{"id":339430,"date":"2024-08-13T09:00:40","date_gmt":"2024-08-13T07:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339430"},"modified":"2024-08-13T09:00:43","modified_gmt":"2024-08-13T07:00:43","slug":"environmentalism-or-individualism-part-2-conservation-vs-preservation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339430","title":{"rendered":"Environmentalism or Individualism? (Part 2: Conservation vs. Preservation)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Master Resource<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Robert Bidinotto<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ed. note<\/strong>: This is Part 2 of a six-part series on the ideology of environmentalism and its incompatibility with the foundational individualist philosophy of the United States. Part 1 is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe ultimate goal of the mainstream<\/em> environmentalist movement, therefore, is not conservation of natural resources for human use. It is preservation of nature as an end in itself.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Nowhere was the traditional fear of self-responsibility and the hatred of individualist economies more evident than among intellectuals. Over the years, they began to translate the pre-modern Zeitgeist<\/em> into more intellectually palatable terms: into formal philosophical critiques of reason, individualism, and capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Early Environmentalism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Eden Premise lay at the core of the thinking of philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, the intellectual godfather of today\u2019s \u201ccounterculture.\u201d Rousseau preached the inherent goodness of untouched nature and undisciplined emotion; the corrupting influence of reason, culture, and civilization; economic egalitarianism and small-scale participatory democracy; the mystical infallibility of the collective will; and the sacrifice of the individual to the group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Eden Premise also was a central tenet of American transcendentalists and pantheists, notably including John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, and Ansel Adams\u2014individuals who co-founded such groups as the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society. \u201cIn wildness is the preservation of the world,\u201d said Thoreau. \u201cThe most alive is the wildest.\u201d1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1860, Thoreau wrote that forests\u2014when left untouched by Man\u2014would evolve toward \u201cthe greatest regularity and harmony.\u201d2<\/a><\/sup> Thoreau\u2019s ideas had a great impact on the thinking of the polymath George Perkins Marsh\u2014a Vermont lawyer and Congressman (1843\u201349), and U. S. diplomat (to Italy, 1861\u201382)\u2014who in 1864 wrote the seminal work of American environmentalism, Man and Nature. <\/em>Marsh argued that natural forces and processes exist in a stable, harmonious balance, but that human activity was destroying that balance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMan is everywhere a disturbing agent,\u201d Marsh declared. \u201cWherever he plants his foot, the harmonies of nature are turned to discord.\u201d He went on to call men \u201cbrute destroyers\u201d who \u201cdestroy the balance which nature had established.\u201d However, Marsh took solace in the belief that \u201cnature avenges herself upon the intruder,\u201d reducing Man to \u201cdepravation [sic<\/em>], barbarism, and perhaps even extinction.\u201d3<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pinchot and Muir<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Man and Nature<\/em> was read widely in America and abroad, and in turn affected the thinking of the two pivotal figures in the history of American environmentalism: Gifford Pinchot and John Muir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pinchot was the first chief of the U. S. Forest Service, under President Theodore Roosevelt. A utilitarian, he opposed private ownership of natural resources, regarding them as collective goods to be managed for the benefit of \u201cthe greatest number\u201d and conserved for the benefit of future generations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To this end, Pinchot was largely responsible for vastly increasing the federal government\u2019s land holdings. Today, one quarter of the entire land mass of the United States is owned by the federal government, an area five times the size of France. By 1980 the federal government held 44 percent of Arizona, almost half of California and Wyoming, well over half of Idaho, Oregon, and Utah, three-quarters of Alaska, and over 86 percent of Nevada. These holdings contain over half of America\u2019s known resources. This includes a third of our oil, over 40 percent of salable timber and natural gas, and most of the nation\u2019s coal, copper, silver, asbestos, lead, and other minerals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whatever might be said of Pinchot\u2019s socialistic philosophy, it was still predicated on human<\/em> values. In his chronicle of American environmentalism, Shabecoff observes that \u201cPinchot wanted the forests managed for their usefulness, not for their beauty.\u2026 He was not interested in preserving the natural landscape for its own sake.\u201d4<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like Pinchot, most of the millions who now call themselves environmentalists are really just nature-loving \u201cconservationists.\u201d Like him, they see the earth\u2019s bounty as resources for human use, appreciation, development, and spiritual enjoyment. At root, then, their values are still homocentric\u2014that is, Man-centered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But among intellectuals, this conservationist ethic quickly fell out of favor. Today\u2019s environmentalist leaders have a different pedigree: the preservationist lineage that traces back to Pinchot\u2019s arch-rival, John Muir. A mystical Scotsman who co-founded the Sierra Club in 1892, Muir\u2019s basic tenet was that wilderness existed not for Man, but for its own sake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHow narrow we selfish, conceited creatures are in our sympathies!\u201d Muir declared in his 1867 journal. \u201cHow blind to the rights of all the rest of creation! \u2026Well, I have precious little sympathy for the selfish propriety of civilized man, and if a war of races should occur between the wild beasts and Lord Man, I would be tempted to sympathize with the bears.\u201d5<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was not long before Muir\u2019s preservationist thinking began to dominate the emerging conservation movement. For instance, Horace M. Albright, an early director of the National Park Service (1929\u201333), saw it as his mission to \u201ckeep large sections of primitive country free from the influence of destructive civilization.\u201d6<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Victory of \u201cDeep Ecology\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beginning with the scholar George Marsh, the American environmentalist movement wrapped itself in a mantle of scientism, adapted from European philosophy. Borrowing the idea of \u201cholism\u201d from philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, German zoologist Ernst Haeckel<\/a> (1834\u20131919) argued that individuals per se don\u2019t exist\u2014that they\u2019re simply parts of greater wholes that include their races, societies, nations, and environment<\/em>. In 1866, he coined the term \u201cecology\u201d to describe \u201cthe whole science of the relations of the organism to the environment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Soon, others began to connect the dots between The Eden Premise, Thoreau\u2019s and Marsh\u2019s idea of a natural balance, Hegel\u2019s \u201cholism,\u201d the moral imperatives of Muir\u2019s preservationism, and Haeckel\u2019s ecology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1935 Oxford botanist A. G. Tansley introduced the concept of an \u201cecosystem.\u201d To Tansley, ecosystems\u2014not individual living entities\u2014were \u201cthe basic units of nature on the face of the earth.\u201d7<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1948, Wilderness Society co-founder Aldo Leopold wrote his famous Sand County Almanac<\/em>. Leopold argued that maintaining the \u201cpyramid of life\u201d required the preservation of a biodiversity of species. To accomplish this, he promoted a \u201cland ethic\u201d which \u201cenlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals\u201d and which \u201cchanges the role of Homo sapiens<\/em> from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it.\u201d8<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

All these ideas lay like dry, rotting timber on a forest floor, waiting for a spark. And the spark that ignited the organized environmentalist movement was Rachel Carson\u2019s 1962 book, Silent Spring<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carson\u2019s thesis was that man-made chemicals and pesticides were wreaking horrific impacts on what she referred to as \u201cthe web of life\u2013or death\u2013that scientists know as ecology.\u201d9<\/a><\/sup> Weaned on the ideal of Eden and the goal of preservationism, indoctrinated in the new pseudo-science of ecology, and skeptical of the fruits of Western culture, millions uncritically swallowed Carson\u2019s easily refuted claims. In the wake of Silent Spring<\/em>, conservation groups became radicalized; classroom curricula began to promote hard-core preservationism; and a spate of environmental laws, agencies, and regulations were enacted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Motivating it all was the pantheistic spirit of Muir and Thoreau. In a famous 1967 essay, UCLA historian Lynn White Jr. blamed the ecological \u201ccrisis\u201d on the West\u2019s Judeo-Christian heritage, which, he said, was based on the \u201caxiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man.\u201d He called instead for a \u201cnew religion\u201d based on \u201cthe spiritual autonomy of all parts of nature\u201d and \u201cthe equality of all creatures, including man.\u201d10<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess took all this to its logical dead end. Individuals do not exist, he said; we\u2019re all only part of larger \u201cecosystems.\u201d The \u201cshallow ecology\u201d of mainstream conservation groups, he argued, still aimed at improving the environment only for the benefit of humans. He instead advocated \u201cdeep ecology\u201d\u2014a view that he described as \u201cbiospherical egalitarianism\u2026the equal right to live and blossom.\u201d11<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short: all things<\/em> are created equal; they should be venerated as ends in themselves, intrinsically valuable apart from Man; and they have equal rights to their own kinds of \u201cself-realization\u201d free from human interference or exploitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preservationists in Muir\u2019s tradition are not interested in the human use or development of natural resources. They reject homocentrism in favor of what they call \u201cbiocentrism,\u201d or nature-centeredness\u2014the view that nature exists as an end in itself.  Biocentrists regard nature as intrinsically<\/em> valuable, meaning: valuable independent of any human awareness or interests. Since nature is inherently valuable as it is, biocentrists regard human changes to the \u201cnatural order\u201d as evil. To them, resource development<\/em> is resource destruction<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If this sounds radical, it is. But most people don\u2019t realize that today, even the most mainstream of environmental groups have accepted radical preservationism as their fundamental outlook and goal. Shabecoff writes sympathetically:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The modern environmental movement has long since united behind the preservationist crusade as conceived by Muir and others\u2026While today\u2019s environmental organizations give lip service to multiple use [of public lands], they do so basically as a fallback position [because] they know that the public\u2026would not accept shutting out economic activity.12<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The ultimate goal of the mainstream<\/em> environmentalist movement, therefore, is not conservation of natural resources for human use. It is preservation of nature as an end in itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Al Gore<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider former Vice-President Al Gore\u2014a man whom no one would consider to be on the movement\u2019s lunatic fringe. Indeed, his Earth in the Balance<\/em> became a national bestseller and an environmentalist manifesto, praised by movement leaders and hailed by hundreds of major media reviewers including Time,<\/em> the New York Times Book Review<\/em>, the Christian Science Monitor<\/em>, the Washington Post<\/em>, the New Republic<\/em>, as well as by such luminaries as Bill Moyers and Carl Sagan. You don\u2019t get more mainstream than that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And just what was he saying to arouse the enthusiasm of the culturati<\/em>? Consider what Gore wrote on the very first page of his Introduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Civilization itself has been on a journey from its foundations in the world of nature to an ever more contrived, controlled, and manufactured world of our own initiative and sometimes arrogant design. \u2026It is now all too easy to regard the earth as a collection of \u201cresources\u201d having an intrinsic value no larger than their usefulness at the moment.13<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Later, he mourned:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

We are creating a world that is hostile to wildness, that seems to prefer concrete to natural landscapes. \u2026 Have our eyes adjusted so completely to the bright lights of civilization that we can\u2019t see\u2026the violent collision between human civilization and the earth?14<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

___________________________<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Henry David Thoreau,\u00a0\u201cWalking,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0The Atlantic Monthly,<\/em>\u00a0June 1862. Quoted in Shabecoff, pp. 52\u201354.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Henry David Thoreau,\u00a0Journal<\/em>,<\/a>\u00a0November 16, 1860.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. George Perkins Marsh,\u00a0Man and Nature<\/em><\/a>; Or, Physical Geography, as Modified by Human Action<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Charles Scribner, 1864), pp. 36, 43, 44.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Philip Shabecoff,\u00a0A Fierce Green Fire<\/em><\/a>: The American Environmental Movement<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), p. 63.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. The 1867 journal was published posthumously. John Muir,\u00a0A Thousand-Mile Walk to the Gulf<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), pp. 98, 122.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. \u201cStatement by Horace M. Albright<\/a>\u00a0to the National Park Service Personnel upon his Resignation as Director in 1933.\u201d\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. A. G. Tansley,\u00a0\u201cThe Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Ecology<\/em>\u00a016, no. 3 (July 1935), p. 299.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Aldo Leopold,\u00a0A Sand County Almanac<\/em><\/a>\u00a0& Other Writings on Ecology and Conservation,\u00a0<\/em>ed. Curt Meine (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 2013), pp. 172\u201373.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. Rachel Carson,\u00a0Silent Spring<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1962), p. 189.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. Lynn White Jr.,\u00a0\u201cThe Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Science<\/em>, n.s. 155, no. 3767 (March 10, 1967), pp. 1203\u20131207.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  11. Arne Naess,\u00a0\u201cThe Shallow, and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Inquiry<\/em>\u00a016 (1973), pp. 95\u2013100.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  12. Shabecoff<\/a>, p. 67.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  13. Al Gore,\u00a0Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(New York: Plume edition\/Penguin Books, 1993), pp. 1.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  14. Gore,\u00a0Earth in the Balance:\u00a0<\/em><\/a>p. 26.\u00a0\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \n\n\n\n

    About the Author<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Robert Bidinotto is an award-winning journalist, editor, lecturer, and novelist who reports on cultural and political issues from the perspective of principled individualism. Over three decades he has established a reputation as a leading critic of environmentalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As a former Staff Writer for Reader\u2019s Digest<\/em>, Bidinotto authored high-profile investigative reports on environmental issues, crime, and other public controversies\u2014including articles on global warming and the 1989 Alar scare. His Alar article was singled out for editorial praise by Barron\u2019s<\/em> and by Priorities<\/em>, the journal of the American Council on Science and Health. He authored a monograph, The Green Machine<\/em>,and for several years ran a website (\u201cecoNOT\u201d), both critically examining the environmentalist philosophy and movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Bidinotto\u2019s many articles, columns, and reviews also appeared in Success<\/em>, Writer\u2019s Digest, The Boston Herald<\/em>, The American Spectator<\/em>, City Journal<\/em>, The Freeman<\/em>, and Reason<\/em>. He served as the award-winning editor of The New Individualist<\/em>, a political and cultural magazine, and as editor of publications for the Capital Research Center, a nonprofit watchdog group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In 2011, Bidinotto began writing political thrillers. HUNTER<\/em>\u2014the debut novel in his Dylan Hunter series\u2014soared to the top of the Amazon and Wall St. Journal <\/em>bestseller lists. BAD DEEDS<\/em>, the first sequel, dramatizes the evils and dangers of environmentalism. A number-one best-selling Audible political thriller, BAD DEEDS <\/em>was named \u201cBook of the Year\u201d by the Conservative-Libertarian Fiction Alliance. Bidinotto\u2019s thrillers are available on Amazon<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Learn more about Robert Bidinotto at his fiction website, \u201cThe Vigilante Author\u201d<\/a> and at his nonfiction blog<\/a>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    \u201cThe ultimate goal of the mainstream environmentalist movement, therefore, is not conservation of natural resources for human use. It is preservation of nature as an end in itself.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":339433,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691830123,691830074,691830124,691830125,691830122],"class_list":{"0":"post-339430","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-capitalism","9":"tag-individualism","10":"tag-man-and-nature","11":"tag-pinchots-socialistic-philosophy","12":"tag-pre-modern-zeitgeist","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0641215872b8467b09ee5453c_630dcbbb3fef5aee2bc9e227_conservation-vs-preservation.jpeg?fit=1300%2C680&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1qiG","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":339139,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339139","url_meta":{"origin":339430,"position":0},"title":"Environmentalism or Individualism? (Part 1: America\u2019s Enlightenment Heritage)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/08\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Today, Master Resource begins a six-part series analyzing the philosophic basis of environmentalism, its enmity to the technologies of instrumental reason (especially energy technology), as well as its incompatibility with the foundational individualist philosophy of the United States. Written some years ago by the award-winning essayist\u00a0Robert Bidinotto, this manifesto seemed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/02e3e2d36f1e4f0b0b7c104b8f6a2a6d0.jpg?fit=1200%2C873&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/02e3e2d36f1e4f0b0b7c104b8f6a2a6d0.jpg?fit=1200%2C873&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/02e3e2d36f1e4f0b0b7c104b8f6a2a6d0.jpg?fit=1200%2C873&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/02e3e2d36f1e4f0b0b7c104b8f6a2a6d0.jpg?fit=1200%2C873&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/02e3e2d36f1e4f0b0b7c104b8f6a2a6d0.jpg?fit=1200%2C873&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":339862,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339862","url_meta":{"origin":339430,"position":1},"title":"Environmentalism or Individualism? (Part 6: The \u201cIdeal\u201d of Primitivism)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"17\/08\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cEnvironmentalism reflects an antipathy for a complex, technological, and free society where survival is bought at the cost of ambition, learning, thinking, taking risks, and working hard, within a free, competitive marketplace.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"Al Gore\"","block_context":{"text":"Al Gore","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=al-gore"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0What-is-Primitivism-Featured.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0What-is-Primitivism-Featured.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0What-is-Primitivism-Featured.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0What-is-Primitivism-Featured.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0What-is-Primitivism-Featured.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":339692,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339692","url_meta":{"origin":339430,"position":2},"title":"Environmentalism or Individualism? (Part 4: Philosophic Conflict)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"15\/08\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This is Part 4 of a six-part series on the ideology of environmentalism and its incompatibility with the foundational individualist philosophy of the United States. \u201cThe fundamental concern of environmentalists is about the logical incompatibility of the values underlying a modern, technological, capitalist society, and the values embodied in the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"environmental problems\"","block_context":{"text":"environmental problems","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=environmental-problems"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0GettyImages-693507696-ed03cdf603644d8aa71584efa64194a1.jpg?fit=1200%2C927&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0GettyImages-693507696-ed03cdf603644d8aa71584efa64194a1.jpg?fit=1200%2C927&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0GettyImages-693507696-ed03cdf603644d8aa71584efa64194a1.jpg?fit=1200%2C927&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0GettyImages-693507696-ed03cdf603644d8aa71584efa64194a1.jpg?fit=1200%2C927&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0GettyImages-693507696-ed03cdf603644d8aa71584efa64194a1.jpg?fit=1200%2C927&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":339780,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339780","url_meta":{"origin":339430,"position":3},"title":"Environmentalism or Individualism? (Part 5: The Value of Nature)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"16\/08\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cYes, we too are part of nature; but our nature is that of a developer\u2026. It\u2019s morally appropriate for us to regard the rest of nature as our environment\u2014as a bountiful palette and endless canvass for our creative works.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"double standard\"","block_context":{"text":"double standard","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=double-standard"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Screen-Shot-2018-06-30-at-07.53.29.png?fit=1200%2C599&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Screen-Shot-2018-06-30-at-07.53.29.png?fit=1200%2C599&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Screen-Shot-2018-06-30-at-07.53.29.png?fit=1200%2C599&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Screen-Shot-2018-06-30-at-07.53.29.png?fit=1200%2C599&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Screen-Shot-2018-06-30-at-07.53.29.png?fit=1200%2C599&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":238604,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=238604","url_meta":{"origin":339430,"position":4},"title":"From Nature Conservation to Climate Calamity","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/01\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Conservation, the Environmental Apocalypse, and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0onion5-ipcc.webp?fit=1000%2C1000&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0onion5-ipcc.webp?fit=1000%2C1000&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0onion5-ipcc.webp?fit=1000%2C1000&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0onion5-ipcc.webp?fit=1000%2C1000&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":337955,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=337955","url_meta":{"origin":339430,"position":5},"title":"Can American conservation survive \u2018Green\u2019 energy?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/07\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"It\u2019s summer, the ACs are cranking, SUVs are loaded, and families are hitting the road for beaches, forests, mountains, and National Parks. Thanks to our unique history of conservation and a culture of preservation, Americans have, for many decades, taken for granted their access to natural beauty. Reverence, even love\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"California\"","block_context":{"text":"California","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=california"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Massive-solar-farm.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Massive-solar-farm.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Massive-solar-farm.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Massive-solar-farm.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Massive-solar-farm.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339430","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=339430"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339430\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":339435,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339430\/revisions\/339435"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/339433"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=339430"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=339430"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=339430"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}