It is not often that I turn a comment into a complete post, but this comment from Willis Eschenbach on the Trust and Mistrust article today, merits such a promotion. – Anthony
Which death is more troubling? (images: from NOAA, upper, Wikimedia, lower)
Willis Eschenbach
I am surprised at the visceral nature of the rejection of the term “environmentalist”. I had not realized it had gotten that bad. I don’t think I’d want to be one of those if that’s how people feel.
It also appears that the new preferred term is “conservationist”. But as I said, I don’t make those fine distinctions, so I’m not sure how that differs from the “e-word”.
So let me modify my statement, and say that I am a conservamentalist. I would define that as someone who thinks long and hard about the effect of our actions on the tangled web of life that surrounds us.
I was fishing herring in the Bering Sea one season. I heard on the radio that the annual killing of the Canadian Arctic fur seals had begun, along with the obligatory protests that seem to be required these days.
We’d caught about fifty tonnes of herring that day, killing on the order of a million living beings. I remember thinking how if some creature has big soft baby eyes, it gets lots of sympathy. But if a creature is slimy and has cold fish-eyes, its death doesn’t matter. People hated the seal killers for killing a few dozen creatures, while I killed millions of creatures and was ignored.
If I had to pick one word to describe my position on the ecological webs that surround us, it would be “realist”. Life eats life to live. I am not a man who eats the meat and blames the butcher.
I’ve worked a good deal as a builder. I build with wood. I cut down trees to make room for the building I live in. I grew up in the forest, my step-daddy was a timber feller, the royalty of the logging fraternity. I’ve worked killing trees on an industrial scale.
And I’ll also fight like crazy to see the logging done right. with proper roads and proper setbacks, and proper slope limits, and reforestation. I’ve seen what bad logging practices look like and do.
So for me, a conservamentalist is someone who has thought hard about and balanced the needs for wood and cleared land, balanced those needs with the way that wood is harvested. I grew up in the middle of hundreds of square miles of virgin forest. I have a deep and abiding admiration for that raw wildness. And yet, I cut down trees. I just want to see things done carefully and with forethought, see them done properly with respect for the consequences. I don’t elevate some mythical “Nature” above humans, and I don’t forget nature either.
I was a sport salmon fishing guide a couple years ago, on the Kenai River in Alaska, as I described here. Kenai River king salmon are magnificent beings, fifty pounds or more of powerful, glittering, awe-inspiring fish. When one of my clients caught a salmon, I always thanked the fish in a loud voice for giving up its life for us. Life eats life, beings die so that I can live, and I can’t ignore that. I don’t let it keep me from fishing salmon, but I won’t pretend that I am not killing a splendiferous entity. Some of my clients understood.
Heck, I apologize to trees when I cut them down. Yeah, I know it looks dumb, a grown man talking to trees. But it doesn’t stop me from cutting them down by the scores if need be, I’m a realist. Life eats life. Me, I don’t take killing anything lightly, be it redwood or herring or salmon. Someday, I’ll be chopped down in the same way.
So I’m forming the Conservamentalist Party, our motto will be,“Conservamentalists unite! You have nothing to lose but your minds”.
Now, back to the climate…
Bryan: Fur seals, any seals for that matter harvested in Alaska are not wasted. This is considered a subsistence hunt and is closely controlled. Seal pelts, throats, teeth, and whiskers can be taken for arts and crafts purposes. These can then be sold by Alaska Natives. The seal is butchered and the meat harvested and eaten. When you have a choice between locally harvested meat and $15+ a pound frozen hamburger flown/barged in the word conservation has a slightly different meaning.
Shona (13:24:19) wrote :
“I am not a vegetarian because I don’t just love mammals. I also love leccuce and carrots, and they are living beings too.”
That reminds me of a bit of political backlash that a hiking friend, Paula McMasters, embroidered onto her hat:
“If you like plants, don’t eat them!”
Phil M
“In fact, what exactly is the point of this post? Besides the obvious recanting of your exploits in the fishing and timber industries?”
Got me guessing Phil. What exactly has he recanted?
As word meanings evolve, regional dialects emerge. I am not familiar with two meanings for “conservationist,” although I don’t doubt that you have encountered them. My own experience leads me to the following observations:
Conservationists give us multiple-use.
Environmentalists give us wilderness areas.
Both are needed, but some environmentalists don’t seem to think so.
hendrik (16:12:22) said :
“Dear Willis,
“I can completely agree with your reasoning. I am a biologist working (amongst others) with rats and mouses. I am doing reseach for cancer cures. I have killed at this moment about 2500 rats for my research. Does this make make a monster?
“Without the type of research I am doing there would be not a single cure for cancer.
“Sometimes I hope (in vain) that this message gets through into the nutcases that oppose this type of experimenting (before they are struck with cancer, that is).”
Yes, it DOES make you a monster. Experiment on humans with cancer; they will let you, but do not inflict disease on innocent animals and then torture them in search of a cure.
According to you, I’m a nut case. According to the Dalai Lama, I’m on the right track. You arrogance is amazing. You claim that without “the type of research” you are doing “there would be not a single cure for cancer.” Really? And how many millions upon millions of animals have been tortured and sacrificed for the supposed cures it has produced? Have YOU or your findings cured anyone of anything?
[I’m deleting this rest of this. Ethics of medical research may be a valid topic, but when we get into terms such as “supposed cures”, dismissing modern medicine outright, the discussion is not a rational discussion. I’d probably lean against allowing much more of this. ~ ctm]
I would like to point out that the updated image of the correct type of seal is that of a white-coat put. It has been illegal to hunt white-coat pups since 1987.
Dave Springer,
If you were more religious you would realise that the instructions in Genesis changed radically when God sent the flood and wiped out the natural riches that allowed an easy vegan diet. After the flood Noah’s descendants had different instructions.
To summarize then …
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
…”
Ecclesiastes
Juanslayton,
wrong on both counts.
BigGubmint TAKES this land from private citizens and charges us money to be allowed to enjoy a small part of it.
Environmenalists use contributions to buy land to preserve from exploitation and then lease the mineral rights to buy more land.
How long do you think it will be before normal citizens will not have access to any of this land at a price they can afford??
Hi Willis. Interesting comment. Much of it resonates with me. I “talk” to plants and animals, etc. as well. I recycle — and do a sight better at this than several self-styled environmentalists who live nearby, judging from the number of recycling bins in front of my — versus their — houses, as well as garbage bags (my one per week versus their 10 or 12). I’m also a major scrounge, and never buy new when I can reuse, repair or restore. I also (until we learned it was meaningless) only bought EnergyStar and low-wattage bulbs.
I will say, however, that your term “conservamentalism” doesn’t work for me. My first reaction was “conservationism + fundamentalism” — probably not what you mean. Indeed, almost exactly the opposite. It would make a nice pejorative label for Greenpeace, WWF and PETI sorts.
How about “enviro-rationalism”? Or, something slightly less sterile, like “philonaturalogism”, which combines roots for “love of”, “nature” and “study of/rationality”? A term, I mean, whose root words imply that one is oriented to care about the health of the environment, but subsumes this love of nature to a rational outlook. This view is typified by many farmers and outdoorsmen. Last I looked, Ducks Unlimited (to name an example) was an “activist” organization with this type of philosophy. Now, please, nobody tell me that DU has bought the AGW stuff hook, line and sinker — if so hopefully it’s a barb-free hook 🙂 🙂 — all I need is one more shattered illusion 🙁
Regarding your ongoing discussions with Mr. Fehr: It seems that the two of you are not as far apart in your philosophy as your debate would suggest. But I beg to differ with some of your statements about the pre-colonial natives. I won’t say “counting coups” didn’t happen; it evidently did in some places and contexts, but no true history of native warfare leads to the conclusion that they NORMALLY regarded “battles” as a variation on flag football. They played for keeps. Battles were their way of protecting territory against invaders and, at times, to strategically weaken tribal enemies, which in both cases meant killing, sometimes wiping out entire clans, kidnapping and raping, etc. It was not necessarily any more brutal than much that was going on in Europe at the time, but it was certainly not a peacenik’s paradise, and comparisons of which society was more brutal or destructive gets moot when we talk (in both cases) about slaughters of hundreds at a time, or (in the natives’ case) of driving thousands of buffalo over cliffs to feed a few dozen people for a couple of months, or the inuit habit of slaughtering enough elk to make mountains of bones, orders of magnitude beyond their collective needs in any given season.
Yes, I agree the natives have given us much positive tradition to think about. I agree that “thanking the fish that gave it’s life” helps orient one correctly WRT nature. I do something similar. I regard GAIA-ism and animism repugnant, but in my way I offer thanks for what is received (I am a Christian; I thank my god and I pray for the welfare of nature, and that God who, according to Jesus, sees every sparrow that falls would care for even the animals that I kill and eat — and I only do so with profoundest respect for His creation). At the most basic level this is an important spiritual exercise, in whatever form it makes sense for each person. Far more repugnant to me is the notion that “exploiting” nature means to crash, burn and destroy out of self-interest with no thought to the larger issues or one’s place in the universe. Shooting squirrels (for example) for no reason other than it is fun, or pulling wings off flies, or torturing feral cats for entertainment. There’s no excuse, anyone who does this stuff is already damaged.
peterhodges (17:47:04) :
James Sexton (17:26:09) : Basic economics.
well, basic economic theory anyway. unfortunately, it seems actual economics works more like i described it. i.e. tell John “Competition is a sin” Rockefeller or the folks who own the fed they are not true capitalists.
while i agree with your sentiment, i guess i am saying that monopoly-capitalism as practiced today is incompatible with freedom
Agreed, sort of. My apologies. I was on the phone for a protracted period of time conversing about American football. I’d have liked to responded more intelligently before I consumed so much beer. The connotation you tried to convey is true, sort of. Monopolies in themselves are not necessarily a bad thing. I know many will disagree with me, but it doesn’t make it not true. It is the abuse of a monopoly that is bad. (Rockafellers, to my knowledge, hold no monopoly.) In fact, I’m not sure there is a good example of a monopoly today in a capitalist society. Bell was one, but we broke that up for a more complex and expensive form of communication. It has been said that Bill Gates is a monopolist, but that’s only because we’re too lazy or stupid to be able to use an alternative form of an OS.(As I type this on a Vista infected machine.) Regardless of his fiscal morality, he’s done the world a huge favor. We would not have this wonderful forum today without the likes of MS, Intel, or IBM. All of whom have been accused of monopolistic behaviors, and yet, were integral in the advancement(maybe) of mankind. But those capitalistic ventures were created to make capital, not to control all aspects of mankind’s life. On the other hand, totalitarian communism or fascism……..both state sponsored control of life. Well, until we find a more perfect way, I’ll stick with capitalism. I prefer a Gates or Rockefeller over a Stalin or Pot any day.
Blessing an animal for its sustenance is the best spirit a man can have. Willis, you are the best- Thankyou.
Reply: Biblical references to humans’ relationships with non-humans will no longer be discussed, nor biblical reference to sentience or non-sentience. If you need to go down the path of sentience or consciousness discussions please discuss in terms of Behaviorism, ie Skinner. This is not a blog to debate religion. ~ ctm
Anthony, you should have known it would go down this path. ctm, you should have jumped earlier.
The reason why we call them animals, is because they’re NOT PEOPLE.
Reply: There are multiple moderators. This is volunteer work. I’m not here all the time. Sometimes the food fight breaks out while I’m in the bathroom and I have to come back and be all adult ‘n stuff. ~ ctm
You’re quite mad. But in a nice way.
or provide a different thread/website? for those that wish to go down this path. For me, it isn’t why I’m here, but feel obliged to respond to the ignorant/condescending articulations. And……. I’m morally compelled according to my beliefs.
Reply: Have fun. ~ ctm
I don’t feel a bit guilty about being at the top of the food chain. I also don’t believe that man is the scourge of the earth. I can release into the wind every plastic food bag that I have every encountered and the difference to world is nothing compared to a single tornado. I declare myself inconsequential. Is there a government form that I can fill out that will release me from the bullshit?
Too many comments to read at bedtime, but I must say “Conservamentalist” is an awkward locution.
How about a simple “Conservator”? My dictionary widget defines it as, “A person responsible for the repair and preservation of works of art, buildings, or other things of cultural or environmental interest.”
I’m not for ‘-ists’ any way. Years ago a friend named Todd Kelso, now gone, used to complain about ‘-isms’, claiming he was an ‘anti-ism-ist’.
I wouldn’t mind being a conservator, and I think Willis is one, already.
/Mr Lynn
“The natives in North America always had a sustainable way of life and thanked every animal and the Earth for giving what they used or eat. They are the first Conservamentalists.”
The prairies were fertile grounds for thousands of years, and when white folks went to the prairie, they turned it into a dusty heap in less than a century. That’s not some greenie hyperbole, that’s history.
Christoph Horst (18:38:49) :
The original sin committed by environmentalists and many others who bear warm feelings towards the environment is to impose human categories upon nature. Categories such as good, bad, deserving, “sustainable”, morals, worth, love… Animals don’t think in categories like that (to say nothing of plants). They don’t think at all.>>
So certain are we? How many animals kill for sport? Besides humans, weasels. There are probably other examples… but not many. In summer, my dog likes to sleep on the lawn in the back yard. We have a local bird called a Grackle. They pick up pebbles off the road, fly to a tree branch, very carefully line up the shot… and drop it on the dog’s head. When one scores a direct hit, the whole bunch start cackling. Ever sit in a canoe on the lake watching a bear rip through your camp site? They are very good at taking the lids off of jars. I do not think anyone sat down with a bear and “showed them how”. Ever see a dog corner a racoon on a beach? The racoon will fight, but slowly retreat into the water. Once the racoon has suckered the dog in far enough it will climb abord the dog’s head and hold it under until it drowns (good thing for stupid dog he was over his head, but not over my head). I had the neighbour’s dog show up in my yard once, barking like crazy. Tried to shoo her away and she lunged at me, bit the bottom edge of my pant leg, and started dragging me. It was half a mile to the neighbour’s place and they weren’t home. There were some three month old puppies and one of them had it’s head stuck in a tin can. That dog knew she couldn’t help the puppy but that she could go and get someone who could. On a trout lake, loons will follow the fishermen about. When you try and release a small one, the loons come up from the below and take the fish right out of your hand, they know it is too exhausted to swim away and avoid them, and no one taught them that, they figured it out on their own.
As a rule, animals don’t kill except to eat or in self defense. If that isn’t a sense of morals, I don’t know what is. They reason, they amuse themselves, they problem solve. No not to the extent that we do, but suggesting that they don’t think at all and aren’t self aware? Observation suggests otherwise.
bubbagyro (20:08:43) : I was/am in total, complete agreement with you, really, until you stated “if do-gooders did not convert grain to alcohol”. Then I was taken aback. I coughed my beer on my shirt when I read it!!!! Obviously, you’ve disregarded Tom Jefferson’s thought, “Beer is proof God wants us to be happy.” And for you people across the pond, I believe there was a minister that asked about the inseparable idea of beer and Britannica, but I don’t recall the name, you’ll have to help me out.
I’ve drank dandelion wine, and don’t wish to do it again. Like energy, we’ve an abundance of grain, all we have to do is to choose to have it. We’re no closer to “running out of resources” than when Adam first drew a breath. Go to the USGS to understand that we find more resources at an exponential rate. How it compares to our reproductive rate? IDK, but I know we’ll always find a way without having to engage in some ‘cide or another. Reality is always there, we just have to find it.
“Biblical references to humans’ relationships with non-humans will no longer be discussed, nor biblical reference to sentience or non-sentience. If you need to go down the path of sentience or consciousness discussions please discuss in terms of Behaviorism, ie Skinner. This is not a blog to debate religion. ~ ctm”
Bring it up with Larry. I don’t believe in the bible. As for sentience, who cares what Skinner had to say on the subject? This is 2010, and we’ve progressed.
Editing out anything I’ve said that might strick someones conscience or ability to empathize with animals is interesting. Is this really what “science” has come down to? Defending ancient scientific truisms (“animals can’t think”), just to appear scientific?
The religious posters attacking Eschenbach or trying to “correct” him are part of the subject at hand. If they’ve made religion an issue, how can we suddenly pretend otherwise? His own post strays into this area.
Incidentally, are moderators supposed to judge letters based on their personal beliefs or on their relevance to the threads?
Just wondering.
Reply: Don’t take it personally because my inline response appeared in your comment. My response was for everyone involved. This means the end of the Biblical discussion even if you did not start it. Don’t get defensive. Nothing you said was deleted. ~ ctm
Reply 2: Oops, I was mistaken, some of your medical testing comment was deleted. I was focused on the religion ones. Yeah well, moderation has a subjective side, and there are certain subjects we can decided are too inflammatory for a particular thread. I often censor comments I agree with because they could launch flame wars and off topic discussions. I did make a negative comment in your deletion, because you went from a potentially valid question to being completely dismissive of modern medicine. ~ ctm
@Jack:
‘ “Environmentalist”
‘The word was demonized by the right wing scream team. They focus on the more obscure or radical types of environmentalists, and smear everyone else by comparison. Environmentalists cannot be countenanced because their faith that industry protects them is challenged by accusations of impiety, creating pollution and such. Environmentalists in this regard are the skeptics, the right wing scream team the believers.’
Amen. For whatever reason, if you buy a hybrid car, or you buy perfume-free dryer sheets, or if you turn off your lights when you’re out of the room, you’re trying to destroy capitalism. Um, sorry, I didn’t realize it was my moral obligation to be wasteful, in order to help those poor billionaires in the energy sector get more of my money. I thought the money was mine, to spend as I saw fit…and I choose to conserve it. :-> The perfume-free dryer sheets are because the regular ones make me sick as a dog, and I try to cut back on the chemicals as much as possible because, ever since I was a teenager and got an overdose of a strong pesticide, loads of products set off the same dire reaction.
Along those lines, have you noticed how many conservatively-minded folks out there talk a mean game about how they’re free to do as they wish and don’t want those darn “greenies” telling them how to live, but they seem awfully eager to tell everyone what they should eat, how they should get to and from work, who they should marry and what they should worship? If the majority weren’t so darned hypocritical I’d identify with the conservatives. I might, if they ever stop trying to run everyone else’s lives.
“The prairies were fertile grounds for thousands of years, and when white folks went to the prairie, they turned it into a dusty heap in less than a century. That’s not some greenie hyperbole, that’s history.”
There are more trees and green areas now than before “white folks” settled here. The Native American’s (Indians) moved from site to site, spoiling everything in their path. They only took because it never occurred to them to give back. The environment was saved because Native American’s were not very successful at population growth. THAT’S history.
regeya (21:20:36) :
“The natives in North America always had a sustainable way of life and thanked every animal and the Earth for giving what they used or eat. They are the first Conservamentalists.”
The prairies were fertile grounds for thousands of years, and when white folks went to the prairie, they turned it into a dusty heap in less than a century. That’s not some greenie hyperbole, that’s history.
Nice fictional history. Lewis and Clark’s expedition described it as a “vast wasteland.” You been by Kansas lately? The bread on your big mac? Where do you think that came from? Right now would be a good time for you to pop by. Come see the “dusty heap” now. We provide much of the food you’re eating. What the heck our you people smoking? READ SOMETHING MORE USEFUL THAN A COMIC BOOK!!!!
Sorry.
I really and truly did not mean to trip a religion alarm–I was looking for a way to make the point.
Which is this:
For some reason (whose nature I am willing to leave to individuals) we humans wound up in charge here.
There is no mandate to eradicate humans to protect the snail darter.
If the humans didn’t get the seals, the polar bears would.
If the humans didn’t get the fish, the whales would.
That’s the way the system works.
And part of my point was that they way the system works involves responsibilities and duties 0n me and my kind.
I don’t fish unless I am hungry.
Hanging deer heads on the wall and throwing the rest in the garbage (or putting it in the freezer until it is too old to eat and then putting it in the garbage) is, I think, just wrong.
I do not endorse waste of resources of any kind (including letting oil seep out of the earth and float away like it does in the sea off of California).
I live on the prairies. It is most certainly NOT a dusty heap.
European style farming generated an absolutely massive food growing capability. Unfortunately the combination of pioneer attitude and European methods got a bit out of hand, and there were some issues in the 30s.
But “we” (humans) adapt. The prairies ARE sustainable, sustaining, and in no danger (unless CO2 bans make it difficult to create proper fertilizers, which is NOT hyperbole but a frightening possibility).
The prairies were not fertile before. Grasslands are typically only one step short of desert, and in fact there are desert areas on the prairies.