Thursday, October 08, 2009
I bet they're more comfortable with lying to and stealing from heathens.
Environmentalism is not an ethical orthdoxic religion; it's orthopraxic. Do the right things and ye shall be saved, and the right things don't include telling the truth and earning your goods from labor. You can even do bad things and get off so long as your buy the proper indulgences. (carbon credits)
Seriously, I need to write a book about how environmentalism is a religion. It fits in so many ways.
I know, they should all just die. And when we're ass deep in sludge, ask that question again. You'll be too wracked with tumors to reach for your almight wallet. They exist because you do. One balancing the other.
What? These activists do what they do for only one reason, the money! Cap 'n Trade is big, big bucks; as Gore.
There has never been a graft project with greater theft potential so always, always, follow the money.
Correct Anon, it's just another method to force the redistribution of wealth. That is why the movement attracts so many communtiy organiser types. They get other peoples money a lot easier if their project is "green".
Dawnfire82- You should write the book. I attended a "green" conference at a west coast university and one of the speakers actually said we are going to fight global warming with diversity. Not nuclear power, not fuel cells, not better insulation or more efficient power distrubution or LED lights. Diversity, yeah, that's the ticket!
The warmers are using Post Normal Science (its worth a Google).
By way of illustration.. if you house is burning and your child is inside you will ignore the facts that you may burn and die because the situation requires immediate and drastic action.
So too with AGW.. Post Normal Science says we cant wait for the facts, the situation is dire and we must act *now*.. and we can even "help" the facts along to convince the public of the urgency.
There's been some interesting stuff written about doomsday cults that believe in apocalyptic events. I'm no expert on this, but Leon Festinger's "When Prophecy Fails" appears to be a seminal work from 1956. Festinger came up with "cognitive dissonance." Here's a quote: "If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must after all be correct."
Festinger was particularly interested in what happened when specific prophesies were proved false ... such as when a specific date for the apocalypse passes. Many cult members "rationalize" and become even more fervent believers. This may help explain how "global warming" morphed into "climate change" and why we're told that "the science is settled."
CP: You clearly did not read or understand the report, which suggested that behavior X (which was empirical, BTW) was caused by Y, which was a common thread throughout the subjects. The 'Green' subjects ACTUALLY lied and ACTUALLY stole money.
As far as I know, there is no data on environmentalists' propensity for cannibalism.
All of which makes perfect sense and is wholly consistent, if you think of environmentalism as a religion that gives you moral 'brownie points.'
Bad people doing bad things, and being secure about it because they 'make up for it' by going to church every Sunday or driving a Prius.
I think you got some smug on your face Dawnfire. Thanks, but I understand the report just fine.
I believe that type of behavior is brought out in many different ways, I named Church for one. I would love to see a study on that.
As they say as a sum up in the report, "Together, our studies suggest that social and
ethical acts may contribute to a more general sense of moral self than previously thought,
licensing socially undesirable behaviors in distant domains."
They were going for a larger picture than just the Green Movement, but since they used that as their test, you guys grabbed onto that to attach your own opinions to their research.
Always click the link. It says:
"In line with the halo associated with green consumerism, people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green than conventional products. However, people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products."
So go ahead choose whichever one of those two sentences you feel like emphasizing.
As for the latter point, it seems more like a broader point that people feel licensed to do something bad after previously doing something they perceived to be good, and having very little to do with enviro versus envirohaters.
Incidentally, I agree that Deep Ecology supporters do verge on religious moral beliefs, but they're as capable of separating their moral/religious beliefs from scientific ones as another religious groups.
"smug on your face... I understand the report just fine."
Smug? If you didn't simply blow off the report as something ridiculous without bothering to read it, why were your initial responses (in two posts), 'what a load of ridiculous made-up bullshit' and 'well why don't they study religious people,' when neither criticism applies?
And also, quotation marks are reserved for actual quotes. Not your interpretation of my comments.
I explained myself all I feel I need to.
What's ridiculous is the opinions to this research you and your friends attached to it. That shows me that you're not understanding the intent of the entire study or you yourself didn't read it.