Looping the Hen

I guess it is easy for many to pigeonhole others instead of realizing that people are much more complex than our base assumptions. I know my friend from Cali (G_Max from the comments) is Green, while I am closer to Libertarian (though not quite). Well, what does that really mean? You may not believe me, but I don't really want to pollute the oceans with a toxic sludge of mercury and dioxin. I don't want children to grow up with brain cancer because someone once thought it was a good idea to use lead paint. And to be honest, no matter how much we tease each other or argue, I don't really believe he thinks that of me.

People may not like my argument, part of which is that I believe that the wealthier society is as a whole, the more 'natural environmentalism' will take place. And that I believe wealth is best generated by business. Its like Maslow. Once the necessities are out of the way, like food, shelter, clothing, then people are more likely to open their eyes to wilderness, and endangered species and ideas beyond their immediate needs. (Even if it is for no other reason that someday rich people might want to go there and see the pretty owls.)

If I am a logger who can't feed my family, well, you know, the Spotted Owl isn't a symbol for crap other than that I am a failure and can't provide for my loved ones. Is saving the Spotted Owl a worthy goal? Sure it is. Is it worth having 30,000 people out of work to do so? For me, that is a much harder question, and most likely I'll go with the logger keeping his job. By that token, does that mean my friend is indifferent to the son and daughter of the logger? No, of course not; however, because of where he's at, he sees a bigger picture, the one of the whole planet and the inherent value of every species. He would probably be amenable to suggestions of relocating or retraining the loggers, or making sure they get some sort of financial aid.

I would most likely suggest instead that the lumberjacks, who really like the wilderness (hence their profession), might be persuaded to part voluntarily with some of their earnings and partner with the Sierra Club to buy up 20,000 acres for the cute lil feathery job-stealers to live. Sure, would it be better for the owls to have 70,000,000 acres to live in? Yes. Is it realistic to put infinite swaths of natural resources off-limits for the Lorax and his friends? Probably not.

In the end we believe in similar results, but to different degrees. He's not a demon, and neither am I. There are a whole slew of arguments we have that are just as complex, from affirmative action to the economy to the war, and although our viewpoints often differ on what are the best methods to developing a great country (and world), they mostly end up at the same place: lots of happy people, and a pristine world for them to explore.