This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.� --Ernst Lehmann (1934).
Let me make it clear, up front, that I'm in favor of 'the environment' (although I'm definitely opposed to fascism and National Socialism). I like nature. I enjoy the park, camping, the sound of a small stream as it bubbles melodiously through a wooded glen, its air scented with lilacs, whose grass has not be entirely overtrod with human footsteps, as its waters belong their long journey to the sea. All great stuff. Seriously. I even went kayaking today. I also appreciate the necessity of 'the environment', as it provides food, shelter, my computer, literally everything I own and consume, everything that sustains the lives of my children, as well as my fur children (my cats!). Actually, I've been 'concerned for the environment' longer than I have been vegan.
But I also often wonder when dancing around the maypole and praising Gaia while people drive their Priuses to the recycle bin down the driveway replaced what people used to call environmentalism when I was young. When did we stop thinking about the environment as the ecosystem in all of its remarkable diversity and beauty, and when did it become a shorthand for just our small slice of the ecosystem that we need in order to sustain ourselves within a reasonable level of comfort at everyone else's expense?
Again, let me be also be clear: there are still a number of great environmentalists and environmental projects out there doing the hard work required to promote more sustainable relationship with the planet, and I applaud those people. This criticism is just for those who seem to have populated the movement as it has aged, become the new black and been eviscerated of any of its properly political guts. Where did things go so unbelievably wrong as a social movement?
First, over the course of the 80s, a bunch of people whose real goal was to end the oppression of wearing deodorant, apparently, decided that environmentalism was a social justice movement. It's not. We don't owe justice to the environment. We owe justice to the human and nonhuman animals who need their ecologies to, you know, live. We don't owe praise to Gaia or the biosphere or any of that other deep ecology, �plants have feelings, too� nonsense. They don't. There's no meaningful evidence that plants are sentient in the way that human and nonhuman animals are. Nature is a home that we should care for diligently and a home that we have a duty to share with other nonhuman species. Arguing otherwise is scientifically contra-factual and morally suspect. It's nothing personal. I feel the same way about my ABS breaks and my thermostat
Then, over the course of the 90s, a bunch of even more intellectually challenged hipsters from the 'burbs decided it was the religious and ritualistic elements of environmentalism that were the important ones, nevermind the early clear thinking and the scientifically-based and legitimate concerns for the planet (and more important, the sentient beings who live on it). This economism provided a handy foil to more reactionary, more fanatical (and thankfully, much smaller) ultra-right strands of the green movement linked with homophobia, neo-Nazism and the White Rights movement of the late 80s. Green consumerism was deeply misguided and fantastic in its assumptions, very much mistaking a new version of the problem for the solution. It doesn't matter how many green products you buy, buying a lot of unnecessary stuff is still part of the problem. In short, we can't consume our way to a healthy planet. The more reactionary strands of deep ecology were even more suspect.
And now, you have an even more utterly idiotic fringe coming to the fore, non-vegan green primitivism, the very name of which is an imperialist insult to so-called 'primitive' small scale cultures (which, in fact, are often remarkably sophisticated in both their social organization as well as their ecological knowledge and care). I also find it insults the color green, but I suppose it's not worth getting too wound up over � colors aren't sentient either. I don't find all eco-primitivism equally deeply problematic (misguided perhaps, but I love espresso), just the the utilitarian strands that believe nonhuman animal use (and just as often, human animal use) is their basic right. It's worth noting that so-called 'primitive cultures' know that utilitarianism is nonsense and are almost entirely rights-focused in their moral views, but knowing this would require these folks to crack a book on anthropology (if anyone has a desire to do so, I recommend Roy Rappaport's books). But what differentiates green imperialism (the more appropriate name if you ask me) from other strands of environmentalism?
First, over the course of the 80s, a bunch of people whose real goal was to end the oppression of wearing deodorant, apparently, decided that environmentalism was a social justice movement. It's not. We don't owe justice to the environment. We owe justice to the human and nonhuman animals who need their ecologies to, you know, live. We don't owe praise to Gaia or the biosphere or any of that other deep ecology, �plants have feelings, too� nonsense. They don't. There's no meaningful evidence that plants are sentient in the way that human and nonhuman animals are. Nature is a home that we should care for diligently and a home that we have a duty to share with other nonhuman species. Arguing otherwise is scientifically contra-factual and morally suspect. It's nothing personal. I feel the same way about my ABS breaks and my thermostat
Then, over the course of the 90s, a bunch of even more intellectually challenged hipsters from the 'burbs decided it was the religious and ritualistic elements of environmentalism that were the important ones, nevermind the early clear thinking and the scientifically-based and legitimate concerns for the planet (and more important, the sentient beings who live on it). This economism provided a handy foil to more reactionary, more fanatical (and thankfully, much smaller) ultra-right strands of the green movement linked with homophobia, neo-Nazism and the White Rights movement of the late 80s. Green consumerism was deeply misguided and fantastic in its assumptions, very much mistaking a new version of the problem for the solution. It doesn't matter how many green products you buy, buying a lot of unnecessary stuff is still part of the problem. In short, we can't consume our way to a healthy planet. The more reactionary strands of deep ecology were even more suspect.
And now, you have an even more utterly idiotic fringe coming to the fore, non-vegan green primitivism, the very name of which is an imperialist insult to so-called 'primitive' small scale cultures (which, in fact, are often remarkably sophisticated in both their social organization as well as their ecological knowledge and care). I also find it insults the color green, but I suppose it's not worth getting too wound up over � colors aren't sentient either. I don't find all eco-primitivism equally deeply problematic (misguided perhaps, but I love espresso), just the the utilitarian strands that believe nonhuman animal use (and just as often, human animal use) is their basic right. It's worth noting that so-called 'primitive cultures' know that utilitarianism is nonsense and are almost entirely rights-focused in their moral views, but knowing this would require these folks to crack a book on anthropology (if anyone has a desire to do so, I recommend Roy Rappaport's books). But what differentiates green imperialism (the more appropriate name if you ask me) from other strands of environmentalism?
First, there's an intelligence test. If it sounds like a good idea to take your kids on a life-long camping trip without any antibiotics, you're in. Then there's the skills test. If you're willing to plod out into the local forest preserve, till death do you part, with only a limited understanding of ecology and less than basic understanding of civil engineering, welcome to the team. Finally, there's a desire to reproduce the paradigms of the environmental problem, just on a supposedly smaller scale (think of it as a test of basic mathematics skills). Just you, Jeremiah and a couple of goats, half a dozen chickens, several sheep and a few cows, and eventually the 6-12 children you'd need to do the farming required to sustain you. Imagine that multiplied by the several billion people in the world. Is that really a good idea? Green imperialists seem to think so.
"But not everyone would live off the land, just us!" is their openly-secret, wink-wink reply. And that's really where green imperialism shows itself to be just a new reactionary right of the same old anthropocentric system, dressed up in ochre and doused with patchouli. Green imperialism is really just about the primarily white, middle class and privileged getting back to nature to preserve the paradigms of their oppressions at the expense of some of the technological privilege their enjoy today. It gives remarkably little in exchange for continuing to take a very great deal. It demands serious sacrifices from others while proposing relatively modest ones for itself. Many of us would prefer simpler lives; that's not a reason to play Survivor in the local forest preserve, and certainly not to indulge in a fable of symbiotic animal agriculture.
And that's what deeply troubles me about green imperialism is the unapologetic use of nonhuman animals. There's really no difference between the green imperialist take on the use of animals than that of any agribusiness. For green imperialists, nonhuman animals are slaves for human use. But as any reputable environmentalist will tell you, it's intensive agriculture (including intensive animal agriculture) that's primarily that's driving us to the brink of environmental collapse.
"But not everyone would live off the land, just us!" is their openly-secret, wink-wink reply. And that's really where green imperialism shows itself to be just a new reactionary right of the same old anthropocentric system, dressed up in ochre and doused with patchouli. Green imperialism is really just about the primarily white, middle class and privileged getting back to nature to preserve the paradigms of their oppressions at the expense of some of the technological privilege their enjoy today. It gives remarkably little in exchange for continuing to take a very great deal. It demands serious sacrifices from others while proposing relatively modest ones for itself. Many of us would prefer simpler lives; that's not a reason to play Survivor in the local forest preserve, and certainly not to indulge in a fable of symbiotic animal agriculture.
And that's what deeply troubles me about green imperialism is the unapologetic use of nonhuman animals. There's really no difference between the green imperialist take on the use of animals than that of any agribusiness. For green imperialists, nonhuman animals are slaves for human use. But as any reputable environmentalist will tell you, it's intensive agriculture (including intensive animal agriculture) that's primarily that's driving us to the brink of environmental collapse.
The population the earth currently sustains is sustained in part by the efficiencies that come with economies of scale and industrialization; factory farming is a poster child example. Green imperialism would toss out all of those efficiencies but keep the population (unless they plan to build sterilization camps, who knows?) and keep the nonhuman animal slavery. In effect, this would multiply the problem today, with the only question being: exactly how much? You can't solve the problem by reproducing it on a larger and grander scale.
But if what we want is a real environmentalism, a real sustainability, the answer isn't imperialism, consumerism, deep ecology or ecofascism; it's an animal rights position. If we take the rights of humans and nonhumans seriously, if we take them seriously as persons to whom we owe certain duties, then we'll have to take their ecologies seriously (or least, more seriously than we do today, which, in light of the looming environmental crises, is not very seriously at all). Someone cannot believe that a bee has inherent moral value (which s/he does), and therefore, a right not to be used as property and support gung ho for a new luxury condo complex clear cutting in the same breath. But instead, we focus on reinventing and remarketing the same anthropocentrism that created our 'environmental problems' in the first place.
But if what we want is a real environmentalism, a real sustainability, the answer isn't imperialism, consumerism, deep ecology or ecofascism; it's an animal rights position. If we take the rights of humans and nonhumans seriously, if we take them seriously as persons to whom we owe certain duties, then we'll have to take their ecologies seriously (or least, more seriously than we do today, which, in light of the looming environmental crises, is not very seriously at all). Someone cannot believe that a bee has inherent moral value (which s/he does), and therefore, a right not to be used as property and support gung ho for a new luxury condo complex clear cutting in the same breath. But instead, we focus on reinventing and remarketing the same anthropocentrism that created our 'environmental problems' in the first place.
So, yes, I would throw 1000 ancient redwoods out of the lifeboat if it meant saving one kitten, but I'd much rather that we all came together, thought together, worked together, to figure out a better way to share the planet with all sentient animals. Any of us can start by taking the rights of nonhuman animals seriously (you know, those people that many of us think of as "nature") and go vegan.
No comments:
Post a Comment