In this Instapundit entry, I saw something that brought me up short:
Indeed, but door number two is a distinct possibility: Progressives Against Progress. The rise of environmentalism poisoned liberals’ historical optimism.
The idea of a progressive being against progress was something I hadn't seriously considered before. I've long had this abstract notion that most progressive ideas end up being self-undermining when subjected to a reductio ad absurdum. And in general, most progressives often seem to be for progress regardless of what that might do to society. But being explicitly against progress? The idea seemed strange.
Then there was the startling notion—which I really should have realized long before now—that environmentalism, at least as articulated by wild-eyed progressives like AOC, is paradoxically anti-progressive because it advocates primitivism. How can you advocate going back to a state of nature while also promoting values that can only arise thanks to the perks of civilization? In a primitive state, will women still be considered equal, or do we go back to more overt male dominance? Will there still be a wide definition of meritocracy that goes beyond something as simple as "Who's the strongest?" or "Who's the craftiest?" or "Who's the most ruthlessly efficient?" What happens to quick transportation, which currently prevents a kind of widespread ableism (in a primitive society, only the fleet of foot and the strong of leg will be able to travel far without cars; as things are now, you can weigh 500 pounds and be barely able to move, but you can still fly to another country)?
And if I haven't thought this through, maybe the anti-progressive progressives haven't thought things through, either. Progressives, what do you really want?
7 comments:
"you can weigh 500 pounds and be barely able to move, but you can still fly to another country"
And it seems like they are always seated next to me on a crowded flight.
I disagree that most environmentalism equates to primitivism. I say "most," because I'm honestly not all that familiar with AOC or extreme environmental movements. Environmentalism, at least as I understand it, is about figuring out how to have our progress and not destroy the planet at the same time. Does this become problematic at times? Sure--especially when first-world nations who got where they are by completely disregarding the environment turn around and say to third-world nations trying to follow the same path, "No, you can't do that, because we're enlightened now." That's like climbing up into the treehouse and saying, "Oh, we're going to just pull this ladder up now. You guys won't need this, right?"
But the idea that people are advocating going back to a pre-civilized state of nature... well, that's obviously ridiculous. Are there people out there who might advocate this? I'm sure there are. But people say all sorts of crazy stuff. The craziest are always in the minority. Any movement defined by its fringe elements is going to look loopy.
I generally agree, especially re: the arrogance of first-world countries. I specified AOC, though, because she's been ranting about cow farts and the need to stop using all air-polluting forms of transportation. AOC (and her ilk) would definitely want us all in a more primitive state, and that's nuts.
Charles,
It occurs to me, though, that primitivism isn't necessarily all that fringe when you start thinking about the fact that (1) the AOC faction might be far left, but the far left has generally taken over the Democratic party; (2) there are plenty of non-AOC environmentalists who would love to see us all stop
- using plastic bags because they kill animals and are non-biodegradable
- using paper bags because that kills trees
- using fossil fuels because they produce pollution
- living in non-green houses that don't harness sunlight the "proper" way
...it's almost as though most environmentalists do, in fact, advocate some degree of primitivism.
This might be a good question to explore, come to think of it. How primitivist are today's environmentalists? How do we even judge degrees of primitivism? How should primitivism even be defined? The issue makes for a tempting rabbit hole to go down.
Well, I think we should stop using plastic bags, too! But I know that's not going to happen until we come up with a viable alternative. I've read about advances in packaging using natural materials (like mushrooms/fungi), and I think once such materials become feasible, we might be able to move beyond plastic bags.
Maybe it's just me, but I want sustainable progress--in other words, progress that is going to have the least impact on the environment as possible. I say "least impact" because it is impossible to live in a place and have no impact on it. Even a so-called "primitive lifestyle" has an impact on the environment.
Am I trying to have my cake and eat it too (a phrase I hate, but it gets the point across)? Are progress and protecting the environment antithetical? I don't think so. It's certainly not easy to achieve both, but it's also not impossible. To be honest, I find primitivism to be just as lazy as complete disregard for the environment. Both stances amount to throwing your hands in the air and saying, "Well, there's nothing we can do about it!"
As for judging degrees of primitivism, that's probably too deep a rabbit hole for me. I would define "primitivism," though, as the belief that the trappings of modern civilization are irreconcilable with protecting the environment. If that's what you believe as an individual, feel free to unplug and go live on a homestead where you live an off-the-grid, self-sustaining lifestyle. I'd be lying if I said the thought never crossed my mind. But I find it hard to believe that all that many people want to pursue this ideology at the societal level. Like I said above, I don't know a lot about AOC or any of the other parties involved, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of straw men here.
There could be some straw-manning happening, but if you read the above-linked City Journal article by Fred Siegel (I'll link it here again), you'll see that Siegel argues that the left's primitivist vision of environmentalism is actually pretty mainstream, taking decades to develop. So it's a fairly widespread attitude. Personally, I think your own attitude ("sustainable progress") is much more reasonable. Barring a disastrous world war that sets us back centuries, civilization is only going to continue to evolve, and as you say, we can't help but affect our environment whether we go primitivist or not. Sustainable progress is really the only way forward.
I will fully admit that I might be out of touch with the mainstream. I kind of like it that way, to be honest.
Post a Comment