- Joined
- Apr 4, 2005
- Messages
- 8
Activism is counterproductive
===>Hey, don't feel in the least bit guilty about your opinion. Hey,
we live in free countries, don't we? Anyhoo, I happen to agree with
you, in that organizations such as Greenpeace tend to take a "radical"
approach to their stances. In fact, I would argue that they do far more
harm than good.
Activism as a means to promote change tends to be counterproductive,
as it absolutely DOES alienate those who would otherwise side with
their points of view. I myself am a prime example--at one point, I
sided with organizations such as Greenpeace, PETA, et al., until I
discovered the tactics utilized by them to achieve their goals. Now,
I stand nearly 100% opposed to them--at least in terms of their
single-minded approach to problems, and their grand sweeping
generalizations of said problems. (I realize that I, too, run the risk
of making a grand sweeping generalization here, but. . . .)
The fishermen are NOT evil people, at least not as a whole. And
corporations, too, are not inherently evil. Hell, capitalism for that
matter is not evil. Just because THEIR goals and objectives at times
conflict with those of Greenpeace make them (in Greenpeace's eyes)
"sinners" who need to be stopped at all costs.
I feel that this viewpoint is ludicrous, because the folks at Greenpeace
are NOT taking into consideration the fishermen's (and corporations')
needs. They are in those particular businesses to make a profit,
which enables them to feed their families. I don't know about any
of you, but I put my family FIRST *before* any environmental
concerns.
I also reject the notion of "buying off" the fishing industry--i.e., giving
their money NOT to fish, for several reasons: 1. Who is going to
pay them? It had better not be MY government that does--after all,
the government's money is MY money. That is known as corporate
welfare, and it already exists too much, at least here in the States.
2. If they don't fish, then the supply of their product will decrease,
which will lead to shortages and higher prices. That's simple
capitalism. 3. The fishing industry will learn nothing from such
a tactic, and worse, will keep them from determining alternative
methods of harvesting their product (e.g., ways other than
bottom trawling).
I guess to sum up, I agree that there are genuine (and very
important) concerns about this method of fishing; however,
an activist response is NOT the way to go about it.
My solution: let the capitalist market sort it out. Give them
a financial incentive to come up with a safer (and more efficient)
method, such as (for example) through technological innovation.
Abandon Greenpeace and its unproductive methods, and utilize
your new-found time, energy, and resources by coming up with
a better solution--AND SELL THOSE IDEAS AND/OR RESULTING
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE FISHING COMPANIES. You make money
in the process, the fishing companies make money in the process,
and bottom trawling ends--everybody wins!
I fully understand that most folks in Greenpeace are NOT
capitalists (quite the opposite); however, the free world is,
and as the free market economy is the most powerful, making
enemies with them is foolish, and ultimately, counterproductive.
It's late, so I don't have much time to make a more coherent
argument, but I sign off with a quote from _Atlas Shrugged_,
"The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."
(Incidentally, one of the founders of Greenpeace has stated on
Penn & Teller's show, _Bullshit!_, that Greenpeace no longer
represents what the organzation was founded for, and that most of
its initial goals were achieved, and that it now stirs up "new" problems
to justify its own existence--much like Jesse Jackson here in the
U.S.)
Flame away!
Vincent
monty said:My biggest beef with environmental organizations is that they are frequently so interested in rallying their members by being as polarized as possible that they alienate possible valuable allies. I believe that a great deal of positive progress can be made on environmental issues by reaching out to people who have sound sensibilities, but aren't (and don't want to be) "environmental zealots." Rather than embracing an "us vs. them" attitude, I think it's a great idea to educate the fishermen about the truth, and get their support in effecting change!
I think (although perhaps I am naive) that a lot of people in the fishing and forestry industries are very much like your friend-- but often, they have been brought into the "group think" of their communities to think that environmentalists are all unrealistic and idealistic and "out to get them." And likewise, many environmental groups seem to raise money and energize their members by vilifying fishermen, foresters, corporate leaders, and the like.
Because I agree with Greenpeace's stance with respect to bottom trawling, I haven't been inclined to mention this, but I think Greenpeace has frequently been guilty of taking political and strategic positions that are part of the problem more than part of the solution, frequently because of internal factions and a need to pander to their supporters idealized and romanticized positions on issues, even when those are at odds with what's actually good for the environment or what would make the most effective impact on the problems. I know a number of very smart people who care deeply about the evironment who have left Greenpeace in various degrees of disgust, as well as some people who have been attacked by Greenpeace as "the enemy" who actually would have been open to being (or even had been) Greenpeace supporters!
I feel mildly guilty for this rant, because I also respect Kat and enough that I don't want to come across as saying supporting Greenpeace is bad or anything, but I really think that Greenpeace and other environmental organizations are stuck in a bad, intellectually inbred place that makes them much less effective than they could be. I'm also curious if other people have not seen these problems with Greenpeace, or if they just tolerate them because they believe in the cause? "
===>Hey, don't feel in the least bit guilty about your opinion. Hey,
we live in free countries, don't we? Anyhoo, I happen to agree with
you, in that organizations such as Greenpeace tend to take a "radical"
approach to their stances. In fact, I would argue that they do far more
harm than good.
Activism as a means to promote change tends to be counterproductive,
as it absolutely DOES alienate those who would otherwise side with
their points of view. I myself am a prime example--at one point, I
sided with organizations such as Greenpeace, PETA, et al., until I
discovered the tactics utilized by them to achieve their goals. Now,
I stand nearly 100% opposed to them--at least in terms of their
single-minded approach to problems, and their grand sweeping
generalizations of said problems. (I realize that I, too, run the risk
of making a grand sweeping generalization here, but. . . .)
The fishermen are NOT evil people, at least not as a whole. And
corporations, too, are not inherently evil. Hell, capitalism for that
matter is not evil. Just because THEIR goals and objectives at times
conflict with those of Greenpeace make them (in Greenpeace's eyes)
"sinners" who need to be stopped at all costs.
I feel that this viewpoint is ludicrous, because the folks at Greenpeace
are NOT taking into consideration the fishermen's (and corporations')
needs. They are in those particular businesses to make a profit,
which enables them to feed their families. I don't know about any
of you, but I put my family FIRST *before* any environmental
concerns.
I also reject the notion of "buying off" the fishing industry--i.e., giving
their money NOT to fish, for several reasons: 1. Who is going to
pay them? It had better not be MY government that does--after all,
the government's money is MY money. That is known as corporate
welfare, and it already exists too much, at least here in the States.
2. If they don't fish, then the supply of their product will decrease,
which will lead to shortages and higher prices. That's simple
capitalism. 3. The fishing industry will learn nothing from such
a tactic, and worse, will keep them from determining alternative
methods of harvesting their product (e.g., ways other than
bottom trawling).
I guess to sum up, I agree that there are genuine (and very
important) concerns about this method of fishing; however,
an activist response is NOT the way to go about it.
My solution: let the capitalist market sort it out. Give them
a financial incentive to come up with a safer (and more efficient)
method, such as (for example) through technological innovation.
Abandon Greenpeace and its unproductive methods, and utilize
your new-found time, energy, and resources by coming up with
a better solution--AND SELL THOSE IDEAS AND/OR RESULTING
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE FISHING COMPANIES. You make money
in the process, the fishing companies make money in the process,
and bottom trawling ends--everybody wins!
I fully understand that most folks in Greenpeace are NOT
capitalists (quite the opposite); however, the free world is,
and as the free market economy is the most powerful, making
enemies with them is foolish, and ultimately, counterproductive.
It's late, so I don't have much time to make a more coherent
argument, but I sign off with a quote from _Atlas Shrugged_,
"The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."
(Incidentally, one of the founders of Greenpeace has stated on
Penn & Teller's show, _Bullshit!_, that Greenpeace no longer
represents what the organzation was founded for, and that most of
its initial goals were achieved, and that it now stirs up "new" problems
to justify its own existence--much like Jesse Jackson here in the
U.S.)
Flame away!
Vincent