This year, I was discussing possible costumes for Halloween with my wife when we decided perhaps we would go as the “Fad Fears.” What is scarier than dressing up as the swine flu and global warming?
So, she went with a pig nose, wings and thermometer in her mouth, and I was going to wear a globe with a coat on it. I mean, after all, nothing spells destruction for the human race more than pandemic and ecological disaster.
Please do not misunderstand me. I believe in ecological responsibility. I love visiting the great natural areas of the United States, enjoying the sights, sounds and feelings of the natural world. It is important to use our resources wisely. However, the turn that has occurred in our discussion of the Green Movement does not contribute to ecological responsibility. I personally think the Green Movement is sometimes an attempt to simply make normal life as difficult as possible.
The Green Movement does not emphasize responsibility. It emphasizes fear. The difference is clear: while conservationists like Al Gore should be stressing how ecological responsibility will enhance the quality of human life, instead they instill fear in the hearts of the public. They state we are on the verge of an ecological disaster. This fear leads to profit for those ecological naysayers in the media who predict disaster on the nightly news.
Some might wonder why ecological fear is disadvantageous. Quite simply, positive virtues, such as ecological responsibility, are not gained by negative actions or emotions. For example, one who wishes to gain a positive virtue, such as kindness toward others, does not truly acquire this attribute by negative actions. A kind person is not a hermit, but rather, one who regularly and consistently puts forth effort to care for others.
Thus, true ecological responsibility is not gained by fear, but rather by knowledge, which leads to empowerment.
Fear does not actually promote others to deal more responsibly with the environment.
Rather, it promotes us to horde food supplies and shotgun shells to protect our personal stash of supplies for Armageddon. A sense of empowerment, however, promotes us to act in a way which will benefit ourselves, our community and our world. Instead of making us fear the end of the world, conservationists should convince us of the positive effects of caring for the environment.
There is a false perception in society that people who actively depend on the environment for their livelihood, such as local farmers and ranchers, frequently ignore ecological responsibility. Nothing is further from the truth.
From experience, I can say the farmers I know are more concerned about water use from the Ogallala Aquifer than any city-slicker I have ever met. They understand and practice conservation more consistently than any former vice president from Tennessee. Using land for crops does not necessarily destroy it as a resource. Rather, responsible use usually improves the quality of the land and society.
Jared Diamond, in the book “Collapse,” offers an important example on how fear and too much caution in using resources actually promote ecological problems. When the national parks and forests were created, the priority was maintaining the forests exactly as they were. No one wanted our national forests to burn down, so measures were created to prevent forest fires. Smokey the Bear and other successful campaigns reduced fires dramatically in the 20th century.
However, we all know forest fires have increased in the last few years. Why are we having the huge wildfires in California and the West? Quite simply, forest fires are a natural way to clear forests for new growth. Natural fires occurring every half century or so cleared away dead kindling so new growth could occur and the risk of fire for the next 50 years would be greatly decreased.
Because of our attempts to control nature and prevent ecological “damage,” none of that kindling was removed and now massive fires are quickly destroying what more regular, smaller, natural fires would have simply managed over the years.
Now, the National Forest Serve is actually starting small fires to help the nation’s forests “catch up” on their cycle of growth.
What is the point to this discussion? Ecological responsibility is good, but drastic change is dangerous and non-productive. Yes, we should all try to better manage our resources and not damage the environment, but if we are too cautious, we might end up damaging it anyway.
We do not completely understand global warming. We do not know how much human activity has contributed to the phenomenon and how much is simply natural. Although we should be responsible, we should not be carried away in the fear of disaster.
