# The dark side of environmentalism



## Creator (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi after watching the last episodes of Planet Earth, I wondering so far approaches to environmental are still a bit soft and trying to find a balance between human needs and environmental impact.

But then after 911, i was kinda made to think that, What if there are such people who will do anything to save the environment with radical solutions like what the religion-based terrorists are currently doing.


----------



## Fake Vencar (Feb 8, 2008)

I see where you are coming from but I don't feel people who care about the environment would stoop that low. They would be destroying what they trully care for as well as killing innocent people


----------



## Overread (Feb 8, 2008)

environmentalists are not terrorists in that sense no.
However, there are those that take a no shots witheld against poachers policy; and can take extreme action against target groups (whalers comes to mind) but as for targeting civilians, nope not in their line of work - they are not out to spread fear but to enforce protection of species


----------



## Creator (Feb 8, 2008)

OK but the Earth's problem comes in all shapes and sizes. Human beings are one of the biggest cancers of the Planet if you put it poetically.

But one concern is about killing people, to leviate the world's problem of overpopulation, lack of resources, global warming.etc. They are all linked.

Quote from Planet Earth.

How many people should there be?

" When someone is get at a number, I would say between 500 million people and 1 billion. No more than that"
                                                                           Dr. James Lovelock

" I think that Earth can safely support in a sustainable way at a reasonable standard of living about half of what we have today. And I think that it would make the people happier, and it would certainly make the Planet happier. We would have more diversity and have plenty of productivity. We will be able to mantain our cultural diversity. And the world will be a more sustainable place...."

Anomymous Guy, they didn't put his name.

Don't you guys think it's something that we or the Pentagon should think about dealing with such a problem after eventually Osama and his gang are apprehended?


----------



## Overread (Feb 8, 2008)

personally I think people will do a better job of killing each other off without the need for a terroist group to take specific action. Besides, most actions along this line would hint at the chemical warfare line, bioweapons, which is strictly against what many if not all environmentalists are about.
Also, look at the threat of global warming and the extremely high liklyhood that massive areas of the tropics will be struck with extreme drought -- competition and confuntaion will most likly result


----------



## Creator (Feb 8, 2008)

Hmm Overread has a point.

But since the times have shown, the lack of resources have caused conflicts. And besides, as more people fall victim to the environment problems like say Katrina victims or victims of a island that has fallen prey to global warming or pollution. They might be influenced by the media just like Planet Earth which were good willed. Then they become some passionate that they become.... well you can guess.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 8, 2008)

Out and out ecofreaks are no more capable of rational calculation than their equivalents in any other extremist position. I will cite a bomb put onto the cooling water pipe of a nuclear reactor, and railway trucks of nuclear waste tipped of the rails  to be washed down into the soil (the antinuclear movement seems to have garnered the worst of them, but perhaps "anti-nuclear" doesn't equate to "pro-nature". Properly done, nuclear is one of the least destructive technologies, even if it holds the potential for being one of the worst) Dynamiting hydroelectric dams, washing out villages and farms to regenerate wetlands, demonstrating how dangerous a chemical refinery is by spreading  its products over the land, pouring them into the rivers.
And most of them are luddites who consider technology automatically bad, change something too be avoided at all costs. The mediaeval poisoning of a stream by a tannery must be a less heinous crime that failing to purify all the detergents out of waste water, mobile phones must be destroying the environment (although, if they're cooking our brains, and an ever larger percentage of humans is using them, I'd have thought this was a good thing; very few tigers ir dolphins use cellphones)
Then there's the "sweet little furry things" block, who will let a population of deer (or worse, rabbits" overgraze and die of starvation because f the lack of natural predators, rather than allow hunting. If they'd ever met a mink they'd have a different opinion about fur coats. Oh, they're unlikely to directly target humans in their attacks (too sentimental) but are generally incapable of seeing beyond their immediate goal to long term results (plague dogs scenario; and, traditionally diseases are better killers than physical attacks)

No, plenty of potential story themes about eco-terrorism.


----------



## The Ace (Feb 8, 2008)

Good point, Chris.  The mink isn't native to the UK, but it's caused an ecological disaster in some parts of England after mink, farmed for their fur, were released into the wild by animal rights campaigners.

  Both actions were equally despicable.


----------



## Creator (Feb 8, 2008)

I see but how about blowing up whaling vessels which may happened anytime now.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 8, 2008)

Creator said:


> I see but how about blowing up whaling vessels which may happened anytime now.


Ramming them has already been tried.
And the people who would torpedo them (or whatever) would claim that anyone aboard the ship has made a choice, is an accessory before, after and probably during the crime…

The argument is always "I committed a crime to prevent a greater one"


----------



## Allegra (Feb 8, 2008)

Creator said:


> I see but how about blowing up whaling vessels which may happened anytime now.


 
Really? Let me know when that happens. I've got a bottle of champagne ready.


----------



## Lith (Feb 8, 2008)

We've got our own brand of eco-terrorist around here- mostly centered around the logging trade, but there are the animal-rights activists too.  They like to stick nails in trees, which doesn't really _hurt_ the tree, but it ruins the market value, and I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't also dangerous to the loggers themselves.  It could also make the tree more susceptible to disease, but they never seem to think of that.

We've also had the occasional bomb around gas trucks and other equipment in connection with logging.  No one's died yet (and they've got the people responsible now) but it's only a matter of time until someone dies unexpectedly from such.


----------



## Urien (Feb 8, 2008)

There are always extremists, perhaps more accurately they're causists, in that they become fixated on the issue de jour. I've met seveal over the years; each and every thought and action is related to, or seen through the lens of, their particular issue.

It doesn't seem to matter what the actual cause is the symptoms are always the same, and I suppose like any continuum on the human thought process, the closer one gets to the end of the tuning fork, the less able they become to effectively calibrate the world.

The end result is their particular interest rolls over into obsession, and it becomes greater in importance than any other issue they can conceive of. In a sense it seems to be self brainwashing. Once this stage is reached, any action, no matter how heinous, is deemed reasonable when compared to the unscalable mountain of their obsessions.


----------



## Delvo (Feb 8, 2008)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> There are always extremists, perhaps more accurately they're causists, in that they become fixated on the issue de jour. I've met seveal over the years; each and every thought and action is related to, or seen through the lens of, their particular issue.


And they don't necessarily understand and acknowledge that fact about themselves. I've seen several people online whose every single post is about how awful the USA is; even when the subject has nothing to do with the USA, they come up with a connection, a way to say the there's a problem and it's all the Americans' fault or something's great but only because Americans aren't involved... but they would of course always swear that they're being perfectly rational and objective.

So that alone doesn't make environmentalism stand out among other different kinds of causism. What does is the extent to which environmentalism is actually a smokescreen, a cover story, a disguise for something else such as anticorporatism. I couldn't even begin to list all of the many many cases in which people have advocated things that were bad for the environment while claiming that it was for the good of the environment.


----------



## Ursa major (Feb 8, 2008)

Delvo said:


> So that alone doesn't make environmentalism stand out among other different kinds of causism. What does is the extent to which environmentalism is actually a smokescreen, a cover story, a disguise for something else such as anticorporatism. I couldn't even begin to list all of the many many cases in which people have advocated things that were bad for the environment while claiming that it was for the good of the environment.


 
While I would not agree with you, Delvo, we shouldn't underestimate how dumb and/or ignorant some people are (and how eager they can be to avoid enlightenment). And then there are those who simply want _any_ excuse to damage, assault or kill.


----------



## JadeTrickster (Feb 9, 2008)

I don't think that there is a lack of resources, just a problem with distribution. I do believe however, that people would be willing to kill mass amounts of people to save the enviroment. They might not kill people they know, but they will kill somebody. As was mentioned before, extremists don't have a history of claculated thought. There are exceptions to the rule, and that might lead to self-proclaimed saviors slaughtering billions in the name of saving the planet. Personally, I think that people count as part of the planet, and to doom one or the other seems foolish in the long run.


----------



## Pyan (Feb 9, 2008)

Lith said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't also dangerous to the loggers themselves.


Extremely, Lith....if a chain-saw hits a large nail in a tree, it breaks the chain. The motor keeps going, and the end of the chain flails around, and slices into anything in its way...wood, hands, legs, face, etc....


----------



## Ursa major (Feb 9, 2008)

Ursa major said:


> While I would not agree with you, Delvo, we shouldn't underestimate how dumb and/or ignorant some people are (and how eager they can be to avoid enlightenment). And then there are those who simply want _any_ excuse to damage, assault or kill.


 
Oops! 

That should, of course have read "While I would not *dis*agree with you, Delvo...."


----------



## Creator (Feb 9, 2008)

Creator said:


> Quote from Planet Earth.
> 
> How many people should there be?
> 
> ...



Don't you think this might become an excuse to kill people? I am afraid that this might become one.


----------



## Allegra (Feb 9, 2008)

Even the Sun has its dark side, at least when eclipse occurs or at least pTerry said so. We all know extremes exsit in all mankind activities and movements due to the ill-balanced human nature. It's just that I found the term of environmental terrorist or eco-terrorist (in fact when you think twice it works both ways) slightly irritating. The wide use of words such as 'terrorist', 'political correctness' is expanding like the Universe. How about:

political terrorist
corporational terrorist
science terrorist
anti-war terrorist
schoolyard terrorist football pit terrorist pizza delivery terrorist
terrorist terrorist

One can go on 'n' on.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Feb 10, 2008)

If I can interject here, the population limitation is NOT being spread by environmentalists, but rather by bioethicists and so-called anthropologists. Some people have a sick, twisted view of the world, and hide their dark desires behind something that seems light and happy. In their mind, they'd be taking the right action, destroying half the world's population, when in reality they belong in the incurable wing of a psych ward.


----------



## Rosemary (Feb 10, 2008)

I overheard a conversation the other day about culling.  The gist of it was that if humans cull animals, fish etc because there were too many shouldn't humans be culled as well for overpopulating Earth?  

Unfortunately they had no idea of who was to do the culling  

I'm all for helping keep our trees from being logged and other environmental issues but the environmental extremists make it much harder in the long run.


----------



## woodsman (Feb 11, 2008)

I thik there are always ways and means of doing things.  - the peaceful protest - placards etc. and then there's those who take it a step further. Not really a problem confined to any particular group, but one that occurs everywhere people find something they can't agree with. 

I think a rabid individual coming to power in a state is more likely to 'cull' the population. - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. The Independant brought this to mind really, but I still percieve it as a bigger danger than, fractured, individual terrorist groups.


----------



## Creator (Feb 11, 2008)

You guys are great for a discussion like this subject. I was flamed by spammers in another forum. They say that ecoterrorism is too far-fetched.

But then again humans in fact are harming the environment that other people who are concerned get really pissed off.

I might sound crazy but will there come a time when environmentalist become labelled terrorists? I have been insulted in another forum but then again what if It comes true.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 12, 2008)

Labelling somebody something – almost anything, there doesn't have to be any truth to it – is a standard trick used by organisations, sometimes governments, religions, sometimes quite small groups, to render their enemy "other" "Terrorist" is just one of these labels, though a very fashionable one at present.
If you suggest that the French résistance, or the American patriots fighting to drive the British redcoats out of the land, or the base structure of the Israeli state were terrorists, you are considered – well negatively. These were freedom fighters, even if they were using all the methods (damaging non-combattants, blending into the population, not being visible enemies, and thus calling down the wrath of the authorites on noncombattants, too)
I wouldn't be surprised at somebody sabotaging bulldozers or spiking trees being classed as terrorists for putting the life of others in danger, while they would claim that only those who had chosen to damage nature were at risk.
Labels, even self-chosen lables, do not make a truth. And there have been a lot of exceptionally stupid things done in the name of ecology, but that doesn't make ecologists stupid.
It only takes a tiny, 1% or less lunatic fringe cottoning onto an idea to discredit it.
And I wouldn't put it beyond the big corporations to finance some of these fringe fanatics so they can classify the ecological movement as dangerously irrational, either, then pay ads on television proving that they, the oil companies, the car companies, the chemical refiners, they are the tru champions of sustainable developement, not those cranks who try and prevent forestry renewal, or swamp reclamation.


----------



## Creator (Feb 12, 2008)

Oh I see, hey this forum is much better than the other forum I posted the same subject to. They think that fiction writers are crazy.

Hey I want to know what kind of effect will happened if like say a Japanese whaling vessel has been bombed by eco-nuts for example. What will happen politcally, the environmental side and on the people?


----------



## Quokka (Feb 12, 2008)

So many factors to consider but over all I'd say not a lot. There would certainly be an initial outcry and probably a backlash against the people responsible but I don't think politically it would go as far as sanctions etc and certainly not to a military conflict. That would depend on if any country was seen to have supported or even arranged the act.

In the end though I'd guess that the ships would be better protected, even escorted and any people associated with groups linked with the act would likely risk being detained or imprisioned if they were to continue to shadow ships or entered Japan. There's no doubt it would cause strain politically but I think they'd also be a huge effort to stop any political/military reaction building too much momentum.


----------



## Lith (Feb 12, 2008)

A single incident bombing of a whaling ship wouldn't do much, unless it was the tip of the iceberg for larger issues.  It could tip off a war, provided the two sides were practically at war already, or if there was someone really important on the ship, or if it was entangled with other issues, but by itself I think it's too small an incident.  Environmentally, it would have an even smaller impact.  Now, if one side was supplied by another government, it could turn the first government against the second, where before they weren't at odds.  



> Oh I see, hey this forum is much better than the other forum I posted the same subject to. They think that fiction writers are crazy.


And they would be wrong in their estimation... how?


----------



## woodsman (Feb 12, 2008)

Lith said:


> And they would be wrong in their estimation... how?


 
Lets just hope they never turn up here to take a look.

No form of terrorism is too 'far-fetched' in my opinion. There is always someone who feels strongly enough about something to take it a step further and then that can snowball. Afterall, animal rights protesters are fast becoming labelled as terrorists after recent letter bombings and grave-damaging incedents. Rightly so in my opinion. These people are not so different from those protesting against oil companies etc and it's a small step to make a peaceful protest into a harmful attack.


----------



## Briareus Delta (Feb 12, 2008)

woodsman said:


> Lets just hope they never turn up here to take a look.
> 
> No form of terrorism is too 'far-fetched' in my opinion. There is always someone who feels strongly enough about something to take it a step further and then that can snowball. Afterall, animal rights protesters are fast becoming labelled as terrorists after recent letter bombings and grave-damaging incedents. Rightly so in my opinion. These people are not so different from those protesting against oil companies etc and it's a small step to make a peaceful protest into a harmful attack.


 
Agree with that, Woodsman. I wonder just how long it will be before an organised extremist 'environmental' group emerges. Thankfully, the main environmental group, Greenpeace, while using 'direct action' methods that are non-harmful, also renounces any form of violence. So the recent tracking of the Japanese whaling fleet was simply that, the objective being simply to film the operation and embarrass those responsible.


----------



## woodsman (Feb 12, 2008)

Briareus Delta said:


> Agree with that, Woodsman. I wonder just how long it will be before an organised extremist 'environmental' group emerges. Thankfully, the main environmental group, Greenpeace, while using 'direct action' methods that are non-harmful, also renounces any form of violence. So the recent tracking of the Japanese whaling fleet was simply that, the objective being simply to film the operation and embarrass those responsible.


 
Yes. Perhaps that will be a key factor in 'Eco-protesters' avoiding the terrorism curse, in that, key groups already in existence all seem to be strongly peaceful. This is the image/feel people joining the movement will hopefully get, which has not always happened in the past with other pressure/protest groups, where people are hit by a more forceful or violent ideology.


----------



## Creator (Feb 13, 2008)

Boy, this debate has more intelligent answers than flames on the other forum.
I am starting to enjoy your answers.

OK so let continue to the debate and discussion

One thing for sure is that ecoterrorism is still in its infancy. And if its concept metamorphizes into "adulthood". It will become like the cockroach or the brown rat stamping one will lead to a horde of them. 

So ultimately, the govts have to think about their actions and environmental footprints on the Planet. If ecoterrorism becomes like the Taliban, does that mean that the politicians or the environmentalist have not done enough to save like say the Amazon Rainforests or the European Forests in Poland. I have a feeling that ecoterrorists in the future will be consists of people who wanted to save the environment but it was destroyed by people in high places who managed to manuveur about in the politics and environmental laws like Japan and this results in the loss of diversity?

What are your opinions?


----------



## Lith (Feb 13, 2008)

Well, if the rainforests were lost, then the environmentalists don't have much to fight for, would they?  

If a group were to form that was like the Taliban, they would have to have a home territory, which is easily defended and remote and relatively inaccessible (such as mountainous Afghanistan).  It would need a large network of strong supporters and mild sympathizers, supported by family, cause, and lack of strong governments in every territory it wanted a strong sway in.  The sense of family isn't as strong in much of the world (I mean extended family, or Tribes), especially much of the developed world.  Support for The Cause is there, and weak governments- well, that's here and there, and changes with the times.  One thing though- terrorism doesn't flourish under a strong fascist government, unless they are affiliated _with_ the government.  

And they would have to have a reliable source of money for their ventures.  The taliban's money largely comes from the heroin trade.  I would call it hypocritical, but they see it as using the enemy's vices against them.  
If I were to start an extremist environmentalist group, I would look for a virgin old growth forest, or a rainforest, possibly in a country embroiled in civil war, and then volunteer my group's service to the government to help pacify a nearby border, in exchange for a small patch of territory that they keep out of.  Such a country might go for it, and you could have various business interests bringing money in from all sorts of corporate interests.  Then I'd fortify and stockpile weapons like mad, set up a satellite, and look toward keeping operatives everywhere.  But I'd have to have a clear goal, not just random bombings.  I'd also do good things for the locals, like bring in doctors and give the kids schooling, to earn the goodwill of the country bit by bit.  Popular opinion goes a long way toward keeping enemy forces out.  Then maybe win an election, get the whole country (if it was, say, a South American country) or at least the province, send out more "missionaries" into the world to recruit...

Anyway, that's how the drug-runners, mafiosos, and any number of small militias do it.

I'd also look into nuclear "solutions", as animals and plants can generally stand much higher levels of radiation than humans can, which would prevent humans from entering an area or doing anything with it.  (Morbid, isn't it?)


----------



## Quokka (Feb 13, 2008)

I think alot of this is already happening and has been for quite a while now. Certainly ELF, ALF and others get described as using a small 'cell' structure that allows coordination while making it as difficult as possible for Authorities to have a real impact on their activities. I don't really know much about these organisations and I'm sure there are divisions within them promoting differing beliefs and strategies.

Funding is an interesting question and I'm not sure how these groups gain most of theirs but a tried and true method is using more moderate groups as a public face to raise money and recruit and then funeling at least a portion of it back to core groups.


----------



## Creator (Feb 15, 2008)

Lith's description of things was excellent!

I think ecoterror will be much more difficult to track as the organization helps people in need but secretly attacks those who piss Mother Nature off. Like the Red Guards in china who nearly wiped out my family line, similarly they will attack the rich who do damage to the environment.

What do you guys think?

And also how will ecoterrorism destroy the reputation of environmentalists until it comes a time where ordinary people fear environmentalists like the Taliban.


----------



## Quokka (Feb 15, 2008)

Do most people fear all muslims?

Sure the activities, and as importantly the media's reporting of activities by groups such as the Taliban have had an impact on many people's feelings about the Islamic religion and those who follow it but I'd hope by and large there's still an understanding that there's a huge range of beliefs encompassed within Islam and that the Taliban hardly speaks for everyone.

I think the other half of people's views are influenced by the people that we see and know personally. I know several muslims including friends and family and although we'd sometimes discuss it in the same way we would where someone works or where they grew up, for the most part it's a non-issue.

I think it's a similar thing with environmentalism and ecoterrorism, some people will make links for what ever reason but I think in general people will understand that the two are not necessarily tied together. I'm guessing a lot of people in the logging industry that are seeing and are affected by protesters directly make a stronger link between environmentalism and ecoterrorism then those who don't but even then that's a fairly large generalisation. 

Another example would be the right to life debate, where some people have used murder to promote a right to life belief, a lot of people would condem that action whilst still arguing against abortions etc.

In the end I think ecoterrorism will make an easy option for setting up 'straw man' arguments by those that want to promote a set view point, which already happens in all the situations above but it's not exactly going to derail environmentalism any time soon.


----------



## Creator (Feb 15, 2008)

Hmm I see but in my island country at the tip of malaysia due to past racial riots and killings, religion is a taboo to talk openly.

And what's a straw man arguement?


----------



## Quokka (Feb 15, 2008)

I suppose I was thinking that the differing situations locally and personally impact upon our views of things as much as what gets reported by the media. So in the case of religion the differences between the situation where you and I are will have an effect and if you apply it to environmentalism and ecoterrorism a lot of whether people fear it or make a link between the two will be determined by how it affects them directly. So again if your family works in an industry like logging, you may make more of a link between ecoterrorism and environmentalism, especially if your affected by protesting directly. As I said before that's a very general (and rambling) thought.

A straw man argument is probably one of the most common tactics used in arguments and debates. Basically you set up an incorrect or exagerated image of what it is your attacking (the 'straw man') and then you discredit and attack that image rather then what is really being said or promoted by the other side.

Here's a simple example:

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets: 
Jill: _"We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy." _
Bill:_ "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday_?" 
Jill: _"I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous._

Neither person is really addressing what the other person said. They are exagerating the other person's comments and then making that sound unreasonable.

So if one politician was promoting something like a needle exchange program for drug users and another politician argued back that "If we legalise drugs we're just.......". The second politician isn't actually addressing the issue raised at all but done well it can be very convincing that they are.

With environmentalism if someone was to stand up talk about how misguided enronmentalists are, "they're all tree hugging hippies who want to send us back to the dark ages... etc" and uses examples of ecoterrorism. They are really creating a false image of who environmentalists are.

It's a lot easier to attack this new false image and make your arguments sound reasonable then it might be to try discredit a more moderate view of environmentalism. If you put Straw Man argument or fallacy into a search engine you should get plenty of options explaining it clearer then I did but here's what Wikipedia has on it.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And just to get back to why I raised the 'straw man' in the first place I think the main imapct ecoterrorsim will have on people's view of environmentalism is that any extremist view point will get used by someone trying to discredit or create fear about a more moderate view point ie ecoterrorism/ environmentalism and the Taliban/ Islamic religion. I think this will happen with ecoterrorism and already is, but I doubt it will be all that successful in a global sense.


----------



## woodsman (Feb 15, 2008)

Nicely explained Quokka! 
However I fear that many people do have a blanket 'fear' or distrust of Islam and many other religions in this country at least. A large number of people refuse to admit that they do and yet you can see that they are terrified of the percieved threat. After the London bombings a number of completely innocent Asian (not even all muslim) travellers were targeted and literally thrown off trains because of the fear that had pervaded the public perception of such a group. I have a fair few Muslim friends and a larger number of religous friends and after such an event there is a small sense of uncertainty - soon quashed admitedly, but I can't deny it was there. 

Whether the same thing would occur with Eco-terrorists is another question. There is no stereo-typicall eco-terrorist. No prevelant race or other characteristic setting them apart. I think many people will still want to support environmental schemes and will suport organisation which peacefully attempt to work for better solutions. There are always people who flee from any percieved threat and would probably stop buying plastics if they thought theyd be target. Likewise there are always numbers of people who will ignore any threat whoever it comes from.


----------



## woodsman (Feb 15, 2008)

Creator said:


> Boy, this debate has more intelligent answers than flames on the other forum.
> I am starting to enjoy your answers.
> 
> What are your opinions?


 


I'm wondering why anyone would belong to other forums? This one occupy's enough of my time as it is!


----------



## Creator (Feb 16, 2008)

Will whalers make the same kind of link with ecoterrorism and environmentalism?

Anyway the way that Japan kills Minkes, it's debatable whether it's really for research.


----------



## Allegra (Feb 16, 2008)

I quite agree with Quokka on this issue. Also, I think comparing environmental extremists with Taliban is like comparing abortion clinic - uh, what the hell - 'terrorists' (technically except Stephen King whoever terrorizes the others can be called terrorist, no?) with Taliban: out of proportion and overly exaggerated. I honestly believe blue fin tuna's population or Brazil rainforests dwindling is the last thing in most of the murderous minds.


----------

