Since most educated people are no longer agonizing about whether eternal souls are pure enough to avoid eternal hellfire, have they transferred this weird existential doubt to environmental concerns of doom and gloom?
What “doom and gloom environmental movement”? The whole point of the environmental movement is that it isn’t doom and gloom: We can prevent the bad outcomes if we try. If you don’t think you can prevent it, what is the movement moving?
I’m talking about the absurd and unrealistically gloomy outcomes prophecized for lack of action. Think of say global warming causing the deaths of billions, while it is a real issue and harmful this takes things too far.
I’m talking about the general view of the issue too.
no
Well, considering the last time that MASSIVE amounts of CO2 were released into the atmosphere it caused mass extinctions, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “absurd and unrealistic”.
No. “Doom and gloom environmental movement” is a very stupid characterization designed for the ignorant callers and listeners to conservative talk radio programs, not something that exists in reality, so no, we as a society have not shifted our anything to it.
I do agree that there is a certain amount of anxiety we have transferred to life in general now that outdated religious anxieties have been laid to rest. I disagree that our environmental worries are an extension of this development.
The hilarious thing is in other threads people call me out as a nutty leftwinger.
I don’t listen to conservative radio call in programs.
I’m talking about stuff like our future presented as NYC as a post apoc hell scape with survivors fishing out of high rises. Thats stupid, even IF oceans rose that much life moves on and people and architecture would adjust.
Think of the overpopulation, starvation nonsense of the 70s.
You have perhaps better phrased what the thing is I’m asking about, and I wonder what this anxiety is or its cause.
Oh nonsense*!*
Just as every cause has its fringe element the environmental one is no different. In fact, it is one of the most notorious for it. Saying that environmental catastrophe is nigh has been part & parcel for the environmental whackos since the 70s. First it was another ice age, then nuclear winter, then over-population, then acid rain, then the landfills, then the ozone hole, then the Kuwaiti oil field fires, and finally global warming. Oops, I mean ‘climate change’. All of these things are/were serious issues to varying degrees, but none of them have resulted in the sort of worst-case doomsday scenario that environmentalists love to espouse. Granted a lot of this sensationalism is just to get free publicity, but some seem to really believe, or even almost want it to be true.
In terms of the OP, yes I think sort of. There is definitely an almost religious fervor to many environmentalist causes. And it could be thought of as the replacement of old school religious anxiety with modern first-world liberal guilt. Since some on the planet have it so good while others have it so bad it must be an affront to the Earth (instead of, as in the old days, God).
Chronos got it in one.
The point stands, many that think that environmentalists are doom and gloom forget all the efforts made by government and industry too that did listen to experts and minimized the difficulty of problems that would be much worse today.
For example, overpopulation has not been a doomsday because technology and biology were used to prevent overpopulation from becoming the killer that was in the 20th century and other eras. However technology and science did not intervene when it was too late, experts only looked at those doom and gloom people just as warnings not prophesies. (Guys like Lovelock of the Gaia fame that did predicted gloom were actually seen as alarmists by the scientists)
In essence the big problem regarding the case of climate change is that unlike many past issues powerful groups have managed to turn very logical environmental efforts and regulations into a political litmus test. It was not always that way, the EPA was a Republican idea and they used to support it.
Most economists and environmentalists do know know that dealing with environmental issues does not mean doom and gloom for jobs or the economy, in fact the economy continues to progress and by contrast China and India are finding out that lack of regulation or to give little to no mind to environmental issues translates into lack of progress and loss jobs when rivers are contaminated or dry up.
The reality is that there is religion and dogma too in this issue, but it is mostly the misguided one coming from the ones that want to minimize the problems that humanity will encounter if we do not mind our environment. It is also related to the ones that think with religious fervor that protecting the environment means less jobs. The ecological disasters seen in China and India is showing those nations what the USA learned in the 70’s when the EPA was created. In reality you will get less jobs by allowing the environment to degrade, and as peace is an important factor the loss of water supplies made worse by global warming means that the ones that do not want to do the right thing are indeed just wishfully thinking that nothing will happen; they are indeed using faith to ignore what it should be done.
And just like a bad penny the very silly idea that “they [the scientists or environmentalists] changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change” for misleading purposes shows up again. In Reality Frank Luntz (Pollster and media researcher from the Republicans who just recently managed to get a panel to disparage Trump in a backfiring effort to take Trump down) was instrumental in advising the Republican politicians to change their talking points so as to make the issue sound less worrisome during the Bush the lesser years.
Why it is very silly is explained also in this short video from Climate Crocks:
As for the religion bit, the problem is that science is more on the side of the ones that do mind the environment, AFAIK only the Oil fields in Kuwait was an exaggerated item but it really gets silly when it is used as an example to disparage other more scientifically based items.
Let’s see: you forgot mass extinctions (still on the dance card), nuclear winter wasn’t the enviros but the anti-nuke crowd, acid rain and the ozone hole were all too real, but because we took the enviros seriously, we got those under control. Climate change is also not going away, because of the resistance to dealing with it.
But if you want to see consistent environmentally-related sensationalism, the best place to look would be industry’s cries of gloom and doom about how actually doing something about environmental problems would cost trillions of dollars.
And you know what? Unlike the enviros, practically every time their predictions have been massively overblown. And they’re supposedly the rational, responsible types, while the enviros are a bunch of radicals.
I didn’t say you were conservative or a talk radio listener, but “doom and gloom environmentalism” is an example of the dismissive shorthand frequently used in that venue. It’s invective, like “the ‘blame America first’ crowd” or “Feminazis.”
No, it’s a repudiation of self-righteous/triumphalistic optimism. 
Environmentalism is about reality, and the fact that the world we depend on doesn’t bounce back fully from all abuse. That’s a necessary realization.
There are some environmentalist types who are unusually pessimistic, who have a religious aspect to their feelings, and/or are superstitious.
There are some non- or anti-environmentalists who are unusually optimistic, who have a religious aspect to their feelings, and/or are superstitious.
Don’t assume it’s the other side that’s got all the crazy.
I don’t think the OP is too far-fetched. But it is kind of an untestable hypothesis, so I can’t cosign it.
I’m environmental scientist. Most of the folks I work with a pragmatic types like myself. We know things are bad in that they are far from perfect. But compared to how things used to be? We are pleased with the progress we’ve made over the past few decades. I know that this alone motivates me to keep working. I’m guessing the same is true for others.
I think the same conscientiousness that motivates people to go to church and say their prayers at night is the same conscientiousness that drives people to recycle and shop at Whole Foods. If it’s not, “If I don’t do X, then Y will happen” it is “If I do Z, then I’m not a good person.” I do think environmental stewardship gives people a sense of purpose and morality. And for some, it gives them an excuse to be judgmental. But I’m guessing they would be judgmental even if it weren’t for environmentalism. Judgy people are judgy because that’s just how they are.
This is were you lost me, I do agree with most of what you say, but the point here is that the faith used by the religious people is very different than the “faith” shown by the ones that are not experts but do look at science as a guide.
IMHO the conscientiousness from the side in favor of recycling has very good reasons to exist and recycling is a good thing to do in the long run, Recycling should be done just based on the costs and the degradation that we would observe if recycling was not being done, specially in the matter of metals.
Much like (some) religions, concern for the environment is healthy and a civilizing influence useful in curbing unfettered human selfishness. However, it does appear as though there as an off-scene Greek chorus intoning “global warming” every time any bit of information comes out that could be perceived as negative. I’ve got a cold today (global warming). I didn’t catch many trout last Sunday while flyfishing (global warming). You get the picture.
Some global climate change is normal, natural, and has been going on as long as Earth has existed. Earth experienced Ice Ages and extensive droughts long before man emerged. But that’s another argument.
In my younger years, the Greek chorus consisted of the older generation saying “they are going straight to hell!” about everything the younger generation was doing. I’m attending a sit-in for peace in Viet Nam (those kids are going straight to hell!). I love my new mini-skirt (those kids are going straight to hell!).
So yes, in some ways, environmental concerns have replaced moral concerns as religion has lessened in its role of the baseline of our society.
Years ago in an anthropology class, I can remember the professor saying that when there was no bogeyman, mankind needed to invent one. One of the most primitive drives toward socialization is that of mutual fear. We bond together because we have a common enemy. That enemy changes as times change, and it appears that Satan’s spot has been usurped somewhat by a rainforest-clearing bulldozer.
I’m making no value judgement here. I, personally, am concerned for the environment. I am onboard with reducing my carbon footprint, I recycle, I contribute to the WWF, and heck, I live in Colorado where the reasons to protect nature are evident all around me, everywhere I look. And I would expect that I sometimes experience some anxiety regarding it.
So ultimately, yes, I think the OP has a valid point.
Yep, I agree with everything you just said. I think a good example of of transferring anxieties is the anti-vax crazies. For a long time, some diseases had nearly gone away in the first world. Without these diseases to worry about, some people instead turned to chemophobia and decided that vaccines kill.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Back in the '70s, they claimed we’d be stacked atop each other from overpopulation, gasping for breath in the smoggy air, and there’d be nary a tree nor animal to be found except roaches and rats by now. This has obviously not come to pass for most of us, in spite of our refusal to mend most of our evil ways.
By expressing their environmental “concern,” people get to feel superior to non-believers, just like with religion, and busy-bodily attempt to control other people’s behavior, all while calling attention to themselves for how “good” they are being as part of the competition for zero-footprint sainthood.
I mean sure, the environment is going to shit and all, but people are actually thrilled at the opportunity to spout rhetoric, engage in pointless rituals (like rinsing their recyclables and wasting water), commune with like-minded believers, judge anyone who disagrees harshly, preach about the wretched future that awaits us unless we act like them, become disciples of various enviro-leaders, and feel smug and righteous about their own habits. Sounds like a religion to me.