Kirt:
>>seemingly oblivious, I'm afraid even the strongest eco-government may
>>not be strong enough to make the difference.

Peter:
>I agree. But I think both protesting, consumer boycotts and government
>regulations are going to be necessary if we are going to have a chance
>of turning things around. And the government could start by canceling
>its corporate welfare program.

The whole welfare program would be my vote. Melisa's new job rubs serious
elbows with the welfare-to-work program. It appears to be another
disappointing use of public money...

>>People can choose what clothes to wear. That fashion is more important
>>than a portion of a wild animal population is regrettable, but I find
>>the sentiment/energy involved in the animal rights movement is
>>mis-focused and overblown by the folks who expect that chaining
>>themselves to the mall doors will save any particular animal.

>You are wrong. For many years this form of activism a la Brigitte
>Bardot was very effective and sales of furs plummeted. Only recently
>have they rebounded somewhat.

I am much too ignorant of the scene to comment, and probably should not
have done so in the first place. :/

>>On the other hand, I find the average Amercian consumer _very_
>>under-blown about how their purchases affect the planet. Both extremes
>>are fanatical to my eyes.

>It is very difficult to get too fanatical about species being wiped out
>for vanity. Having said that animal rights type people are often not my
>cup of tea.

I guess that's what I was trying to get at--very clumsily so.

>>You could probably take NFL's attitude and substitute "don't
>>pollute/consume" as the message and get some idea about the kind of
>>in-your-face environmental evangelical rap I'm speaking of. Or Rene's
>>holier-than-thou bit has its eco-face as well. Whenever someone else
>>istelling everyone else how to live, and holding them to standards
>>which they have decided are Truth, I think there is a problem. One
>>finds the full range of eco-attitudes in the letters to Real Goods
>>published in the Real Goods News. I don't know what else might be
>>shared experience btwn us in order that I may provide an example.

>I find comparing Real Goods customers with NFL and Rene bit of a
>stretch. If the comparison was even close, I doubt that Real Goods
>would still be in business today. ;-)

No, no. I'm speaking of the "debate" that rages in the mail to them. They
always print a couple letters from the huffy puffy "how dare you sell
non-beeswax candles to yuppies you absurd sell-outs--cancel my subscription
and I'll never speak to you again" crowd. The "average" Real Goods customer
is, I'd guess, a very reasonable chap (or chapess) and I would never
compare them to diet zealots...

>>Like raw foods, I hold eco stuff pretty close to my heart. Perhaps
>>that is why it arouses me so when examples of zealotry are often
>>heard.

>My zealotry detector is very well developed, but when it comes to the
>environment I cannot say I have encountered much of it.

I hadn't either, but the experience was very impressive to me when I did. I
didn't have any blow out with them or anything, but I did find the
arrogance/hypocrisy very much of a turn off. When I return to the "deep
ecology" liturature, it just doens't look the same, you know? Perhaps I
allow such "personality" issues too much power to taint my view of things.
Still, I end up somewhat embarrassed to call myself a rawist (when Rene and
NFL, etc do as well) and even an instincto (when Guy-Claude seems to have
tainted the word so by his behavior). I suppose it shouldn't make much
difference, but (perhaps for the tribal reasons you mention below ;) it
does. I _can_ separate the info from the personality, but that doesn't mean
I _want_ to, you know?

>Kirt said:
>>It is movements _themselves_ of I am wary of. I consider that people
>>very much want to be a part of something "larger than themselves"
>>(perhaps due to their disconnection from themselves and by extention
>>from Nature). When religion, diet, eco-warrior-ism, etc. fit the bill
>>and become rallying cries of folks hell-bent on changing other
>>people's behavior, I think, regardless of the issue, there is
>>potential for warping and problems.

>I think it is OK to be on a mission as long as one is not driven by
>hatred and prejudice, and I think that wanting to make a difference and
>be part of something larger than oneself is part of a natural primate
>need we have to belong to a tribal family.

That's fine, as far as it goes, but is the eco-movement (or rawism) a
reasonable substitute for a tribal family. Beggars can't be choosers but I
wonder...

I, in my gut, feel the problem is mission-hood itself as much as zealotry
per say. I am unable to find an organisation/movement (from the Special
Olymics to school beurocracies to environmentalism, etc) w/o its fanatics.
One could argue that there would be fanatics w/o such organizations, but
the overwhelming tendancy I see is for a "certain type" to end up
manipulating any institution neurotically. Having spent too much time
trying to "even out" such tendencies in various situations (this list
included ;)) I am beginning to consider my "role" as similarly neurotic.
Everyone considers they are on the right side of an issue. Probably
"issues" themselves are part of the "problem". Of course, it will never be
as simple as I make it, but I do wonder...

FWIW, Belushi and Akryod in Blues Brothers are the only ones who can get
away with being on a "mission from God" for me ;)

>>I can remember quite well when I realized that my own historic
>>tendencies to social activism were as much in order to change change
>>other people so I would have a chance of "fitting" in with them, as it
>>was real concern for the issue at hand. The issue will never
>>disappear, but my approach to dealing with them has certainly changed.

>As you mature this is only natural and as you start to overcome your
>own personal issues, you will go through even more changes in your
>attitudes to social activism.

No, I don't suspect that I've come to the end of any road...

>>We just aren't extreme enough for them. We set out some borax stuff
>>for the rodents in our attic. We drive a car. We watch lots of vidios.
>>Etc. Etc...

>And you are involved in groundbreaking research that has the potential
>of revolutionizing the life & course of Homo Sapiens on this planet.
>You are a match to the most dedicated environmentalist any day - you
>are just fighting different battles.

Why does this frighten instead of flatter? ;)

Backing away with a strange look on my face, :)
Kirt