I'm an environmentalist, yet I feel no connection or kinship to the environmentalist movement

[Tammuz]

I would, in the, I guess, original sense of the word, consider myself an environmentalist. I think that global warming is a very serious problem that we are facing, and the world is not doing nearly enough to tackle it. I think endangered animals should be protected, and nature to as large part as possible be left alone from human interference. Yet, I feel no connection or kinship to the environmental movement. Why?

The environmental movement cares about global warming, sure. But other than that, they take a lot of anti-scientific positions, such as the promotion of organic farming, opposition to GM foods, and in some cases alternative medicine.

I would consider myself more of a science-based environmentalist. In order to reduce our impact on the world, we need efficient farming. That disqualifies organic farming, as it is much less efficient than conventional farming (and it is not healthier either). We also need GM crops, in order to make the crops maximally resistent, thereby reducing pesticide usage, and to make them as nutritious as possible. The environmental movement, by promoting organic farming and opposing GM food, is actually harming the environment, and contributing to global warming.

The environmental movement could be a force for great good in the world. Yet it is squandering that possibility due to its weird anti-scientific dogmas.

Anyone else feeling the same way?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Everything and everyone is connected though, in a way. That's just an ecological fact. You can't have ecology without interconnectedness.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I would, in the, I guess, original sense of the word, consider myself an environmentalist. I think that global warming is a very serious problem that we are facing, and the world is not doing nearly enough to tackle it. I think endangered animals should be protected, and nature to as large part as possible be left alone from human interference. Yet, I feel no connection or kinship to the environmental movement. Why?

The environmental movement cares about global warming, sure. But other than that, they take a lot of anti-scientific positions, such as the promotion of organic farming, opposition to GM foods, and in some cases alternative medicine.

I would consider myself more of a science-based environmentalist. In order to reduce our impact on the world, we need efficient farming. That disqualifies organic farming, as it is much less efficient than conventional farming (and it is not healthier either). We also need GM crops, in order to make the crops maximally resistent, thereby reducing pesticide usage, and to make them as nutritious as possible. The environmental movement, by promoting organic farming and opposing GM food, is actually harming the environment, and contributing to global warming.

The environmental movement could be a force for great good in the world. Yet it is squandering that possibility due to its weird anti-scientific dogmas.

Anyone else feeling the same way?

I do not share your feeling.

How do organic methods harm the environment? How does no till farming harm the environment? How does recycling harm the environment? How does composting and ground mulch harm the environment? How does water conservation harm the environment? Etc.

Maybe you are confusing sound, scientific, sustainable, organic methods with woo. Lots of people like their woo but I don't see how that has anything to do with sustainable agriculture.

Lots of folks around me use those chem services on their lawns. They water, feed, treat and repeat. It's very costly and polluting compared to a natural landscape. How does a natural landscape harm the environment? It provides food and cover for wildlife and insects, naturally recycles, and gets people off their couches, which is healthy.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would, in the, I guess, original sense of the word, consider myself an environmentalist. I think that global warming is a very serious problem that we are facing, and the world is not doing nearly enough to tackle it. I think endangered animals should be protected, and nature to as large part as possible be left alone from human interference. Yet, I feel no connection or kinship to the environmental movement. Why?

The environmental movement cares about global warming, sure. But other than that, they take a lot of anti-scientific positions, such as the promotion of organic farming, opposition to GM foods, and in some cases alternative medicine.

I would consider myself more of a science-based environmentalist. In order to reduce our impact on the world, we need efficient farming. That disqualifies organic farming, as it is much less efficient than conventional farming (and it is not healthier either). We also need GM crops, in order to make the crops maximally resistent, thereby reducing pesticide usage, and to make them as nutritious as possible. The environmental movement, by promoting organic farming and opposing GM food, is actually harming the environment, and contributing to global warming.

The environmental movement could be a force for great good in the world. Yet it is squandering that possibility due to its weird anti-scientific dogmas.

Anyone else feeling the same way?

I do not share your feeling.

How do organic methods harm the environment? How does no till farming harm the environment? How does recycling harm the environment? How does composting and ground mulch harm the environment? How does water conservation harm the environment? Etc.

Maybe you are confusing sound, scientific, sustainable, organic methods with woo. Lots of people like their woo but I don't see how that has anything to do with sustainable agriculture.

Lots of folks around me use those chem services on their lawns. They water, feed, treat and repeat. It's very costly and polluting compared to a natural landscape. How does a natural landscape harm the environment? It provides food and cover for wildlife and insects, naturally recycles, and gets people off their couches, which is healthy.

Organic methods harm the soil and the environment because they use more materials with a larger spectrum of toxicity, in higher quantities, with more impactful secondary effects, to achieve the same things that modern farming practices do with less toxic herbicides like glyphosate and insecticides like BT. They produce worse yeilds for their cumulative effect on soil quality. They require more water, too. Everything about "organic farming" tends to be more destructive to the environment.

The problem is that the same groups that seek to move towards sustainability, harbor within themselves a very low signal with very high noise, and they are not policing their internal noise at all. All the criticism of that noise ends up coming from outside, and thus falls on deaf ears.

My husband and I watched a popular YouTuber who, with his family, raises chickens and aims for sustainability. For the most part his farm is really good, and does some very environmentally friendly things.

And then he went on a tour of North America looking at other farms and talking about what they were doing. And it was a non-stop parade of noise and bullshit.

It isn't that there's some 'woo' in the 'organic' camp. It is that it has woo printed boldly on the tin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do organic methods harm the environment? How does no till farming harm the environment? How does recycling harm the environment? How does composting and ground mulch harm the environment? How does water conservation harm the environment? Etc.

Organic takes more land which means more deforestation. And the usual fertilizer is manure--which means methane release which means warming.