A professor of mine asked me a preparatory question for an interview. She asked me, "If you could change one thing about the 'environmental movement,' what would it be?"
Where to start!
I replied, for starters, that creating policy recommendations with an apocalyptic premise seems relatively faulty to me.
Here's some more ideas I forgot in the heat of the moment:
-Environmentalists should work to save the earth for humans not polar bears, though polar bears are nice too. "Ecocentrism" proposed by Aldo Leopold, "Sentienism" proposed by Richard Ryder and Peter Singer, or "Deep Ecology" proposed by Arne Næss, might work as a philosophical brain children but when it all boils down humans come first. Anthropocentricism is all we got: but come on, you knew this all along, after all you are a human!
-Growth is good, and we can't have environmental protection without it.
-Growth is good, and we can't have welfare with out it.
-Growth is good, and we can't have technological innovation with out it.
-Growth is good, and we can't have jobs with out it.
-Growth is good, and we can't have jobs that give us technological innovation that gives us welfare that protects the environment without it. Deal!
-Profit is good, so is money.
-Quit complaining about too many jobs going overseas and the lack of developmental humanitarian AID at the same time. Its paradoxical.
-And finally, think through the actual repercussions of whatever you demand. We call it holistic cost benefit analysis, if we are going to "save" the planet (there's that Jesus-affect again) its going to be because we thought it through.
-and for Pete's sake take a shower! Even monkeys groom.
I will refer back to this when I can think of more one-liners.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment