Jump to content

Talk:Environmentalism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ayanoa (talk | contribs)
342 edits
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(364 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{environment}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{British English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High|Social movements=yes}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|ethics=yes|social=yes}}
}}
{{To do|collapsed=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 3
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:Environmentalism/Archive %(counter)d
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 2
}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
The article had been moved to [[Environmental movement in the United States]]. See [[Talk:Environmental movement in the United States]] for the past history. I have moved and cut'n'pasted relevent info back to this page ([[Environmentalism]]). I feel there is justifiction for an [[Environmentalism]] page and an [[Environmental movement]] page. Along with [[Environmentalist]] it divides the subject up neatly and avoids a cluttered [[Environmental movement]] article. It seem to me that moving a page on the international environmental movement with some stuff about the US to [[Environmental movement in the United States]] was a little geographically blinkered. [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] 07:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-08-27">27 August 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-12-16">16 December 2019</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/The_New_School/Introduction_to_Islam_(Fall_2019)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:LovellSmaj|LovellSmaj]].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 20:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
==File under Religion?==
== Moving content from Environmental justice page to this page ==
Should this article be filed under [[Religion]]. From a neutral POV, the following quote indicates to me that environmentalism is just another religion.


Hi! I am planning to move content currently in the "Critique of environmentalism" section of [[Environmental justice]] to the criticism and alternative views part of this page without much revision of the content. If anyone has any thoughts or concerns, please let me know. [[User:Zaelzo|Zaelzo]] ([[User talk:Zaelzo|talk]]) 17:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them."


:::[[User:Njh|Njh]] 10:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:Planning to move forward with this shortly. [[User:Zaelzo|Zaelzo]] ([[User talk:Zaelzo|talk]]) 05:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
::Done, if anyone has any thoughts feel free to share them here. I kind of think the See also section is like a less helpful version of the Green politics template so I'm not really sure what purpose it serves. The Michael Chricton paragraph seems like potentially undue weight since it is only about his opinion. [[User:Zaelzo|Zaelzo]] ([[User talk:Zaelzo|talk]]) 05:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


:::Good move but the section is weak. I agree with you on Chricton. A wider problem seems to me due to the fact that the page fails to provide an interpretation of the broad catalogue of environmentalists' ideas and the criticism section adds to the catalogue rather than an interpretation. It tends to portray criticism directed to a (non existing) single or main perspective. I have recently rewritten the Italian page ([[:it:Ambientalismo|ambientalismo]], hopefully you may machine translate it) drawing extensively from solid textbooks. The criticism is not yet covered but the fundamental threads of E. are, attempting to go beyond the catalogue approach. Perhaps it may offer some ideas. [[User:Tytire|Tytire]] ([[User talk:Tytire|talk]]) 21:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
:njh. Dont be absurd. Environmentalism is not a religion! (Well only in the sense that capitalism is).. Unsigned comment by 81.137.168.249

:The quotation (which you did not reference) comes from a [[Michael Crichton]] speech. Environmentalism is no more a religion than is say sport or shopping etc. One can have a passion for environmentalism (or sport, or shopping) with a religios zeal but is does not make it a religion. Like many words religion has more than one meaning. In his speech Crichton tries to write off the environmental movement as if it were a fringe religion. It is an oft quoted speech on Wikipedia but the central tenet of the speech is not widely held. [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== religion ? ==

hello
sorry, my english isnt good, but I can object something : from an encyclopedian point of view there are '''different''' streams of environmentalism, including some very materialistic, economical-driven streams (some speak of green capitalism). others point out the spiritual aspects perhaps but from an ethical point of view. And others pragmatic, including a lot of NGO, reformists want to apply precaution principle, international conventions protecting flora and fauna because they only "see" the pollution, the decline of biodiversity, the deforestation, the climate change ... and there are lots of reports, counterreports made by scientifics, they try to analyse the reality of the impact, not just "believe". the United nations (with de world bank) is also alarmed : they create a lot of initiatives, voluntary, non volontary : UNEP, protocole, conventions, global impact ...
another metaphor ; if i'm living like diane fossey, seing how they kills gorillas, i didn't need to be in a religious mood : poacher kills and destroys the country; collectively it would be ok to obtain collective consensus to solve the problems. --[[User:Ayanoa|Ayanoa]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)



== Suggested merges: [[environmentalism]] and [[ecologism]] ==

This article should be merged with [[environmentalism]]. -- [[User:Centrx|Centrx]] 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC) <small>Comment moved from [[talk:environmentalist]] by habj</small>
::That is, [[environmentalist]] should be merged with this article. -- [[User:Centrx|Centrx]] 21:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

: Agreed, having one article on the ideology and another of those who share it makes no sense. The article [[ecologism]] was also labelled as a possible merge, and I agree on that one two although not equally strong. Ecologism might be a slightly different thing than environmentalism, but the concepts are close enough to probably be better explained in the same article. // [[User:Habj|Habj]] 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::I don't know about it to say, but if, in fact, "ecologism" is nothing more than what is stated in the [[ecologism]] article, then it should be merged here. Even if it is somewhat different, if it is just a subset or branch of environmentalism, but still falls into the class "environmentalism", then it should be included here unless and until it becomes so massive that it wouldn't fit. -- [[User:Centrx|Centrx]] 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:I agree that ecologism and environmentalism should be merged. Ecologism is not a commonly used term at present so a seperate article for it is not justified. [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] 09:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:Environmentalism and environmentalist should have seperate articles. Both articles are hardly stubs and I am also in the "small article is beautiful" camp. Both articles may well grow in time. The environmentalist article is also a suitable place for those who end up at [[:Category:Environmentalists]]. [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] 09:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
----
text from ecologism,
'''Ecologism''', is the ideology of caring for nature, environment. There are different streams in ecologism, some emphasing, caring more for nature than men (directly) because the initial thought is that nature will sort things out and help mankind itself if we devoted more energy to it than ourselves, others emphasizing the responsability of human beings (The Imperative of Responsibility).

People with this [[ideology]] are often called [[environmentalist]]s, and an example of that is [[Green Peace]].

=== copy old text ===
I don't know about administration of article "history", but just in cas i copy the definition, perhaps something come up for the final result. --[[User:Ayanoa|Ayanoa]] 21:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:49, 17 July 2024

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LovellSmaj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving content from Environmental justice page to this page

[edit]

Hi! I am planning to move content currently in the "Critique of environmentalism" section of Environmental justice to the criticism and alternative views part of this page without much revision of the content. If anyone has any thoughts or concerns, please let me know. Zaelzo (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to move forward with this shortly. Zaelzo (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, if anyone has any thoughts feel free to share them here. I kind of think the See also section is like a less helpful version of the Green politics template so I'm not really sure what purpose it serves. The Michael Chricton paragraph seems like potentially undue weight since it is only about his opinion. Zaelzo (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good move but the section is weak. I agree with you on Chricton. A wider problem seems to me due to the fact that the page fails to provide an interpretation of the broad catalogue of environmentalists' ideas and the criticism section adds to the catalogue rather than an interpretation. It tends to portray criticism directed to a (non existing) single or main perspective. I have recently rewritten the Italian page (ambientalismo, hopefully you may machine translate it) drawing extensively from solid textbooks. The criticism is not yet covered but the fundamental threads of E. are, attempting to go beyond the catalogue approach. Perhaps it may offer some ideas. Tytire (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmentalism&oldid=1235090986"