>>I am not sure what you are referring to, but I do not think it is a
>>sound idea to let zealotry decide ones level of (environmental)
>>commitment. Especially as zealots rarely give a damn about the cause
>>they happen to have embraced anyhow and only are in it to further
>>their own personal agendas.

Kirt said:
>You are very right: it is not sound at all.

I meant to say "other peoples zealotry".

>I think that at some point _individuals_ en masse will need to stand
>up to corporate America. In in the final analysis this is done buy
>purchasing (or lack thereof), as much as by protesting. Certainly both
>are important. It seems to be the tendency for so many people to be
>hoodwinked by advertising that is the base issue.
>When coporate folks can create needs (say, for soda) on masses who are
>seemingly oblivious, I'm afraid even the strongest eco-government may
>not be strong enough to make the difference.

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.

>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.

>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.

>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. ;-)

>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. Of course
living in Los Angeles I am not exactly overwhelmed by environmental
zealots. :-)


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.

>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.

>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.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]