Connection between liberalism and environmental devastation?

[Von List]

I was talking to an old friend last night, and he brought up the opinion that liberalism was mainly to blame for environmental devastation since it favors the individual and encourages endless pleasure seeking.



Now, while I agree to a certain extent, is he really correct in saying that modern liberalism is the causal element? Could the cause be ABOVE political ideology?

[Umbrage]

A connection between liberalism and environmental devastation seems likely for the reasons your friend mentioned. But one could also see a connection between conservatism and environmental devastation, after all conservative christians think every life is sacred and are against abortion and other forms of birthcontrol. The communist Chinese don't have a problem with forced abortion but that doesn't seem to have much to do with them being communist. I suspect them being atheist might have more to do with it, or you could blame Asian culture for being more cruel than western in general.

So to keep it short I also think there's no connection between political ideology and being against environmental devastation. Apart from the "green" ideologies of course but most of those boil down to completely unrealistic hippie bullshit.

[nous]

A connection between liberalism and environmental devastation seems likely for the reasons your friend mentioned. But one could also see a connection between conservatism and environmental devastation, after all conservative christians think every life is sacred and are against abortion and other forms of birthcontrol. The communist Chinese don't have a problem with forced abortion but that doesn't seem to have much to do with them being communist. I suspect them being atheist might have more to do with it, or you could blame Asian culture for being more cruel than western in general.

So to keep it short I also think there's no connection between political ideology and being against environmental devastation. Apart from the "green" ideologies of course but most of those boil down to completely unrealistic hippie bullshit.

I do not see a necessary connection between having children and the destruction of Nature. How you live is crucial here; but liberalism--which also means caste disorder--allows some citizens to do what they want, not what is best, and get away with it, like dumping acid into a river etc.
Life IS sacred. But God gives and takes it. No abortion, but also no drugs or machines that sustain life that is supposed to end--think about the consequences. I think that religion is the key here, because the destruction of Nature will continue as long as she is not made sacred again. Religion could do that.

Now, while I agree to a certain extent, is he really correct in saying that modern liberalism is the causal element? Could the cause be ABOVE political ideology?

He correctly identified individualism as the cause. One could "flip the coin" and point out that the loss of the antidote to individualism--religion--is the cause.

[Dinaric Leather]

conservative christians think every life is sacred

No, thats liberal "christianity".

[Conservationist]

liberalism was mainly to blame for environmental devastation since it favors the individual and encourages endless pleasure seeking.

He's right. Liberalism encourages those who do not know better to rise above their station in life, putting them in control of things they do not understand. However, liberalism is not so much a political ideology as a social one. It is composed of wishful thinking and politeness, which requires we insist that nothing is anyone's fault. Bad things just happen and it's too bad. As a result, liberalism detaches us from any kind of cause/effect logic. This means that people do what they desire, even if it's illogical, and so we have an overpopulated planet with people living on debt, buying junk and throwing it out, eating too much, driving giant trucks, etc.

Some dude on the blog was complaining about how this site once opposed both liberalism and conservatism. It does, except paleoconservatism. Modern conservatism is liberalism with a giant fucking flag on it, and the idea that if you can afford 300 lbs of bacon and a giant truck, you should be able to enjoy them wherever you please, damn the consequences. Old-school conservatism did NOT see things this way. It didn't see itself as conservative, either -- it saw itself as common sense, and liberalism as a mental disorder of the young, the inexperienced, bored housewives, neurotic neckbeard computer programmers white knighting for their anime queen girlfriends, etc.

[Umbrage]

I do not see a necessary connection between having children and the destruction of Nature. How you live is crucial here; but liberalism--which also means caste disorder--allows some citizens to do what they want, not what is best, and get away with it, like dumping acid into a river etc.
Life IS sacred. But God gives and takes it. No abortion, but also no drugs or machines that sustain life that is supposed to end--think about the consequences. I think that religion is the key here, because the destruction of Nature will continue as long as she is not made sacred again. Religion could do that.

Now, while I agree to a certain extent, is he really correct in saying that modern liberalism is the causal element? Could the cause be ABOVE political ideology?

He correctly identified individualism as the cause. One could "flip the coin" and point out that the loss of the antidote to individualism--religion--is the cause.

The connection I see between having children and the destruction of nature is overpopulation and a complete lack of eugenics in western society. I agree that how you live is more important but eugenics are the blueprint to how a person lives.

The new testament is liberal (compared to the old testament) which explains why most "modern christians" have liberal tendencies anyway. There's also an odd connection between the humanism of Jesus and the humanism of most atheists which makes me suspicious of the atheist movement in general, but that's just an aside. It does suck that most atheists are liberal, it gives atheism a bad name.

Religion is just used by governments as a tool to indoctrinate the people. So in that aspect I agree that a pagan religion which worships nature could help make people have more respect for nature. But personally I'd prefer a society of intelligent people who don't need religion as a crutch for anything but instead base their decisions on science and philosophy. The difference is that it's a lot harder to update a religion and keep it realistic than it is to update a philosophy, so as a result religious dogma slows down scientific progress in all the areas that religion doesn't agree with (such as evolution or admitting that earth revolves around the sun)

[Cargést]

Could the users of this forum stop using the word "religion" to refer solely to Judeo-Christianity?  Cheers.

[scourge]

I do not see a necessary connection between having children and the destruction of Nature. How you live is crucial here; but liberalism--which also means caste disorder--allows some citizens to do what they want, not what is best, and get away with it, like dumping acid into a river etc.

Life IS sacred. But God gives and takes it. No abortion, but also no drugs or machines that sustain life that is supposed to end--think about the consequences. I think that religion is the key here, because the destruction of Nature will continue as long as she is not made sacred again. Religion could do that.

Secular humanism, where every person is what's most sacred, causes overpopulation + lack of reverence = ecocide.

When each person is what's most sacred, we apply drugs, machines, and surplus food exports to save every life. The public principle is altruism. The private principle is fear of mortality. The result is a surplus of people who each take life for granted because there is always a safety net like medicine or welfare to back them up. At its simplest, this linear logic says we've beaten nature, so it does not deserve our respect.

I have also encountered the most biologically illiterate strain which claims we do not or eventually will not require nature (natural processes and other lifeforms) for anything. These people should try a day in the sun with a belly full of food and get back to us.

[Umbrage]

Could the users of this forum stop using the word "religion" to refer solely to Judeo-Christianity?  Cheers.

Why? So we can live up to your politically correct ideals?

[scourge]

Judeo-Christianity has mostly given itself over to the private principle because these are nice folks who quietly agree god is dead but they still want the Sunday church ritual. It even has some completely secular humanist sects in all but name and these are the least pretentious. Islam hasn't transformed in this way because it is the youngest of the three. The Abrahamic line, although very long lived, is probably a dead end. Tip: don't anthropomorphisize anything that is supposed to be greater than mankind.

[Cargést]

Could the users of this forum stop using the word "religion" to refer solely to Judeo-Christianity?  Cheers.

Why? So we can live up to your politically correct ideals?

No, so that you can not be hideously inaccurate.

You have "truth", and you have "falsity".  At the moment, you're propagating "falsity".  It would be beneficial if you were to promote "truth".  I thought everyone here had grasped that concept already.

[Nimbostratus]

But personally I'd prefer a society of intelligent people who don't need religion as a crutch for anything but instead base their decisions on science and philosophy. The difference is that it's a lot harder to update a religion and keep it realistic than it is to update a philosophy, so as a result religious dogma slows down scientific progress in all the areas that religion doesn't agree with (such as evolution or admitting that earth revolves around the sun)

Intelligent people do not require religion, but only science and philosophy? Ok, that's the liberal, rationalist and enlightened commentary of the day. Hint: intelligent religious people find the reverence you talk of in Christianity too (Eckhart, Emerson, Blake). If you think that religious people simply eat symbols as literal truth, then you're generalizing religious people as fundies. "Irrational" symbols and rituals are essential in reverence, or do you think that it is pure reasoning, progress and scientific certainty that will take us to the aesthetic catharsis?

And please do not reduce philosophy to positivism. If you find reverence in your own non-religious costumes and rituals it's ok to me, but don't come here to pretend that intelligence is a property of non-religious people, and please do not use science and philosophy as principles that by definition would support what you've said.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

We should probably turn this discussion back to the connection between liberalism and environmental destruction, because anti-religious people are hellbent on advertising their intelligence and thus a discussion with them on the subject of religion will get absolutely no where. For instance, watch how the reply to this comment will be "No, discussions with RELIGIOUS people get absolutely no where." What they don't realize is what they're implying with that comment, which is that somehow they, the insignificant individuals they are (like we all are), are somehow infallibly correct in all matters.

Anyway, I'm all for getting back to the original discussion now, because I'm personally very tired of reading people's admissions to dick-wavering contests.

[Nimbostratus]

-

[Umbrage]

But personally I'd prefer a society of intelligent people who don't need religion as a crutch for anything but instead base their decisions on science and philosophy. The difference is that it's a lot harder to update a religion and keep it realistic than it is to update a philosophy, so as a result religious dogma slows down scientific progress in all the areas that religion doesn't agree with (such as evolution or admitting that earth revolves around the sun)

Intelligent people do not require religion, but only science and philosophy? Ok, that's the liberal, rationalist and enlightened commentary of the day. Hint: intelligent religious people find the reverence you talk of in Christianity too (Eckhart, Emerson, Blake). If you think that religious people simply eat symbols as literal truth, then you're generalizing religious people as fundies. "Irrational" symbols and rituals are essential in reverence, or do you think that it is pure reasoning, progress and scientific certainty that will take us to the aesthetic catharsis?

And please do not reduce philosophy to positivism. If you find reverence in your own non-religious costumes and rituals it's ok to me, but don't come here to pretend that intelligence is a property of non-religious people, and please do not use science and philosophy as principles that by definition would support what you've said.

You somehow twisted my statement into something else in your mind. I did not literally say that "intelligent people do not require religion, but only science and philosophy" I said that idealistically I'd prefer a nation united in science and philosophy rather than united in (green) religion. And I even said that religion only slows down scientific process in certain areas, I didn't say it slows down progress in general. Learn to read before you go on some self-righteous rant about what I can and can't say on "your" forum.

We should probably turn this discussion back to the connection between liberalism and environmental destruction, because [type bullshit that has nothing to do with the original discussion here and hope people won't talk back because after all you suggested we should move on, yay you win you win!]

Anyway, I'm all for getting back to the original discussion now, because I'm personally very tired of reading people's admissions to dick-wavering contests [especially after I just posted my own]