Someone who works to preserve the environment, remediate damage caused by pollution, and continuously trying to develop or promote environmentally-friendly, ecologically-sustainable ways of doing things..

So people who are tilting at windmills is what you are describing, since (assuming you believe in evolutionary theories, and believe man to be a late evolutionary stage of animal) it is impossible to preserve the environment against natural forces such as man kind, weather, other ecological conversions. This would make them irrational since they believe so strongly in such and irrational course of action. Maybe this is why technical people studying the environment sternly separate themselves from the term environmentalist.

I'm a tree-hugger. I keep a woodlot of about 5 acres as my payback to the earth (generally worthless land that I maintain trees on). I generally like snakes (except for that 6 foot ring snake that keeps sneaking into my fish pond and eating my expensive ($.34 each) goldfish). I like spiders, pissants, and ladybugs. Toads I ain't so sure of - the little devils keep tricking me into kissing them to see if they turn into Whoopi Goldberg. No luck so far, but I have lots of warts on my tongue.

You could at least cite me if you are quoting me

Or are they just another city-dwelling sentimentalist.

I should clarify before I get burned at the stake create the wrong impression. Or perhaps you were trying to spare me

This is perhaps a local problem to America so I will give initial conditions:

An entire generation raised on science per Walt Disney, (more than one)

An entire generation raised on environmentalism ala Disney (assigning human feelings and emotions to animals, trees, the entire planet...)

An entire generation of politicians trained that they can USE these initial conditions to steer emotional arguments to uneducated voters independent of the science involved.

And from these initial conditions I foresee endless reams of poor, ineffective laws that will advance political careers, emotionally satisfy voters, and utterly fail to achieve anything good.

As the only one of these conditions I see open to change being the education of the voter, I have a tendency to tell them how uneducated they are at every opportunity.

With my sad excuses I now give the gavel back to our OP to address what I also think is a very important question.

I agree with your basic complaint. We have a neighborhood full of yuppies not far from here. They all built their big houses out "in rural America' where the air was pure and the children had room to do whatever yuppies do. Then, they realized the developer had bought his land from a farm next to a pig farm (the old fashioned kind, not one of these factory places). And, of course, the pig farmer was a good environmentalist and disposed of his pig manure by spreading it on his fields, just like thousands of good farmers do. Well, these city folks had never really smelled pig manure up close and personal (the only thing worse in my nose is human) and they began petitions and complaints to the boro and appeals to the zoning board. First thing you know, the farmer got tired of the legal bills and sold his farm to a developed. So now the "country life" is in the middle of suburban sprawl with mini-malls and spec houses.

It's largely the result of our culture. We prettied up nature so much nobody likes the real stuff. I pretty much try to eat "organic" - not the expensive, labelled stuff, but the local stuff grown on small farms. But people complain that the lettuce has worms in it and some of the free range eggs have little embryos. They's rather eat the cardboard crap brought in from who knows where by the big chains than have the really tasty, but somewhat flawed, local food.

When I married my first wife, the first year she gave the little pigs nicknames. I told her not to, but she was raised on that Disney idea of cute animals. Well, when she saw us slitting the throat on "Porky", she had a duckfit. She wouldn't eat any of it either.

I like the stuff I see going on in some big cities where they're developing this whole community garden idea. Gives the kids some idea of food coming out of the dirt, and by dint of some hard work. I think we stole the idea from the Brits with their allotments.

I agree with your basic complaint. .............of suburban sprawl with mini-malls and spec houses.

Yes, you are absolutely right. It is true in India too.

In India, we see another creed of people:

The grab the land, cut the trees for good profits in building bungalows etc and then claim that as nature site / country side site. But while doing so, they destroy the nature.

Other creed is "Nature shops" we call them.

These are Eco tourism people. They claim that they educate people to protect the nature. For this education, showing the nature is must, so they take hundreds of people for educational trip.

Then they won't have any control on people. The litter the people generate, plastics, cigarette stubs they through, empty plastic water bottles they though damages the nature. The noise the people create must be disturbing birds and wild life. But these nature shoppers will be gaining good profits.

In India, unfortunately there is no restriction on number of people visiting (considering carrying capacity of the area) even in wild life Sanctuaries.

I just read your post and regrettably have no time to adhere to it with my own view (which therefore is due). For the moment, not just a GA: Take a bow!

True environment-consciousness calls for plain consciousness as a prerequisite.

You could at least cite me if you are quoting me

When I proposed to open new thread, in my reply to your post in "Longest day", I ackowledged your credit in inspiring me in opening the thread. Besides, I used complete matter from your post in "Longest day, while opening this thread. Still, I should have cited you in this thread too. Sorry for that.

Yes I accept you inspired me in opening this thread.

Your post is very nice here.

Still I am waitig for few more posts from others, before I write something.

One of my favorite tests for "environmentalists" ('cause I ain't in that granola eatin' tree hugging way) is whether they fear snakes. Whether they are comfortable in the outdoors.

Or are they just another city-dwelling sentimentalist.

Reply to your original questions:

Your favorite tests are really nice. Personally. I do not fear snakes. I love those and try to protect them. In fact, few years back, my son had poisonous snake bite (Pit Viper). He was on ventilator for full 10 days and had to inject 15 Antivenoms to save him from the evil destiny. Fortunately he came back literally from the doors of death.

Still I love snakes, as I think, this snake bite also was snake's nature. We should accept nature of every species on the earth.

I am very much comfortable outdoors. I have a tent always with me in my car. Whenever possible I go to country side... mountains and stay for couple of days.

There are two very different uses for the word environmentalist here at CR4. One is the definition given by DVader1000. In its other usage, 'environmentalist' refers to irrational or fanatical (or sentimental) extremists.

I don't think of 'environmentalist' as a dirty word.

But it's a fact, that since everything has gotten "greenwashed", the fanatical element has exploited sentimentality with slick advertising campaigns that aren't based on science or reason. They get the press, while the rational hardworking folks who do science are busy quietly doing what needs to be done. If we don't understand the world we're living in, we're not going to know how to live in it. I think it's too bad if we make a slur on those good people as 'environmentalists', because of the bad feeling created by fanaticism.

The bottom line is, whenever any idea becomes popularized, the majority of people are touched by it in a shallow way. It's not fatal, that's just reality. I try to be a bit tolerant, considering that overall, it's really a good thing that the general public should develop environmental awareness of some kind.

I think we need two different words, though, to separate legitimate perspectives from the lunatic fringe..

That is wrong, conservationist work to conserve nature for the benefit of humanity, not Preserve it. Preserving "nature" in the state you find it at some time is actually going against the natural trend for change and evolution. Mountains weather, Canyon and lakes sediment or erode, animals migrate or go extinct.

My experience with run of the mill "environmentalists" has been that they are unable to scientifically prove their point, so use emotional techniques, or pseudo science to influence outcomes to follow their point of view.

The worst of these are what would be termed "preservationists" who want to "freeze time" wordwide and have NO further progress. (They want to "preserve" everything, but fail to recognise that even nature causes change.)

I have great respect for environmental scientists and other qualified (education or experience) and the challenges that they face, however the "greenies" and tree huggers are not high on my admiration list.

Consider the debate that seems to be still simmering in the world regarding "global warming as a direct result of mankinds influence". Colliers encyclopaedia from 1988 talked of the threat of "global cooling" due to particulate material from industrial activities and ironically talked of the disproved theory of global warming (due to aircraft exhausts during WW2) that was touted in the late 1940's.

By the way, what's happened to the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica? It's about time in the 11 year cycle for it to open up again. What will it be blamed on this time? Maybe it will be the ethanol in fuel that falls victim to this cycle, since the refrigerant gasses have already been taken out.

I suppose this might seem a bit cynical from me and maybe a bit out of character, but I feel strongly that well intentioned but poorly educated "environmentalists" have done substantial damage to society and they should maybe be challenged from time to time.

Totally agree with you on the "preservationists" The perfect name for them. I met some of these in university and elsewhere - they are baaaaad. They want to segregate humans away from other life. First we fence nature (which balance we've already upset) and don't allow any human effects. Keep humans separate, living in concrete hives and watching "nature" on TV. Yeeccch. "Kill off all the alien species" one lunatic said.. the "conservation" prof didn't even blink

Personally, I'm an "integrationist" - We are part of this ecosystem. We're not outside of nature.. We have the means to understand how it works, and to figure out what role we play in maintaining the balance... I think that would be the responsible adult approach.. (Alright, I admit to an all-or-nothing highly personal agenda: I will NEVER SURRENDER my inalienable right to eat weeds, disperse seeds, play in the dirt, eat, drink,... and ok, be merry..)

We are part of this ecosystem. We're not outside of nature..

You are absolutely right. We are part of the ecosystem. Thats why we do not have right to disturb it by creating chemicals, which are not created from nature (Refer Carlson). We have no right to disturb it by cutting the woods. We have no right to.....

List will be big. We are doing exactly what we should not do, for our own well being.

Did you see movie "The 11th Hour" ?

And as we are disturbing it to great extend, not we but our next generations will be in great trouble.

Sure we do, just like any animal does. If a beaver creates a dam by tearing down trees and moving them into a river, it is no different. We just happen to be a much more intelligent animal with greater creative potential. Plants create far more chemicals that we do, and many are far more toxic. Many plants, alleotrophic ones, then waste these chemicals onto the soil to make the top soil uninhabitable to other plants that might come in and grow. We just are capable of doing all of these things better with less effort.

Interesting discussion.

To me, an Environmentalist is someone who is concerned with preserving the Earth exactly as it is, or possibly restoring it to the condition it was in before either the Industrial Revolution or the Neolithic Revolution, depending on how committed they are.

Rather than snakes, I use the "Beaver Test." It works like this:

To an Environmentalist, if a Beaver takes up residence in a valley, dams a stream to form a lake, cuts down trees to build a house, and pollutes the water with his droppings, that is perfectly natural and normal. However, if a Human does any of those things, they have committed an act of rape against Mother Earth and must be harshly punished. This double standard reveals the self-hatred of Environmentalists.

I myself am a Conservationist. I want to keep the natural environment in a state that makes it suitable for us humans. Humans need clean water, fresh air, arable land to grow food on, natural resources such as wood, coal, iron, etc. to build our homes and technology with, and natural places like forests, lakes and waterfalls to renew our spiritual nature. I have as much right to cut a tree or build a dam as a Beaver does, and as much right to hunt deer as the Wolf or Mountain Lion. I have as much right to catch fish as the Osprey.

I love the "Meat is Murder" crowd who use leather in their clothing and car upholstrey.

I took this photo on post at Fort Rucker Alabama.

Does this mean the US Army is environmentalist?

milo

Please see a documentary made by my friend VILAS KANE on this subject of Road Killings:

http://www.nautanki.tv/episodes/87/ to http://www.nautanki.tv/episodes/92/

It is in 6 parts 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,& 92