As a follow-up to The Cult of Doom has always existed, a reader optimistically argues that when people talk about "the planet," they are using it as shorthand for Earth's inhabitants.
This reminds me of "Vegan." Yes, many people say they are vegan and are concerned first and foremost about animals. For them, veganism is not an end, but merely a means for accomplishing good in the world.
But there are plenty who are "Vegan" who care about "Vegan" in and of itself. That is why the annual summit is called "Animal and Vegan Advocacy."
I've run this experiment for decades and you can, too: Ask a "Vegan" if, in exchange for everyone in the world eating half as many sentient animals, they personally would eat one cow burger a day, never use the word "vegan" ever again, and never say anything to anyone about their diet or "lifestyle." Unsurprisingly, many "Vegans" would not take that deal.
The same holds for many of the Earth Cultists. Ask if they would like a world with 15 billion humans whose median standard of living and life expectancy are both higher than today. You can also throw in more "nature" to avoid arguing about wild animals (who probably have net-negative lives on average).
Loads and loads of Earth Cultists wouldn't take that deal.
Their actions prove this. They regularly push for policies that are objectively pro-suffering. For example, this arrived in my inbox at the same time as my reader's message from the first paragraph. And this. And this. And this. And this. I'll stop now.
Some argue that to help other animals, you must oppose helping humans. Of course, this is not the case. Opposing factory farms is win/win. What One Step for Animals does is vastly more beneficial for all of Earth's inhabitants than throwing soup on the Mona Lisa.
As I've pointed out ad nauseam, the Earth (and Doom) Cultists regularly push against policies that would lower greenhouse gas emissions and save huge swaths of wild lands from coal mining. But being anti-nuclear is part of the dogma, regardless of its consequences. Even ignoring the consequences of shutting down nuclear plants, the "salvation" they offer - solar and wind - would require huge amounts of land.
Being pure to the dogma is all that matters.
(And we won't get into the "Green" Party electing George W Bush over Al Gore, and then helping defeat Hillary and make the worst human the most powerful person in the world. Again: purity over consequences.)
So yes, some people talk about "the planet" and actually care about making things better for sentient creatures, just as some people use the word vegan and actually care about making things better for sentient creatures.
But the norm is tribalism leading to cultism leading to bad outcomes. Pragmatists concerned with consequences generally avoid simplifications and slogans.
With all that said (again), I'm not passing judgment on "environmentalists" and "Vegans." (OK, maybe a little.) I completely understand that biases are inherent and some type of religion seems necessary for people. As a recent reader wrote about Losing My Religions, "I think humans are tribal and I am not convinced secular methods of organizing people wouldn’t have terrible consequences either (e.g. Stalinism, etc)."
However, I'm hoping that people like you, who actually care about making things better for sentient creatures, will be aware of humans' inherent tribalism and avoid those traps, if only for your personal sanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment