vondy's blog

I feel like Parris and Craton have the wrong concept of what being an environmentalist is. Environmentalism is not a religion and it is not similar at as a religion works. They suggest that
that environmentalism is a like a religion because the individuals base their efforts on theories instead of evidence.
My definition of an Environmentalist is someone who is concerned for nature and that individual is willing to try and do something to improve the environment. While they seem to suggest all environmentalists are wrongly lead to the wrong conclusions about what is best for nature and humans. Another point is that not everything that will be best for nature will be best for humans and sometimes it’s better to put the nature above some human lives as it may actually save more lives in the long run.
I see nature as a member of our family. Each person is going to have a different view of who this member is. If you’re an environmentalist you picture this relative as your mother, father, brother or sister; nature is someone very close to you. On the other hand, if you a non environmentalist nature might be that cousin, uncle, aunt, or 2nd cousin who just doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of the family. As I would expect the people who feel closest to nature would want to help their immediate family members with any problems that occur. Would you not help your own mother in any way possible if she was struggling for her life? Or would you just sit in the corner and not make any motion? While a non-environmentalist who doesn’t have that closeness would be less likely to either realize the danger, or else does care about their family member’s wiliness.
I also believe that enviromentalists should base their reasons on evidence, which they do. But the probable is that the other extreme is going to argue that their isn’t “concrete� evidence which shows their point. This causes a lot of problem for example if you have a plant that you water every day and take perfect care of it would look like a 10 out of 10 generally. But if a different person occasionally waters their plant it will look decent compared the first plant, but it 2nd person it would like how he believes it should. If a 3rd person rarely waters his plant it would look very droppy, generally a lighter color than it should be, and would be obvious to the other 2 people that I was in need of attention. Except the 3rd person believes that’s what it looks like and potentially it could die any die, but until that day he wouldn’t know there was anything wrong with it because it was still alive so it must be fine. What I’m saying is that the enviroment is complex and unless you have done some research to at least have an idea what it should look like both sides are probable wrong on environmental issues. But I think that an environmental enthusiast would have a better idea of what a normal health environment should be and would caring enough to try and help it.