Environmentalist Veeky Forums

Invited: classic environmentalists, anti-environmentalists, ecomodernists, deep ecologists, primitivists, luddites, nu-environmentalists, transcendalists, gaians, etc.

I consider myself a nu-environmentalist, however not an ecomodernist. Here is the nu-environmentalist starter pack:

Entry level:
The Rambunctious Garden - Emma Marris
Where Do Camels Belong? - Ken Thompson
The New Nature - Tim Low

Fully radical level:
The Balance of Nature: Ecology's Enduring Myth - John C. Kricher
The New Wild - Fred Pearce
Inheritors of the Earth - Chris D. Thomas

Accompanying literature:
The Mushroom at the End of the World - Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn - Betty Smith

Basically, nu-environmentalists embrace non-native species and novel ecosystems, which arise from these species but also due to humans, like urban areas. Of course, even nu-environmentalists see the need to combat monocultures but they differ with the traditional environmentalists that original and untouched ecosystems are of higher value, and that such untouched ecosystems even still exist.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/camatte/wanhum/index.htm
marxists.org/archive/camatte/agdom.htm#fnB2
dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/bookchin/philosonatural.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Protection_Units
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/janet-biehl-and-peter-staudenmaier-ecofascism-lessons-from-the-german-experience
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/arne-naess-and-george-sessions-basic-principles-of-deep-ecology.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

okay..

>Fully radical level:
Here's another:
Super Species: The Creatures That Will Dominate the Planet - Garry Hamilton

If somebody wants primitivist books I'm familiar with them, even when I mostly disagree with them, we can discuss why

I know some of the names associated with ecomodernism but am not familiar with any books, for those who do not know about ecomodernism, it basically argues for more economic growth and more capitalism

This is where I disagree with them, if maybe partly, and in that sense I'm more your typical environmentalist - though I am pro-nuclear for example, I'm also a bit of a moderate luddite

When did the notion of systems intersect with the notion of "environment"? Why is it assumed that other living things lack qualia? Is there an environmentalism that unironically looks at all living beings as sentient? Also, how does vegetarianism figure into it? I am a biophiliac.

>When did the notion of systems intersect with the notion of "environment"?
I am not sure, perhaps with developments in ecology, cybernetics and systems theory.
>Why is it assumed that other living things lack qualia?
Interesting and I do not know, though I do know research that looks into plant intelligence and animal personalities, and intelligence in other species in general. I don't believe that humans are that cognitively special as a lot of people assume.
>Is there an environmentalism that unironically looks at all living beings as sentient?
The closest I've come is articles about giving rivers and whole ecosystems rights. I think this is highly interesting so if you happen to know any essays or articles about this let me know.
>Also, how does vegetarianism figure into it?
For myself, I decided to be practically vegan, with only eating chicken and shrimps very occasionally. It is both for health reasons and to lessen the strain on the environment.

I do not do it so much for animal rights, though factory farming is repulsive.

>okay..
I was hoping you could post with a bit more substance. If you find the idea of new environmentalism wrong I would like to discuss it.

There are certain ideas within the classical environmentalist strain that have been proven untrue. Paleoecology has been an eye-opener for me. And I can argue that some of the traditional ideas are in fact anthropocentric.

I would say that I'm more evocentric and biocentric as I am ecocentric.

>Why is it assumed that other living things lack qualia?
Would you mind showing any examples? I had some idea what qualia means, but now that I look up the term it seems ridiculous to claim that they do not exist in other living beings.

>I do not do it so much for animal rights, though factory farming is repulsive.

I'm practically vegan for similar reasons. I have this idea in my mind that eating meat when I've never killed and ate an animal with my own hands is hypocritical. I.e. how can I condone something I'd not be willing to do myself.

Most of my aversion though comes from the impact of factory farming on the environment, the cruelty and the lack of hygiene involved.

Thanks for creating this thread OP I've been meaning to educate myself on the environment for some time.

Here are the books I've read on behaviour of animals and plants:
Plant Behaviour and Intelligence - Anthony Trewavas
Animal Personalities: Behavior, Physiology, and Evolution - Claudio Carere and Dario Maestripieri

Some scientists advocate switching to insects, I eat chicken because it is supposed to be healthier and it is the least environmentally harmful. Though I have a feeling that shrimps are not exactly that good and I might eat other food that is rather harmful.

I think that lifestylism is not enough if we want to preserve natural areas, but it would be hypocritical and unhelpful if I didn't, so I still do it. It doesn't seem to take off, but I wouldn't mind eating insects.

One of the reasons I am a follower of new environmentalism is that it gives me hope, as there are plants and animals adapting to human disturbances, and they can diversify in the future.

I don't deny that certain non-native species are harmful, it would be impossible to deny that, but invasions are not unnatural. South America for example has been invaded by rafting monkeys and rodents, and later was invaded by North-American mammals, but it still ended up with an unique variety of animals.

We could end up with a rather impoverished natural world, and it seems possible that non-native species will homogenize it on the short-term. Perhaps we deserve this. But on the long-term, not in human life times, the remaining species will once more diversify and radiate into different species.

Sometimes I'm not even sure if it is the right thing to reintroduce animals especially if the environments are not up to standards; are we doing it for the sake of these animals, or because we think this is how nature is ought to be? From a biocentric perspective, the well-being of individual animals might not be that great.

I think that we do not have to leave nature untouched and am fine with some manipulation of it, but I think we should think more deeply about what we are doing. Essentially, any manipulation of the environment with intention, based on values or ideas, is anthropocentric.

Unless we go full eco-nihilism, which would be catastrophic, our ideas and values will be pushed on nature, which itself - as I see it - does not have any ideas or values, it just is.To anthropomorphize nature, it would probably not give a damn about any of them.