|Hello Max. This discussion probably belongs in a different message thread, because I don't think it is relevent to the topic of the original article which dealt specifically with Rousseau. Your message had several problems and so I decided to reply anyway. Sorry to the rest of the people involved in this thread.|
"I acknowledge that there are extremist elements in the Green movement who really want to return to the pre-civilisation era of Gaia-worshipping, but they are minority."
The full blown ideological underpinnings of any movement tend to be limited to the intellectuals that drive the movements. In the case of the environmentalists, there is a strong tendency in favor of valuing "nature", and advocating human subservience to it. The environmentalists support an ethical system that values a communal, primitive, passive "social interconnectedness" that serves the feet of the "ecosystem". In general, this ethical system views human beings as sinful, selfish and exploitive of "nature" (sound familiar?) and thus tends to promote hatred of human beings and human progress. While some of the foot soldiers of the movement might not be as radical, their premises are supplied by intellectuals with the above viewpoints. I suspect most of the foot soldiers (in this, and most any ideological movement) are driven by irrational, contradictory feelings and faith based thinking.
"However, you can easily criticise the approach Green movements take, that they appeal to government authority to enforce their ideology on all people."
Yes, they are ultimately descendents of the socialists, but they extend our eqalitarian obligations to things like trees, rock formations and spotted owls. So the tactics and view of government's role are the same.
"I don't intend to justify all of the believes of the Green movement, but i still think that liberitarianism or Objectivism are not incompatible to some of the facts and ideas the Green movement advocate. For example, it is not a bad idea to try new energy ressources, that could help us minimize the use of nuclear power plants or coal power plants, who pollute our air (and health-care is something we should think about) in order to make our world more sustainable for ourselves."
Objectivists (and all other rational people) will readily spend their money on new energy technology that makes their life easier, healthier and more economically prosperous. I will readily purchase the stock in and buy the product made by any company that is successful in doing so. Nuclear power plants DO NOT polute the air, and contrary to the nonsense spread by environmentalists they have never posed any health risks when run competently-- (when not run by the Soviet Union). Global warming as a result of fossil fuel emissions is at best a hypothesis at this point. Belief in this theory is nothing more then a politically correct fad among leftists and university scientists that to some extent hold the ideological viewpoints I described above.
Health care is something we should think about? In what sense?
Our lives are FAR more sustainable then they were for people 100 years ago and if we continue along the same path our lives, and the lives of the human beings that live after us will be more sustainable in the future. Why? Because free enterprise will continue to develop practical, economically feasable new technology in areas like energy and health care.
PS. Here is a hilarious website. www.nazi.org. This isn't just a neo nazi site, it is the website of the "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party". It is an extreme example of the intellectual mess people get themselves into when they try to advocate and integrate contradictory ideas.