you ask me to name an environmental organization, Greenpeace is the first one that I would think of. I'm just not not sure how (or if) it fits into that article. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that’s a good point. I left the link to List of environmental organizations and simply merged the headings. I think a section on major historical environmental actions may be more appropriate here. I’ll see what I can put together. S.dedalus 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmentalism in the U.S.A.

I see the Environmentalism in the U.S.A. section has been split off. I'm not so sure about this as this article now lacks any sort of info on the development of history of the topic. I think that while these are US authors, their impact has been quite global. Walden and Silent Spring have been important works across the world. --Salix alba (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The two authors mentioned are in the current revision of the article. The article is about the international aspects of environmentalism. Information about specific countries are excluded to prevent systemic bias. Alan Liefting 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually did a lot of the work in the current versions 'History' part and this has allot of stuff about the US. I don’t know if this is systemic bias, I am not American but from the UK (although this would lead to western systemic bias). Part of the reason is allot of the history is from the US. Although I agree there needs to be more international; particully about its reception in Europe (where it arguably has more influence) and other environmentalist movements around the world e.g. the Chipko movement as well as eastern philosophical influences. I would do this but I am busy at the mo. It would be great if someone else could look into this. --0jam0 19:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmentalism and conservationism

I think the present article blurs the distinction between the environmentalist movement - particularly partisan advocacy regarding global warming, the ozone layer, DDT use, etc. - and Conservationism. I even wonder if this is deliberate.

There once was a US based conservation movement. Today that term means basically right wing environmentalists, while environmental movement means left wing ones. Like everything in the US, there's a Republican and Democratic version doing the same things with different ideologiers.

Of course, there is some overlap. But not all anti-enviromentalists are "anti-nature", "anti-conservation" or "pro-pollution". --Uncle Ed 19:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

REPLY-- Very true i am an environmentalist and are even anti a lot of environmentalists. Reason being is they give us a bad name by pushing doomsday notions to there economic gain or such like. Some make wild predicitions that just haven't come to pass.

Why not do a section on youth environmentalism and that movement.

[edit] Please create more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries.

.... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too.

See Wildlife of India for reference.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation for Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India & Conservation

If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms?

This is an article on a political movement. I find it odd that it does not have the standard "Criticisms" section. Shall we create one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyphen5 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree, just like other political movement pages, Environmentalism deserves some sort of criticisms page. Environmentalism is like capitalism or socialism or any other political/economical end, the basic promoted image of the movement may appear to be in flawless good-will, but in truth there are many objects in the movement that are open to criticism.--64.75.187.195 09:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In The Descent of Man Charles Darwin wrote that "preservationism" (aka environmentalism) is counter-evolutionary and wrong. Maybe someone could add that into the article. --RucasHost 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I too agree there should be a Criticism Section, why the hell has no one created one yet? Don't let the environmental radicals win by letting them keep this page so "all perfect world"...please someone write an relevant Criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.18.162.33 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmentalism, pantheism, and animism

I removed a bit of text that pushed back the environmentalism movement's history by equating pantheistic and animistic beliefs with environmenatl beliefs. If we wish to do so, then the evironmental movement's history could be pushed back well beyond pre-history to about 30 000 years bp. I think keeping the concepts separate helps the article remain encycopedic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If pantheism has to go perhaps Muir has to go as well, Donald Worster described Muir's belief's as "full-blown pantheism" John Muir and the Modern: Passion for Nature KAM 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In a sense I don't disgree. The problem with finding the historical beginning of things is that there is always a step beyond the horizon. Yes, pantheism in a sense is proto-environmentalism but environmentalism was not the sole off-spring of pantheistic beliefs or believers. John Muirs writings influenced the neophyte conservation movement not because he was a pantheist. The environemtal movement had many fathers and mothers: some political, some philosophical, some religious, some scientific and some pragmatic (the NIMBY's bring in a lot of environmental converts). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmentalism as a political movement, definition

Consider this definition of environmentalism from a different point of view: [quoting] "environmentalism is an activist political movement, with moral and religious overtones, aimed at alleviating perceived and fancied human woes falsely attributed to misuse of the natural environment; a movement which uses the power of state laws to regulate individual economic choice to the diminishment of human values and life." the article quotes the wikipedia definition and strongly calls the neutrality of the environmentalism article into question. thus the neutrality tag. Full article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff151.html

Environmentalism is defined by the Encarta dictionary as "concern for the environment", by Merriam-Webster dictionary as "advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment" and by the Cambridge English dictionary as "an interest in or the study of the environment, in order to protect it from damage by human activities". The article as it now exists reflects all of these definitions from Real World respected and reliable sources. Thus, I've removed the neutrality tag. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary definition may not necessary be the right one. Environmental writer Daniel B. Botkins says "the word environmentalism has grown to have a wide variety of meanings and is used loosely but rather narrowly. Even the dictionaries give it a narrow meaning." Botkins definition is this: "The term environmentalism...generally refers to a political movement that began in the twentieth century as a reaction to the negative environmental effects of technology, civilization, and a large human population." KAM 16:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Environmentalism

I propose this article be moved or renamed American Environmentalism - That is what the present article seems to be about. KAM 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

May I instead suggest that you (and anyone else with the relevant knowledge) work to make it more global? I think Wikipedia would be better-served by a more worldwide article on environmentalism than one that was required by its name to focus on the US. I think the US already gets more focus than it really needs, although that's not surprising given the nature of the 'Net.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are right. Instead perhaps a separate section or new article on American Environmentalism? KAM 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If you think there's enough separate material for an entire article, then I'd say that's worth discussing. It might be better to expand material regarding other nations and set United States Environmentalism up as a section of this one. Then, when any of them get so big that the whole article gets unwieldy, it would be time to start forking off into separate articles.
Just my ramblings...
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There is already an article on Environmental movement in the United States in which Anerican environmentalism could be added. This article is for the global perspective. Alan Liefting 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

This article makes no mention of the many criticisms of environmentalism. This article seems to reflect mainly the attitudes/bias of the Western upper-middle class.

Some common criticisms not mentioned:

1. Environmentalism hurts poor people by slowing the rate of economic growth.

2. Environmentalism is best understood as a New Religious Movement, and not a necessary response to environmental science.

3. Environmentalism represents Western elites at the expense of those less advantaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.3.70 (talk) June 26, 2007 15:06

Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about environmentalism and not a critique. According to Wikipedia policy a good article is broad in its coverage, focused without going into unnecessary details, and written from a neutral point of view. And, the article must not contain original research or opinion but must provide reliable and verifiable sources. So I say be bold and make your edits (but provide your sources not your opinions). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to add a section on criticism that contains references. Your criticisms of the environmental movement do not have wide support:
  1. It is govt policy rather than environmentalism that hurts the less affluent. There is an increasing gap between rich and poor that is an artefact of capitalism in my opinion. Note that economic growth is unsustainable in the long term. Environmentalist are often ties in with justice and human rights groups.
  2. Environmentalism is NOT a religion. It is a social movement that is reacting to the discovery by science that our activity is harming the very systems that we rely upon. There is no environmental god there is no environmental church. It is about as religious as sport - you can have a religious fervour for sport as you can with environmentalism.
  3. Yes, environmentalism is generally about western elites but there are exceptions such as the Chipko movement in India. Environmentalists do often concern themselves with the "undeveloped" countries or those in the "South" especially logging. Alan Liefting 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Except, you know, that whole deal in Romania where environmentalists protested a mining operation so a bunch of people are stuck in Middle Age living conditions in the middle of winter. Or when environemntalists protested sending corn to Africa to save starving people bcause the corn was genetically engineered. The problem, as I see it, is that it doesn't link to any criticism at all, and most pages on political issues DO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendary (talk • contribs) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional conservation practices

Anyone watching this page might be interested in this new article. The wiki editor appears to also be the author of the only source given. I'm not sure what to do with it since it's so narrowly defined and needs a lot of help to get up to Wikipedia standards. Could someone jump in on this one? It might need to be merged elsewhere. Thanks --Rkitko (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting entry. It is related to Nature conservation and the Indian subregion.Gabriel Kielland 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow environmentalism

Environmentalists that promote nuclear power, in a similar way to yellow union in the workplace scope.--Nukeless (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Backfire (FBI)

This should be mentioned. 65.163.112.205 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is best to be added to Environmental movement in the United States. This article is about the global aspects of environmentalism. See WP:CSB for more info. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from history

The earliest known writings concerned with environmental pollution were Arabic medical treatises written between the 9th and 13th centuries, by physicians such as al-Kindi (Alkindus), Qusta ibn Luqa (Costa ben Luca), Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi (Rhazes), Ibn Al-Jazzar, al-Tamimi, al-Masihi, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ali ibn Ridwan, Ibn Jumay, Isaac Israeli ben Solomon, Abd-el-latif, Ibn al-Quff, and Ibn al-Nafis. Their works covered a number of subjects related to pollution such as air contamination, water contamination, soil contamination, solid waste mishandling, and environmental assessments of certain localities.[1]

This section no doubt is historically true but it is not directly associated with the history of 'environmentalism'. Ancient peoples wrote and practiced all sorts of things that could be called environmentalism but is not historically linked directly with the origins of environmentalism in the 19th C. This habit of reaching way back into the past to find 'proto-' examples of modern movements, organizations and ideas is to stretch the idea origins out of shape. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that the modern movement of environmentalism arose as a reaction to industrialization. However, according to the lead paragraph of the article, the prevention of pollution is one of the main concerns of environmentalism. Since this issue has clearly been discussed in medieval Arabic and Latin sources, I think it is important to at least briefly mention them in the article, as long as it makes it clear that the modern environmental movement arose due to industrialization. Jagged 85 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recycling

A page on environmentalism does not have a link to recycling??? 65.125.133.211 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It does indirectly via List of environmental issues. Since there is a large number of concerns that the environmental movement has there is no point in metioning secific issues. That is left to other pages. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)