Buying products that supposedly impact nature less is the rage. Wouldn't serious environmentalists be excited about this trend, thrilled that society appears willing to take eco-friendly marching orders and do its duty to the planet? But many aren't... a backlash against "buying green" permeates environmentalist circles, with critics frowning upon the new eco-consumers as "green lites," and condemning the capitalization of the green movement.
I am not totally surprised. Nobody should, if you grasp the deeper meaning of true environmentalism.
And excerpt from a typical Article.
In what it implies about changing consumer awareness, some see "green-lightenment" as heartening. And since it creates demand for more environmentally friendly products, many think it's moving in the right direction. Yet, as one professor put it, "We're basically rushing toward a cliff, full speed ahead." Can a fad save us? Experts' replies run the gamut from "it's a mockery," to it's the beginning of ? and maybe a catalyst for ? greater changes to come. But no one thinks that green consumption alone can get humanity out of its climate predicament. As Alex Steffen, cofounder of worldchanging.com, an environmental- commentary website, writes: "There is no combination of purchasing decisions which will make the current affluent American lifestyle sustainable. You can't shop your way to sustainability."
Anyone following the extreme environmentalists know their goal is not any benefit to mankind; their goal is to preserve nature untouched... to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes or progress. Hard environmentalism does not value human well-being. They demand sacrifices, not for the sake of any human benefit, but for the sake of leaving nature pristine. They call for sacrifice as an end in itself. Environmentalists are criticizing "buying green," because at root they are against buying anything.
Normal people might call for certain sacrifices but people take the environmentalists word for it that those sacrifices will turn out to be for the good of society. People feel virtuous going green because they see it as a sacrifice for the greater good. And although "going green" may demand some cost and effort, it need not be too burdensome.
We see environmentalists claim to be opposed to simply "indiscriminate" or "excessive" consumption of natural resources... but their ideology actually drives them to oppose any act of altering nature for human purposes. Anyone who thinks that there's nothing potentially sinister about the core movement had better think harder about the true nature of the ideology they are helping to make popular. The environmentalist call for minor sacrifices is the first stage, and as they gain in power and acceptance, expect much more. I think the "backlash" against "green" by the hardcores signifies the next stage... deeper sacrifice for no human benefit whatsoever.
I am not totally surprised. Nobody should, if you grasp the deeper meaning of true environmentalism.
And excerpt from a typical Article.
In what it implies about changing consumer awareness, some see "green-lightenment" as heartening. And since it creates demand for more environmentally friendly products, many think it's moving in the right direction. Yet, as one professor put it, "We're basically rushing toward a cliff, full speed ahead." Can a fad save us? Experts' replies run the gamut from "it's a mockery," to it's the beginning of ? and maybe a catalyst for ? greater changes to come. But no one thinks that green consumption alone can get humanity out of its climate predicament. As Alex Steffen, cofounder of worldchanging.com, an environmental- commentary website, writes: "There is no combination of purchasing decisions which will make the current affluent American lifestyle sustainable. You can't shop your way to sustainability."
Anyone following the extreme environmentalists know their goal is not any benefit to mankind; their goal is to preserve nature untouched... to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes or progress. Hard environmentalism does not value human well-being. They demand sacrifices, not for the sake of any human benefit, but for the sake of leaving nature pristine. They call for sacrifice as an end in itself. Environmentalists are criticizing "buying green," because at root they are against buying anything.
Normal people might call for certain sacrifices but people take the environmentalists word for it that those sacrifices will turn out to be for the good of society. People feel virtuous going green because they see it as a sacrifice for the greater good. And although "going green" may demand some cost and effort, it need not be too burdensome.
We see environmentalists claim to be opposed to simply "indiscriminate" or "excessive" consumption of natural resources... but their ideology actually drives them to oppose any act of altering nature for human purposes. Anyone who thinks that there's nothing potentially sinister about the core movement had better think harder about the true nature of the ideology they are helping to make popular. The environmentalist call for minor sacrifices is the first stage, and as they gain in power and acceptance, expect much more. I think the "backlash" against "green" by the hardcores signifies the next stage... deeper sacrifice for no human benefit whatsoever.
Facebook
Twitter