Talk:Hard green

	This Environmentalism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Human industrialization not so dangerous to nature after all?

I think that it would be quite helpful to incorporate the information in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LDGzXpei8k Skadooshbag (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This page is a tragedy

Australia was burning last year. The US West Coast is burning this year. The BBC recently aired "Extinction: The Facts," which is nothing short of alarming. But apparently, RW sees it fit to sport a neoliberal critique of green movements that reads like it has been written by a climate denying neocon. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 84.2.222.161 (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"This has virtually nothing to do with effective or sensible environmentalism and more to do with stupidity."

I mean, if you truly want to stan folk like Pentti Linkola, would you personally be willing to volunteer as tribute for the logical conclusion to their ideals? Colossal Squid (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Eco-Fascism could be it's own page

The section is large enough, and the topic distinct enough from the rest of the article to warrant its own.^{— Unsigned, by: 67.218.223.162 / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

Feel free to create the article, you might want to start it as a draft although that’s not mandatory. Christopher (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There doesn’t seem to be and authors called or nicknamed Olduvai

Unless I’m missing something, I cannot find an author called Olduvai, the article mentions “his bleak theory” which I’m assuming is this, that’s the name of the theory however it wasn’t made by a person called Olduvai. Unless I’m missing something that just seems wrong.—WMS (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, that one. Richard C.Duncan was the creator. 37.35.148.242 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A few problems

Thus other, more extreme versions of DE incorporate a hodgepodge[4] of vaguely Oriental mysticism, spirituality, appeals to nature, hardcore Malthusianism, the Gaia hypothesis and, to put it bluntly, the belief that human beings are equal in value to the rest of Mother Earth's children, including rabid possums, spiders, slime molds, polio and the AIDS virus.[5] Making all species equal would do nothing but destroy any concepts of human rights that have been developed and fought for over the past few centuries, because killing a human would be morally equated to eating a peanut butter sandwich (Think of the poor peanuts!).

This reads like a moralistic argument. There's no factual reasoning given why that equal valuation of human life to all other life on this planet is an incorrect assumption. There's no facts to debate here, only that of ethics and value assignment. I'm sure we can find a stronger argument than the slipper slope fallacy and snarky dismissals with no factual substances at play here.

Though these DE adherents may be rather vague about how this would happen in practice, it still puts their ideas where the far left wraps around and meets the far right.[8]

This is a stupid sentence. Horseshoe theory is considered deprecated in political science as it ignores the existence of a political spectrum entirely. An anarcho-primitivist is very different from an ecofascist, they are not the same.

Some of them are just nutty kids who take silly butterfly pseudonyms and spend months sitting in trees protesting logging, or show their opposition to modern technology by adopting freeganism or some variation of the paleo diet,[note 4] hopping freight trains for their transportation and squatting in abandoned or foreclosed houses, all of which are modern technology.

This is a strawman. No green anarchist would consider this a serious criticism worth acknowledging. Green anarchists are not equivalent to Luddites. More snark without substance also.

Curiously, many anarcho-primitivists don't seem to have a problem using digital technology and the Internet, while those anarchists who do make a point of refusing to use computers at all on ethical grounds, such as The Match publisher Fred Woodworth, seem to hold very little truck with anarcho-primitivism.[19]

Actually it's not that curious if you ever bothered to have a dialogue with an anarcho-primitivist or green anarchist (or just read the corpus of anprim literature).

The Unabomber (Theodore Kaczynski) was not really affiliated with anarcho-primitivism per se, but advocated a similar return to a primitive society without technology. His manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future[20] was based more on psychology than ecology

I've read anarchist literature arguing that civilization itself inculcates a sense of alienation, so the fact that Kaczynskyite theory is based more off psychology than ecology is not a relevant statement.

Anyway, overall this article this article lumps very different traditions together and proclaims them to be roughly similar enough to be worth lumping together. They are not. (This is in addition to the questionable assumptions made in this article and the low-quality snark without substance.) This is an insult to adequate understanding of fringe ideologies and movements. RW can do better than this. Carthage (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

An anarcho-primitivist is very different from an ecofascist, they are not the same.

They aren't, but they're both reactionaries and have some similar motivations. I remember that I added, to our page about him, mention of a letter the Unabomber wrote near to the end of his life denouncing eco-fascists. In any case he was still trying to roll back humanity to a previous stage, similar to a neo-monarchist, except instead to an even earlier stage. I got the sense even reading his own words that he knew this would lead to a human catastrophe (lots of dead people), just he was convinced it would happen sooner or later. Chillpilled (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the only similar motivations are rooted in their green politics. Anarcho-primitivism is rooted in an ethical rejection of hierarchy and coercive dominance, it's just that anprims go further than most anarchists and identify civilization itself as a source of hierarchical dominance. Eco-fascist politics seeks to act militantly to reify hierarchies. I should also qualify that there is a distinction between green anarchism and anarcho-primitivism (e.g., all anprims are green anarchists, but not all green anarchists are anprims). IIRC Zerzan himself wrote a tract criticising the reactionary tendencies of "pop" primitivism, but I haven't read that essay myself. Carthage (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

When I see incidents listed on this page, like the Earth First! founder supporting starvation for Ethiopians I think can see where the wrap-around is happening... one of the broader definitions of ecofascism is simply an exterminationist attitude towards people while citing environmentalist motivations. It isn't some great leap for them to start prioritizing which people get to go first once you start thinking that way. Chillpilled (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That is true, but could we also be nutpicking? Like, how representative of a sample is it of the entire movement? Anyway, green politics is itself one of those things that transcends the political spectrum, as it is something everyone should be concerned about. However, the base ideological reasoning for, say, ethnosupremacist ecofascism is very different from the base ideological reasoning of green anarchism. This also manifests differently too, I don't see many ecofascists engaging in mutual aid projects, and I'm not aware of many green anarchists shooting up synagogues or mosques. Where tactics overlap is, say, infrastructure sabotage. But any effective insurgency would also target infrastructure, so I'm not sure how "strong" of a horseshoe "case" that is, as everyone from the Taliban to anti-Putinist partisans conduct attacks on infrastructure. Carthage (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how representative something like Earth First! is since I'm really not the most familiar person with these movements. I think the shared characteristic is they come to privilege non-human life over humans to some extent or another, though ecofascists might make an exception for their own race or other group. There might be a general misanthropic element, and I think the Unabomber talked about something like that, which he attributed to "leftism" for some reason. You do see misanthropic tendencies in mass shooters, even the Columbine kids (especially Harris), which seems to lend itself into fascistic sympathies a noticeable amount of the time (again Harris is a decent example although there are plenty more by this late date). In the wider deep green movement, it may be the case that most people within it want equal consideration for both human and non-human life (especially animals). I think in the face of failures over the decades, there might be an increasing sense of misanthropy despite that ideal. But I don't have some barometer to figure out how common it is. At the least, I can't say pointing out what the founder of Earth First! said is some sort of nutpicking. So I think it could at least be noted as an example of this burgeoning overlap even if it didn't represent the whole movement. They've popped up enough in readings on radical environmentalism that I don't think they're just some unknown group. Chillpilled (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(EC) The actions of Earth First! is definitely considered something to be admired in green militancy. (They tend to be viewed as pioneers or trendsetters. The tactics they innovated are emulated and the overall aims are considered sympathetic, although it depends too.) There is definitely a level of misanthropy in some of the more nihilist elements of the hard green/green anarchist scene.

Although the hard greens I've talked to tend to be politically progressive (as in saying that people in Ethiopia should die is an instant sign you're an eco-fascist), I've also encountered my fair share of misanthropes. I just think the movement is a little too diverse to apply broad brush strokes as green politics is something that should concern everybody, so it makes sense misanthropic nihilists, hardcore fascists, militant anarchists, libertarians, liberals, and whatnot would be attracted to green politics. It transcends the political spectrum. Carthage (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(EC) I'll admit I haven't read the entire discussion above, but which anprins are as prominent to the general public as the Unabomber and Varg Vikernes? I don't think I'm nutpicking here since they seem to be the main inspirations for the average anprim, not older thinkers or modern academics, it's like saying that Steve Bannon and Alex Jones aren't major exponents of modern conservatism. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Desert (available here) is an influential work in the eco-anarchist scene. Varg Vikernes is also more influential to fascists than anarchists. Ted K's influence tends to be more dispersed. Some love him, some loathe him, but he's influenced almost every green ideological trend. Carthage (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ok, fair enough. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)