Many environmental activists seem to be motivated by a pseudo-religious mindset which positions development as akin to sin, and regards humanity as inherently corrupted and malign. Any REAL environmentalist (one motivated by a desire to protect and preserve the environment) would probably support nuclear power, or investment in new energy technology, or the development of the power grid in India and Africa, to avoid the burning of carbon-rich fuel to heat their homes and cook their food. These kinds of 'environmentalists' often oppose all of them. They really desire a planet with a minimal presence of human beings, and an austere life for those few. This is a philosophy almost exclusively held by the well-educated, the wealthy... and the neurotic.
"Results showed positive associations between environmental activism and Machiavellianism, narcissism, antihierarchical aggression, and anticonventionalism."
Wait for it....... "I am shocked, shocked, SO Shocked!"
I would say half the dedicated Greens in Western nations are Watermelons, Green on the outside, Red on the inside. I've had my dealings with that gang. A real nasty bunch. Not your intellectual Marxist-Leninist type, these are hard core Stalinist & Maoists. Vicious. They were relegated to the waste bin of history after the fall of the Soviet Union, until they saw a chance for resurrection by jumping on the Greenie/Climate Change bandwagon.
Something darker has been going on for quite a while in many fields. Given all the many contrasts that create friction, we're essentially looking at a fight of good vs evil. The problem then becomes one of definition. The Green activists think they are doing good. Those opposed think the Greens are doing evil. Functionally both sides think they are doing good and fighting evil. Only one can be right. Yet there is only one group that seeks compromise, the other not. Can one infer the group seeking compromise is good, yes? Now the problem: With compromise one must consider how much evil is (acceptably) good.
I think more psychological research on the relationship between mental disorders and ideologies will help break the impasse. Psychologists seem to be waking up to what is going on, and a few of them are brave enough to conduct research on the subject. Stay tuned for a wave of studies on the subject. Then “Normies” will realize that they should listen to their intuition that something is wrong instead of suppressing such thoughts.
If it ever becomes widely believed that Left-wing ideology is closely tied to serious mental disorders, their entire movement collapses. No rational people wants to be associated with mental disorders.
"No rational people wants to be associated with mental disorders." You assume there are rational people. If that were so, rational people would have already realized the error of their ways and the party would have already collapsed.
We see people fleeing the party. Perhaps some of them are the rational ones. But they are few in numbers and I doubt they are leaving many similarly rational people behind.
"No persons without tendencies towards mental disorders want to be associated with people who everyone else thinks have serious mental disorders."
I think things are changing quickly. Before 2020, few people knew that anything was happening. During 2020-21 everyone was scared because of Covid, but they realized that something was wrong.
Starting in 2022 people lost their fear and now are sure that something is wrong. Now a few people have been able to identify what it is: mental disorders. The numbers will only grow.
Don't give in to cynicism. That ultimately leads to demoralization and defeat.
No sane person wants to be associated with insane persons. True. So the first group that "proves" the other is crazy wins? No. That's the fight that's going on now and that's a big reason why we're making little progress. What needs to win are the ideas and their execution, not the opinion of others of ones mental stability.
The association between ideology and rationality we're discussing is old news. "Liberalism is a mental disorder" was coined 17 years ago (though it existed, of course, well before that). No one ran away. In fact it's much worse today. Mostly, I think, because the "good" turned the other cheek and hoped the mentally confused would see the light if it was just explained to them properly. We're long past that.
Of course, bringing in the mental disorder aspect now raises a whole new set of issues because we have now made these irrational beings victims. Victims of nature, victims of nurture, victims of society... Reparations will be in order!
Not yet a cynic but they're pushing me that way ;-)
The primary driver is personal....personal vanity. The typical eco and/or social justice warrior cherishes a nice little story about themselves....one in which they star in a heroic role. Pathetic really.
What is it based on? Ecology? Or energy and economics. That should lead us to consider it as an option or not. In any case, the whole thing (transition to green colored options) is largely, most often predicated by technology, which by construct is destructive in nature.
Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, was a product of the CIA and their MKULTRA experiments they did on him and many others. They also produced the Charles Manson murder rampage in 1969:
Was Charles Manson a CIA Asset? w/Tom O'Neill | Joe Rogan - YouTube
It's been a long time since I read any of Ted Kacynski's views. What little I remember of them would put my pro-technology vision about opposite to his anti-technology vision.
I would agree that it was monstrous what the CIA did to people, including Kacynski, with its MKULTRA experiments, and they were not brought to justice for those crimes. Instead they just lied about them and continue those illegal experiments to this day. Likely RFK's pretend assassin, Sirhan-Sirhan, was also a product of MKULTRA. Evil criminals.
This is about psychology. The article documents a clear relationship between Green activism and the Dark Triad personality characteristics.
No, there has never been a technology constructed to be destructive in nature. Technology is innovated to solve one or more human problems in a more effective manner.
If you think technology is destructive, then why are you using Substack?
I think most of today’s environmentalists (to judge by their rhetoric and actions) are fundamentally indifferent to human flourishing and view the natural world as the ideal state - and one that is delicate, requiring careful nurturing by human beings.
Today’s “Greens” put the well-being of nature first and view humans as her servants. By contrast, I think we should take a human-centric approach, valuing the lives of human beings at the top, recognizing our responsibility to good stewards of the natural world because it is in our interests, but not sacrificing our well-being for the sake of it (as many Greens would have us do).
"Today’s “Greens” put the well-being of nature first " No They Do Not. Most white people who consider themselves Green are serving technology on way or another.
No one is serving technology. I choose to use Substack just like you do. If you believe that you are serving Substack, then why are you using that technology.
Many environmental activists seem to be motivated by a pseudo-religious mindset which positions development as akin to sin, and regards humanity as inherently corrupted and malign. Any REAL environmentalist (one motivated by a desire to protect and preserve the environment) would probably support nuclear power, or investment in new energy technology, or the development of the power grid in India and Africa, to avoid the burning of carbon-rich fuel to heat their homes and cook their food. These kinds of 'environmentalists' often oppose all of them. They really desire a planet with a minimal presence of human beings, and an austere life for those few. This is a philosophy almost exclusively held by the well-educated, the wealthy... and the neurotic.
That sounds a lot like the views of Right-wing Reactionaries to me...
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
"Results showed positive associations between environmental activism and Machiavellianism, narcissism, antihierarchical aggression, and anticonventionalism."
Wait for it....... "I am shocked, shocked, SO Shocked!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
I would say half the dedicated Greens in Western nations are Watermelons, Green on the outside, Red on the inside. I've had my dealings with that gang. A real nasty bunch. Not your intellectual Marxist-Leninist type, these are hard core Stalinist & Maoists. Vicious. They were relegated to the waste bin of history after the fall of the Soviet Union, until they saw a chance for resurrection by jumping on the Greenie/Climate Change bandwagon.
Something darker has been going on for quite a while in many fields. Given all the many contrasts that create friction, we're essentially looking at a fight of good vs evil. The problem then becomes one of definition. The Green activists think they are doing good. Those opposed think the Greens are doing evil. Functionally both sides think they are doing good and fighting evil. Only one can be right. Yet there is only one group that seeks compromise, the other not. Can one infer the group seeking compromise is good, yes? Now the problem: With compromise one must consider how much evil is (acceptably) good.
I think more psychological research on the relationship between mental disorders and ideologies will help break the impasse. Psychologists seem to be waking up to what is going on, and a few of them are brave enough to conduct research on the subject. Stay tuned for a wave of studies on the subject. Then “Normies” will realize that they should listen to their intuition that something is wrong instead of suppressing such thoughts.
If it ever becomes widely believed that Left-wing ideology is closely tied to serious mental disorders, their entire movement collapses. No rational people wants to be associated with mental disorders.
"No rational people wants to be associated with mental disorders." You assume there are rational people. If that were so, rational people would have already realized the error of their ways and the party would have already collapsed.
We see people fleeing the party. Perhaps some of them are the rational ones. But they are few in numbers and I doubt they are leaving many similarly rational people behind.
Let me phrase it differently:
"No persons without tendencies towards mental disorders want to be associated with people who everyone else thinks have serious mental disorders."
I think things are changing quickly. Before 2020, few people knew that anything was happening. During 2020-21 everyone was scared because of Covid, but they realized that something was wrong.
Starting in 2022 people lost their fear and now are sure that something is wrong. Now a few people have been able to identify what it is: mental disorders. The numbers will only grow.
Don't give in to cynicism. That ultimately leads to demoralization and defeat.
No sane person wants to be associated with insane persons. True. So the first group that "proves" the other is crazy wins? No. That's the fight that's going on now and that's a big reason why we're making little progress. What needs to win are the ideas and their execution, not the opinion of others of ones mental stability.
The association between ideology and rationality we're discussing is old news. "Liberalism is a mental disorder" was coined 17 years ago (though it existed, of course, well before that). No one ran away. In fact it's much worse today. Mostly, I think, because the "good" turned the other cheek and hoped the mentally confused would see the light if it was just explained to them properly. We're long past that.
Of course, bringing in the mental disorder aspect now raises a whole new set of issues because we have now made these irrational beings victims. Victims of nature, victims of nurture, victims of society... Reparations will be in order!
Not yet a cynic but they're pushing me that way ;-)
The primary driver is personal....personal vanity. The typical eco and/or social justice warrior cherishes a nice little story about themselves....one in which they star in a heroic role. Pathetic really.
Unfortunately, Green ideology is not the only ideology where such attitudes manifest themselves:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/where-do-ideologies-come-from
No indeed. It is one of the chief by-products of a university education in the humanities and social sciences: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/invasion-of-the-virtue-signallers
What is it based on? Ecology? Or energy and economics. That should lead us to consider it as an option or not. In any case, the whole thing (transition to green colored options) is largely, most often predicated by technology, which by construct is destructive in nature.
In what way are your expressed ideas different from Ted Kaczynski's views, which led down the path to being a serial killer?
Ted Kaczynski is a very clear example of where anti-technology views lead to anti-human Dark Triad beliefs (which can then lead to mass murder).
Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, was a product of the CIA and their MKULTRA experiments they did on him and many others. They also produced the Charles Manson murder rampage in 1969:
Was Charles Manson a CIA Asset? w/Tom O'Neill | Joe Rogan - YouTube
youtube.com/watch?v=r1hv5P4SwbU
The Roots Of Modern Eco-Terrorism: From MK Ultra And The Unabomber To Maurice Strong And Yuval Harari, by Matthew Ehret:
matthewehret.substack.com/p/the-roots-of-modern-eco-terrorism
You did not answer my question:
In what way are your (or his) expressed ideas different from Ted Kaczynski's views?
It's been a long time since I read any of Ted Kacynski's views. What little I remember of them would put my pro-technology vision about opposite to his anti-technology vision.
I would agree that it was monstrous what the CIA did to people, including Kacynski, with its MKULTRA experiments, and they were not brought to justice for those crimes. Instead they just lied about them and continue those illegal experiments to this day. Likely RFK's pretend assassin, Sirhan-Sirhan, was also a product of MKULTRA. Evil criminals.
This is about psychology. The article documents a clear relationship between Green activism and the Dark Triad personality characteristics.
No, there has never been a technology constructed to be destructive in nature. Technology is innovated to solve one or more human problems in a more effective manner.
If you think technology is destructive, then why are you using Substack?
I think most of today’s environmentalists (to judge by their rhetoric and actions) are fundamentally indifferent to human flourishing and view the natural world as the ideal state - and one that is delicate, requiring careful nurturing by human beings.
Today’s “Greens” put the well-being of nature first and view humans as her servants. By contrast, I think we should take a human-centric approach, valuing the lives of human beings at the top, recognizing our responsibility to good stewards of the natural world because it is in our interests, but not sacrificing our well-being for the sake of it (as many Greens would have us do).
"Today’s “Greens” put the well-being of nature first " No They Do Not. Most white people who consider themselves Green are serving technology on way or another.
No one is serving technology. I choose to use Substack just like you do. If you believe that you are serving Substack, then why are you using that technology.
And none of the above has to do with race.