No not the color silly. But the social philosophy and movement of environmentalism.
The Green movement is quite the passionate movement - most people either love it or abhor it and there is often little middle ground. As a social philosophy1 I think that is understandable, and required by the definition of philosophies. Strong social philosophies shape the way we see the world (Through what lens do you see the world?2), and as such if people disagree with a social philosophy, their view of the world can be radically different from one who agrees. Not necessarily wrong mind you, but different.
Stance Summary
For this author, the Green movement is irksome. At worst it is a movement of people that knowingly destroy the very items of wealth that allowed the developed nations to attain their wealth and standard of living, before the developing and poor nations of the world have a chance to attain said wealth and remove themselves from the impoverished, poverty and sickness ridden world they often occupy. At best the movement seeks to restore a balance that has been lost in the corporatocracy of the modern world. It seeks to remove the criminal trespasses against private property that have destroyed many parts of the world that humans have been given as a gift to use and improve for their enjoyment and utility.
Personal Actions Based on Stance
I seek both a sustainable environment and increase of wealth and productivity for the world. I understand and believe that this can be obtained by recognizing the inherent rights in humanity2. As such I do what most people do, I care for my property so that I may enjoy it for years to come. I work hard with what I have been given and what I have earned. However, unlike many I also seek to establish that I do not rule over other people so as to remove them of the responsibility that their actions have on themselves and their environment. As Hans Monderman stated "When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots."3
Expansion
I'm not specifically for "green" things. In fact, if something is being sold as "Green" I have a strong inclination to avoid it like the bubonic plague. Why? Because it probably isn't actually "green", at least not how it should be defined. I am for cost. The true cost, or the Extended Cost4. The cost that includes future use, or the future utility of items and property. Short sighted viewpoints tend to lead to carelessness, waste and in the end destruction. Shortsighted viewpoints have allowed governments to authorize the immoral use of natural resources by international companies without regard for the natural ownership right that the people living on that property have. Shortsighted viewpoints have allowed corporations to bribe their way into government lands in order to strip them cheaply, without having to pay for the long term use of the land. If you, as an owner, were given at a price of a measly $100, 1 week of complete control and unregulated use to a field of apple trees, what would be your natural inclination? Would it be to take as many apples as possible, not worrying about who gets to own the trees next week after you are done? Now, not all of us may strip the field bare, but few will argue that that isn't our natural inclination. Say, instead you purchased the apple field for $200k (it's going market rate), and it is yours until you sell it. What is your natural inclination now? To preserve. To utilize in such a manner that allows reuse, sustainability, and enjoyment. Removing responsibility encourages predatory greed; allowing people retain the responsibility for their actions encourages natural selfishness - which is a good thing as it is future sighted.
Closing
Just because all cows have four limbs doesn't mean that all animals with four limbs are thus cows. The logic is backwards. As such, just because all future sighted utility that considers the extended cost is "green", doesn't mean that all "green" things are future sighted (and thus beneficial to people). It would be the green thing to stop all carbon dioxide production and allow nature to attain a non-human messed with living. But what good is that if there are then no humans, or logical beings to enjoy the earth? This viewpoint obviously excludes the mass amounts of death and destruction that would occur to humans if carbon dioxide were halted and reduced to zero. Instead, it is green to recognize the mass amount of wealth and improvement in living conditions that energy production has produced for billions of people worldwide. Now that's a green I can stand behind.
Sources
- Wikipedia: Social Philosophy - Link
- Primary Foundational Principle - Link
- JollyQuote: Idiots and Idiots - Link
- The Extended Cost - Link (Stance not yet written)
Suggested Reading
- Murray Rothbard: Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution - Link
