Radical environmentalism(week 8)

Radical environmentalism

The emergence of environmentalists is a symbol of the degree of social civilization, and it marks that mankind has entered a new level of development. However, the level of development of environmentalists should be roughly in sync with the material civilization of society. When most people in a society are still in a stage of extreme scarcity, an overly ideal environmental protection concept is extravagant. The radical environmentalists in the United States once put forward such a proposition: Let it go during the flood. This is a natural phenomenon and cannot be hindered. How is this different from the Han Dynasty prime minister Tian Xiang’s claim to the emperor to let the Yellow River burst? If this claim is implemented, what will be the national economy and the people’s livelihood?
Land?
Coincidentally, today there are domestic environmentalists who criticize the Chinese people for their “inferiority”: there are no gold mines in the United States, and residents are content to eat milk and bread provided by the government for free, and we are still mining mines and destroying the environment. This critic may have forgotten to consider whether the Chinese government is capable of providing 1.3 billion people with free milk and bread.
Since the publication of “Silent Spring” by the biologist Carson in 1962, environmental protection, as a concept, has been gradually elevated from a technical level to a moral level. This is undoubtedly a problem for human beings increasingly plagued by unrestricted development. a good thing. “When there is no drop of oil on earth, where should we go? The last drop of water on earth will be our human eye
tears. “The growth momentum of population and resource consumption is so rapid, and resources are depleted day by day, and mankind will inevitably face a conflict and disaster. “Such a judgment and discourse are widely used in various ways.

Benefit and sacrifice economic development. British environmentalists argue that the virus also has the right to survive, and the life of HIV is also worthy of respect. The problem is that the best living environment for HIV is in the human body.
Who is willing to sacrifice their own right to survive for HIV? Secondly, environmental needs are after all a secondary demand. People only need to eat and wear warmth before they have environmental needs. We have no right to demand that human ancestors do not reclaim wasteland in order to protect the environment. As a part of nature, human beings have the right to ask for their survival needs from nature. Environmental protection does not mean absolute
justice. There is a bottom line for environmental protection. Beyond this bottom line, environmental protection may become a hindrance to social development. The bottom line is: it must not be divorced from reality. It must be in the interests of the vast majority of people. Only in this way can environmental protection be realistic and moral.