Chris Perley writes:

> the "environmental" activists take a knee jerk response which is harmful
to
> people, BEFORE they even bother to dig into the ecological facts, then I
> think that is UNETHICAL. It is effectively causing wanton harm for no
other
> reason than a general quasi-religious maxim that lacks a basis is truth.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Environmental activism is always
informed by facts. Who are the 'they' that do not 'bother to dig into
ecological facts'?

The Canadian Lynx is going extinct in the US because of habitat destruction,
predator control, and from trapping. It is being proposed as an 'endangered
species' by ecologists and environmentalists who have the facts. Lynx
populations never go to zero in healthy ecosystems. I don't know where you
get your facts from since the Lynx preys on snowshoe hares in Canada (as
well as other species) so it is primarily dependent on one species in many
areas of the Boreal forests.


> I think most would agree that humans have shown a propensity for mob
> psychology, where the positive emotional feeling of being part of the
group
> is far more a motivator of action than any consideration of the truth
> relating to a particular issue.

It is fine to speak in generalities about your topic but for really
convincing rhetoric you need the facts and the interpretation of facts. You
do not even bring in any facts to the discussion about the Lynx. You seem to
be using fear and emotion to sway your reader. Why not make an appeal to
'values' and 'feelings'? based on information and knowledge.


I don't think many can argue that there is
> an ELEMENT of this in many environmental movements, where it is the sense
of
> BELONGING that motivates.  Some individuals will be blind to the
ecological
> issues when the emotional fervour of taking an ACTION is pumping through
the
> veins.  Was it the leader of Germany's Red Shirts who said the best
> prospects for recruits were Hitler's Brown Shirts?  He understood that
> following a flag, and being part of a group, is more important to some
> people than having a particular considered stance on particular issues.
You
> can always learn a new ideology when you become part of a new group, and
can
> argue the new rhetoric against your old mates - or even raise arms against
> them.  I am always wary of the mob.  I think they can be perpetrate some
> pretty unethical actions when the facts are considered in the cold light
of
> day.

This is one of the goofiest analogies that I have ever heard. Why is being a
member of a new group antithetical to 'having a particular stance on
particular issues'? I thought the Nazi's were taking a pretty 'particular
stance'?

> my criterion is ecological health, and some people have other criteria

So how is it that habitat destruction does not fit into your criterion?
Given the damage to habitat associated with clearcut forestry practices, how
do you justify your criterion when you say that environmentalists are
motivated by emotions solely?



> Just a few thoughts.
>
> Chris Perley




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%