Any philosophy or ideology that is materialistic in nature is automatically going to fail because it discounts:
1) Importance and respect of natural material (Capitalism does this)
or
2) Human need for spirituality and naturally developed culture
(Communism does this)
Environmentalism can only be a material philosophy. Spiritually caring for nature doesn't do jack if you make no effort to understand how it works.
>Capitalism
>ideology
But would you dare mess that much with nature if it was sacred?
what would you call it?
What would you call it?
It's an economic system. Communism is an ideology and an economic/political system.
Okay fine, "liberalism" then. Happy?
That's from Persepolis, right?
Liberalism isn't materialistic though. It only concerns the treatment of human subjects.
This my thought exactly. It's irrelevant how much you know about nature, all you have to do is hold it has sacred and leave it the fuck alone. Take what you need and not too much in excess. (Obviously a little bit in excess because people will be people)
Yes it is.
Okay "classical liberalism". Done playing semantics?
>Descartes didn't believe in the material world
Descartes was a dualist, he did believe in the material world.
Still not materialistic.
Yes it is, it emphasizes freedom through a free trade system which is inherently materialistic. You would only guarntee that right if you were materialistic.
neoliberalism then, happy?
Why do I have to be materialistic to support that? Can I not support it simply because it creates good outcomes?
Yes? People who believed in forest spirits and river gods deforested Europe and many other parts of the world.
No, many Germanic pagans believed trees to be sacred. It was Romanfags and Christfags who destroyed Europe's nature.
Europe was already greatly deforested by roman times.