There are two assumptions being made that I think are faulty.

1. “Existence” is philosophically different to different people. The notion that heaven awaits people reinforces the detachment of responsibility that people have to live responsibly versus my non-spiritual believe that heaven is here on earth. Of course I’m not even diving into the believe by people that our planet is only 6000 years old and was made in 6 days.

2. As has been noted humanity is seemingly unique in that we can perceive ourselves separate from nature, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have the means or responsibility to limit our impact to other living creatures on this planet regardless of our place in geologic time. Having talked to you about this tangentially in our last meeting I know you see this the same way if not partially.

Yes from a Nihilism perspective we are but a speck of dust with little to no meaning in the big picture, but it would be counter productive to think that because of this there is no merit to making our world a better place. Environmentalism provides us that opportunity no matter what the 10 million year view might be. Environmentalism is the reminder to everyone that we are indeed part of nature and our place in it is beyond just existence, even if for a blip in geologic time. While I can respect your viewpoint and have shared in similar moments of bliss extracted from the noise of civilization I am an environmentalist, but beyond that I am an environmentalist that embraces personal responsibility to ensure what time we have on this rock is as good to us as it is to other living creatures and our land.

The notion that environmentalism means putting “nature” or “the environment” apart from or before “us” simply wasn’t part of the debate, because it wasn’t what the movement was about. Instead it was about dousing the flames on burning rivers, closing the ozone hole, preventing human disasters like Bhopal and Chernobyl, recognizing that other species have as much right to be here as we do, and all manner of inter-related issues. It wasn’t about setting ourselves apart from nature, it was about doing the right thing by ourselves and by the system we are part of (though I’ll be the first to admit original efforts were piece-meal at best and are still lacking when it comes to understanding the complexities and inter-relationships of the entire system). I don’t think that’s changed, but the assertion it has (or, as you say, was the original sin) seems to be a recurring theme on photographer’s fora and probably other fora I don’t visit. Can you point me to documentation of this original sin or philosophical change?

I love your writing Guy, and often agree with your philosophy, but in this case your eloquence only leaves me confused. Maybe that’s because by my definition you’re an environmentalist, too. But who likes labels?

Lori

I think you struck a chord with many of us and voiced something that we most definitely. I have been saying and wrting the same sentiment for years, and I think what pains me most is that these words fall on deaf ears. It is not about “nature” as much as it is the relationship we have with it and the realization that WE and not nature are the ultimate losers if we don’t care for it and protect it. Thanks.

I couldn’t drop it until I found my problem…
“The original sin of the environmental movement is the very concept of the environment – an entity that is separate from humanity.”

NO!!!

Even a populist definition, like one from wikipedia defines the “environmental movement” with “In its recognition of humanity as a participant in (not enemy of) ecosystems, the movement is centered on ecology, health, and human rights.”

I think you’ll find that they need to be explicit about ‘environment’ because the majority of humanity is too self absorbed to care. With TV shows like “Man v. Wild” the attitude is pretty clear.

It sounds to me like most people here are in fact environmentalsts, depending on their own definitions of course.

The best we can hope is to serve and keep that that we hold dear and sustains our life. Plant and animal. We move towards an existence of need, humans have grown to believe they “need” monetary, artificial stimuli in order to have happiness while growing further from true existence of life. Of the 6 plus billion humans on planet earth how many regularly watch the sunrise or sunset for no other reason than inspiration. I dare think a small percentage. Not environmentalist or conservationist.

I found this posted on facebook by the Prana team.

“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” – Aldo Leopold, from A Sand County Almanac, 1949

Great post!!