Has environmentalism become the new religion?

Great Debates
1

I recently read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”. He does a pretty good job of taking on environmental "Chicken Little"s and lampoons much of the research that supports man being the culprit behing Global Warming. I thought the book was ok, but I am no scientist.

As an average citizen who has to rely on propaganda from both sides of the global warming issue, I have to admit it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. It seems no one wants to give straight information on what is happening environmentally. It seems people come at the issue with their mind made up, and present the facts to support their point of view. This is the type of issue in which people dig in their heels and don’t want to listen too, much less consider another point of view.

It has always reminded me of religion…

Then I found this speech given by Michael Crichton to the Commonwealth Club of San Francfisco in 2003.

The site secifically prohibits reproduction of any part of the speech, so I will paraphrase the salient points.

Certain things appear in most social structures. Most societies create some form of religion in order to give their lives meaning and enable them to believe they are part of something bigger than themselves. Today our society is secular and many of the brightest minds eschew religion. If you repress religiosity, it will be replaced with some other mechanism to create “good” and “evil”.

Modern environmentalism has remapped the traditional judeo-Christian ethos.

There is an idyllic Eden. Pure and good until it is ruined by man. There is a judgement day coming, but we do not know when it will be. We are all (energy) sinners. There is salvation offered by the enlightened in the form of communion of non-pesticided, organic foods. Doomsday prophets set dates for our demise, and when the time passes without incident, they simply push the date back and maybe change the mechanism of apocalypse.

But like the judeo-christian Eden, the environmental Eden is a myth. Before industrialisation (when we had a theoretical environmental Eden) there when infant mortality rates of upward of 80%. 1/6 of women did not survive childbirth. Plagues killed millions and entire peoples were subject to starvation at the whim of natural circumstances, with little hope for help from the rest of the world.

The people of pre-Columbus America were not peaceful coexisters in this Eden. Once they crossed over the landbridge onto this continent they participated in the spciecide of many animals before the white man before arrived. The Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas led hateful, racist wars against others in their areas. Some practiced infanticide and/or human sacrifice.

Religious fundamentalists are rigid and will not budge in their opinions, even in the face of facts. As are rabid environmentalists.

Please read the text of the speech via the link above. I am sure I have done a woefully inadequate job of condensing Crichton’s views.

I tend to agree with Crichton’s theory. Extreme environmentalists (read “Ted Danson’s ilk”) are alarmists to whom hard science matters little. They are a portion of society who really has replaced religion with environmentalism.

2

Same to you, buddy. I hereby declare my belief that some people are Bush Apologists, 3rd refermation, and shape all their thinking around “How can I apologize for what stupid thing Bush has done today?”

Now, the above is not particularly brilliant, nor does it actually follow how people actually view their opinions. However, if someone agrees with it, they are liable to see it as sounding intelligent, because it agrees with their worldview, just like how you think the article you linked to was persuasive. It wasn’t. It just seemed that way because it agreed with you.

3

Is environmentalism a religion? No, and that’s an incredibly stupid question. Next?

(BTW, Michael Crichton’s book has been pretty roundly debunked 'round these parts.)

Seriously, what a ridiculously moronic analogy.

4

There are many faithful Christians who strongly believe in environmentalism, and a fair number of them might even be described as fundamentalists.

They point to Genesis 2:15, among other passages, which reads: “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” They view this as stewardship of a divine gift, and I would bet that they’d view Crichton’s polemic against environmentalism as antithetical to their religous beliefs.

5

There would appear to be a debate going on and no factual question in site.

So, off to Great Debates.

samclem GQ moderator

6

“The” new religion? Nah. The old religions of Self, of Apocalypse, of Irrational Optimism, & of Business Liberalism fight against it tooth & nail, defaming it where they can, & begetting new forms & syntheses of themselves & each other.

And really, conservation ain’t that new an idea.

7

What percentage of environmentalists do you think are so-called “extreme environmentalists?”

This statement appears to equate “modern environmentalism” with “extreme environmentalism.”

The whole premise also confounds science-based environmentalism - and most environmentalsm is based on sound scientific principles - with New-Age mysticism, which is something else entirely.

8

Wow, brialliant little response here, “no, no, we’ve already answered that with no, and I cannot belive that you were so stupid as to suggest a thing that I disagree with.” Truly, you have raised the level of discourse in this forum.

Back to the OP; I don’t know specifically that these people have somehow psychologically replaced religion in a traditional sense with environmentalism, but I will most certainly agree that the majority of, “environmentalists,” that I meet here in school have a much stronger emotional tie or drive to the subject than self interest, science, or any other “rational” thing would suggest. When environmental groups start beating the war drums about needing to remove some random environmental toxin from the water supply present in parts per quadrillion when safety studies on the compound in question show toxic effects at thousands of times the actual concentrationm, they become a little different to argue with.

Similarly, a bizarre, “you’re either with us or you enjoy seeing little baby seals clubbed to death so you can masturbate to it,” attitude seems to prevail in regards to how they view people’s own opinions on it.

I believe the environment is important. I really do. I feel that I appreciate it more than 95% of CU-Boulder, partially because I’m out in it on my bike for 10-17 hours a week. I think that conservation is important. Open spaces are important.

I just also believe that our society response to these issues should be one guided by science and clear headed thinking rather than emotion and scare tactics.

Does global warming concern me? Absolutely. Am I convinced that it is occuring from man-made sources or that solutions such as the Kyoto treaty are the answer? Absolutely not. Basically, global warming “science,” like any “science” where you cannot run experiments and can basically fuck around with any model to vaguely say what you want it to say even though you harldy understand the effect of a million things such as global warming and cooling cycles, the effects of clouds, etc., is hardly something that we should put tremendous faith in.

I think that there is good evidence that lead continues to have a significant effect on the neurological health of our nation, paritcularly among the poor, so it’s a worthwhile effort to reduce youth lead exposure. Dioxin in your tampons? Not so much. Plus, those dirty Vermont hippies Ben and Jerry have way more dioxin in their ice cream than anyone else.

Similarly, I think that the environmental movement can a lot of harm to human kind without even really caring or being self critical because their self-righteous little punks. DDT is a perfect example of this. Millions of people die or suffer malaise from malaria annually worldwide, and we have an effective treatment which, intelligently applied, could save many, many lives with minimal environmental effects and no deleterious effects on human welfare. Basically, even in very low concentrations and spreayed only inside rather than on whole fields, DDT could be used to greatly reduce malaria cases, and at these low concentrations, the effects on birds would be nominal. More importantly, it wouldn’t pose a risk to humans (DDT’s carcinogenic effects were massively overstated).

And yet, someone like Rachel Carson comes along, writes a poorly research book, gets DDT banned internationally, and we subject ourselves to far greater harm from not using it than using it. Why? Well, I guess one might have to call something that would cause people to make that decision religious.

9

Can we witness in this thread? If so, I admit to being an Environmentalist. Environmental is my savior, and I shall not want. All hail Environmental! (I’m an Evangelical Environmentalist!)

Ahem.

Much of what you’re talking about in the OP, newcrasher, has nothing to do with environmentalism and more to to with Noble Savage-type ideas. There are certainly alarmist environmentalists, but environmentalism is not a moral mechanism that has replaced good and evil. Religion is still doing that, and even if it wasn’t, I don’t think that’s what environmentalism does.

10

I always thought there were no stupid questions. I think there are parallels between religion and some in the modern radical environmentalist movement.

I searched, but could not find a thread that debunked SOF. Maybe I just missed it. If you have one, would you post a link?

I am a little disappointed that instead of ignoring the thread, chuckling at it, or participating in it you decided to deride my idea as “incredibly stupid” and “moronic”. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it stupid… :frowning:

11

Wha?

12

I agree. But in another interesting comparison to religion, only the wackos get any media coverage.

13

Crichton, you fucking hack.
A thread about mistakes in State of Fear.
I’m not sure either is a straight-up debunking.

Trying to return this to the topic, newcrasher, I ask- how is environmentalism like a religion? What are its tenets? What do environmentalists think? Radicalism is radicalism and there are irrational people with any viewpoint, but I don’t see many parallels beyond that. Yes, things can be good or bad for the environment according to different people, but I don’t see how that stops being like any other cause and starts replacing religion.

14

I bothered to do a little research about DDT, and turned up some stuff. To summarize, DDT is not completely harmless, but not carcinogenic or harmful to animal reproductivity in low concentrations. The main valid environmental complaint about DDT is that it is environmentally persistant (half life of 2-12 years).

Wilkipedia

100 Things You Should Know about DDT

So my analysis would be that Crichton’s claims about DDT are true, but not necessarily unbiased. DDT might not be such a good idea even if it doesn’t cause cancer and thin bird eggs.

15

I found both of those threads, but neither debunks SOF. One does have a link to a site that questions the science, but it is hardly conclusive.

Ayn Rand wrote a book called “The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution” in 1971. She said that the environmental movement was attempting to re-create the Garden of Eden, so Crichton is hardly the first to posit this theory.

I guess if you read the link in the OP it will give you an idea of how environmentalism is comparible to religion. We have a perfect Eden we have sullied through the sins of humanity. None of us is without sin. This is a myth. The peaceful Eden in the Bible is a myth, as is the concept of the peaceful heathan living in peace with the environment and its neighbors. That is why I listed the things about indiginous peoples.

Judgement day looms in religion and environmentalism. There is hope however for the enlightened. If you will repent and change your ways you can be saved and we can return to Eden.

The same rigid mindset can be found in religion and environmentalism, even when facts do not support the faith they place in these institutions.

For other (better) examples, read the link in the OP.

And I am not arguing against protecting the environment. I am just saying that some take it so far as to follow radically and blindly its most extreme tenets. They also want everyone to be “evangelized” even if it is by coersion. Just like religious zealots.

16

Form your link:

Does the fact that most of the malarial deaths occur in the third world make these lives less valuable? What would you place into the other side if the scales to tip the balance AGAINST DDT?

17

This link is also from Wilkipedia, for a counter argument. It basically says that mosquitos eventually become resistant to DDT anyway, so it is not a magic bullet. AFAIK any pesticide could be used to prevent Malaria – it doesn’t have to be DDT. Personally, I don’t put myself on either side of the argument. I think that deaths due to Malaria have a root cause of local overpopulation and poverty, which are far more important issues than DDT pro or con.

18

As an environmental science major from Berkeley, I can certainly see how a student at almost any american college or university can agree that radical environmentalism is much touted and fervently and irrationally defended with little or no facts, with people outside these beliefs treated almost as pariahs or the unsaved, so to speak. But then I graduated.

After I got out of school, I began to realize that universities are major targets for radical environmental propaganda. I also began to see that there are many more angles to the environmental “problem” than I was led to believe. Being personally interested in the subject, I have followed discussions regarding both environmental science and environmental policy. There are people who do cling to radical environmentalism as they would to a religion, but there are also many people concerned with the environment who are in fact rational human beings.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who come out of school believing unproven “facts” passed on to them by activist groups who never bother to learn more. They pass on their “knowledge” and beliefs to their friends and family. I personally have talked some hard core earthies down from their mental ledges regarding the future of the planet. It pisses me off because those who oppose environmental restraints on industry will sieze these attitudes and the associated pseudoscience and use it to debunk environmental protectionism as a whole.

A little more education, a lot less propaganda is what environmentalists need in order to avoid becoming marginalized by the people who believe that the people described by Crichton represent ordinary people who also happen to be genuinely concerned about the environment.

In other words, Crichton’s speech is about the equivalent to me writing an essay about the practice of Islam using only Al Qaeda as my model.

19

Ah yes, the magical, mythical mystery ban of DDT that the right-wing echo chamber talks about. Too bad that it has no basis in fact. The true facts are given here. The basic deal is that DDT has never been banned internationally. It has been banned in many developed countries, including the United States, where malaria is eradicated. And, far from being off the mark, Rachel Carson was one of the first to talk about the fact of insects developing resistance to DDT and other insecticides. In fact, the deaths occurring due to malaria can more be laid at the feet of those who allowed DDT to be sprayed willy-nilly in agriculture, allowing this resistance to occur. (When it is used as part as an indoor spraying program to fight malaria, selection for resistance is much less of a problem…as long as the mosquitoes haven’t already developed resistance from its misuse.) In fact, in India in the 1970s, malaria (which had been nearly wiped out there) skyrocketed again while the use of DDT continued to grow. (There are lots of other reasons too why malaria has remained so much of a problem…Resistance, which varies from one region to another depending on the history of DDT use, is just one.)

The closest we came to a worldwide ban on DDT was about 5 years ago was the international treaty on persistant organic pollutants. The debate was between some on the environmental side (like World Wildlife Fund) who wanted a definite timetable for the eventual phase-out of DDT (because they argued that alternatives would not be developed and marketed without such an incentive) and those who argued that there should be no timetable for phasing it out in uses against disease. However, WWF dropped its negotiating position even before the negotiations were complete and the final treaty, while putting restrictions on DDT use, has no such phase out. In fact, Malaria Foundation International, one of the groups fighting for the ability to continue using DDT stated:

As for the OP’s general question: Michael Crichton is excellent at using bait-and-switch tactics. He draws this picture of environmentalism as a religion which may apply to a small number of the most extreme and then switches to condemning mainstream environmentalists and mainstream science. And, his facts on the specifics are totally wrong:

(1) Besides spreading the DDT ban myth, he makes the ludicrous claim that DDT “did not cause birds to die” which is true only in the strict sense that it more prevented them from being born than causing them to die.

(2) Although I am no expert on second-hand smoke, his claim that it “is not a health hazard to anyone and never was” is unsubstantiated as far as I know.

(3) Crichton’s characterization of the Science article about what could be done to reduce CO2 emissions is pathetic. I have read the actual article and his summary is just completely full of shit.

Crichton would do a much better job if he tried to show that “free market” ideology has become a religion…a religion that in fact is now practiced in the White House. But, since he is pretty much in bed with the folks who practice this religion (and trash the environmental movement) it is unlikely that he will pursue this.

20

By the way, here and here is some debunking of State of Fear from the folks at realclimate.

By the way, that “100 things you should know about DDT” like that jawdirk linked to is from junkscience.com … As the name suggests, they are purveyers of junk science (while claiming to debunk junk science). The guy who runs that site, Steve Milloy does not have very impressive scientific credentials. His credentials as a right wing and industry hack, however, are beyond dispute.