greenish

[minx]

Some thoughts for the conservatives who rail against the greenies.

 

Can conservatives work for a better environment and be true to their politics? Interesting thoughts on the topic. Nice history lesson if nothing else

 

...This is the question John Bliese has taken up in his book The Greening of Conservative America (Westview Press). Bliese marshals an impressive array of evidence for a proto-environmentalist streak within conservatism in the post-war years—proof, he says, that conservatives can comfortably approach environmental issues from within their own intellectual tradition. This issue is particularly important to Christians, whose faith counsels a sacramental vision of nature and opposition to the hubris underlying the modern economy and its institutionalized disregard for the care of God’s creation. “You cannot know that life is holy if you are content to live from economic practices that daily destroy life and diminish its possibility,” writes Wendell Berry.....

 

Full Article

http://www.utne.com/pub/2003_116/promo/10361-1.html

 

 

[RobBob]

The Utne Reader...last time I looked at one of those (admittedly 14-15 years ago), they didn't appear to be capable of understanding conservative point-of-view.

[sexual_chocolate]

I think the Utne Reader understands a conservative point-of-view just fine; CONSERVATIVES don't understand a conservative point-of-view, and that seems to be the problem.

[allthumbs]

we understand that you're a turd

[erik]

trask said:

we understand that you're a turd

 

AGAIN THE DEPTH OF THE CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENT IS UNHERALDED!

 

[allthumbs]

shut up erik and have another burger

[catbirdseat]

I don't believe that conservatism can ever be reconciled with conservation of natural resources. The two are diametrically opposed. Natural resources and the environment are the common possession of all the people. Conservatism is all about all power and wealth going to the individual according to how hard he works (or else bribes, steals or cheats). To a conservative, anything owned in common is something which simply has not yet been claimed by an individual (or corporation). To a conservative, there is nothing more important than the immediate accumulation of wealth, and that includes the preservation of common resources for future generations. Much of conservative philosophy comes from Christianity which preaches that resources were placed on earth by God for the explict purpose to be exploited by man (interpreted as whichever man gets there first).

[RobBob]

Natural resources...are the common possession of all the people.

 

Uh, not exactly.

 

[catbirdseat]

RobBob, would you care to elaborate? Do you mean to say that clean are and water are not important if they lie on private property? That's basically what the property rights movement is all about.

[Dru]

Environmentalism is at some level conservative in that it is opposed to change.

 

But political conservatism is opposed to social and economic change, and environmental conservatism is opposed to environmental change. Since its the current economic and political system which is causing much of the environmental change, the two philosophies conflict.

 

Of course, current conservatism is Industrial era liberalism (individual liberty and rights, pro-industry, increase of wealth) and current liberalism is Industrial era radicalism... and you could argue that curreent environmentalism is as influenced by Industrial era conservatism as it is by radicalism.

 

[catbirdseat]

The absolutely most concise definitions I can give in modern terms are the following:

 

Liberalism = Altruism

Conservatism = Selfishness

[Dru]

spoken like a true lefty... i have run into plenty of selfish liberals out there. mostly "i got mine" union members.

[RobBob]

Eventually that type of socialist thinking evolves into "socialism for you; capitalism for me."

 

Conservatives save for a rainy day. Liberals party now, and then have to go ask dad the conservative for more money later.

[specialed]

Dru said:

Environmentalism is at some level conservative in that it is opposed to change.

 

But political conservatism is opposed to social and economic change, and environmental conservatism is opposed to environmental change. Since its the current economic and political system which is causing much of the environmental change, the two philosophies conflict.

 

Of course, current conservatism is Industrial era liberalism (individual liberty and rights, pro-industry, increase of wealth) and current liberalism is Industrial era radicalism... and you could argue that curreent environmentalism is as influenced by Industrial era conservatism as it is by radicalism.

 

 

Dru is smart. Its all a rather intellectual argument since politics in real life don't follow the traditional liberal / conservative paradigms. If conservatives were all for less government, for example, then what's up with Fed's involvement with state's rights and the medical marijuana issue?

[RobBob]

Catburd, you are playing fast and loose with, among other things, the term "natural resources." For instance, I own the mineral rights under my real estate. They are natural resources. I also own the timber on my land. Etc.

[specialed]

RobBob said:

Catburd, you are playing fast and loose with, among other things, the term "natural resources." For instance, I own the mineral rights under my real estate. They are natural resources. I also own the timber on my land. Etc.

 

Yeah but if you live next to a riparian area you can't cut down the trees along it, or fuck with the river bank even if its on your property. Property rights are not absolute.

[Dru]

specialed said:

RobBob said:

Catburd, you are playing fast and loose with, among other things, the term "natural resources." For instance, I own the mineral rights under my real estate. They are natural resources. I also own the timber on my land. Etc.

 

Yeah but if you live next to a riparian area you can't cut down the trees along it, or fuck with the river bank even if its on your property. Property rights are not absolute.

 

 

and ya can't usually bust the pimpin dope rhymes out your bedroom speakers at max volume cause of noise bylaws.

[RobBob]

I didn't say that they were. As an owner of tidal waterfront, I would say that the public is represented if not over-represented by coastal management plans.

[allthumbs]

That's not necessarily true. Like RobBob, I own tidal waterfront at a Puget Sound beach in Snohomish county. I own my tide rights. I legally have trees cut, bulkheads and sand traps built and can run squatters off my beach.

[catbirdseat]

Dru said:

spoken like a true lefty... i have run into plenty of selfish liberals out there. mostly "i got mine" union members.

I feel I must act like more of a left winger than I actually am on cc.com because it is so top heavy with vocal right wingers. It would be way to boring if we just let the conservatives run the whole show.

[Dru]

tidal = not riparian

 

 

except of course for river mouths

[allthumbs]

Dru said:

tidal = not riparian

tidal is even more regulated due to the Salmon issues.

[RobBob]

dru, you tweaker, riparian is a term also used for estuaries as well.

[Dru]

ya but salmon dont spawn on beaches, oolichans do.

[allthumbs]

Dru said:

ya but salmon dont spawn on beaches, oolichans do.

dru, I'm at the mouth of a major river. the salmon cruise around my beach all the time (in fact they die here sometimes after spawning). the ecologists and state fucks claim that there's some microscopic fish dna or some shit here on the beach. they'd like to stop us from building and screwing around with our beach-front, but they don't have the legal power to do so.