Critical Environmental Theory

[Osborne Russell]

1. Let's see the Reds fall over themselves objecting to it like they do with Critical Race Theory.
2. Let's see the Blues tie themselves in knots trying to defend it, like they do with Critical Race Theory.

Critical Environmental Theory, from The Sierra Club

An assortment of fallacies, particularly false dichotomies; illogic and bad history.

"Eco-fascism" is the woke equivalent of "fascist Ukraine."

Eco-Fascism, Uncovered
By Ruxandra Guidi

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/4-...-el-paso-texas

It's true that strands of white supremacist thinking run deep in the history of American environmentalism. It's also true that contemporary eco-fascist rhetoric cannot show a connection between environmental destruction and immigration for a simple reason: There isn't one. Blaming immigrants for widespread environmental challenges is bogus. Immigration to the US is not considered a major source of population growth, as immigrants make up about 14 percent of the population, the same as in 1870. And, in any case, all the available evidence suggests that it's not working-class immigrants but large-scale industry and affluent, US-born Americans that are driving consumerism, climate change, and the loss of wildlife habitat.

Yet within some right-wing circles, the paranoia persists that immigration is, somehow, a cause of environmental destruction.


-- emphasis added

"It's also true . . . " So fey -- equating Tucker Carlson with John Muir.

I got news for you, children: in ecology, as a population increases, it approaches the carrying capacity, i.e. the limits of growth. If the growth is large enough and long enough, there is a crash, a J curve crash. That's not opinion. It has been empirically shown countless times, in the lab and in the world, technophiles. Get a petri dish full of agar and inoculate it with your fingerprint. Then record the population daily. In three weeks, a fur-ball. In five weeks, a death-scape. In the outside world, the crash may reduce the carrying capacity permanently, for practical purposes -- also empirically proven Look it up.

Color doesn't matter. If the total impacts reach X, the crash will happen. Total impacts = per capita impact times population. If the population is 90% blue and 10% orange, to say that the orange doesn't matter is incorrect. The rate of consumption of blue vs. orange also doesn't matter. Whether the total impacts reach X is what matters. It's a product of both variables, children. To insist on numbers alone, as those whom you call "eco-fascists" do, or to insist on rates alone, as you do, are both false dichotomies.

But wokers seek open borders (a priori inseperable from "social justice") and their "environmentalism" must support it.

As with color, immigrant or citizen doesn't matter. Ecology takes no account of it. So stop with the open borders already. Tis you that are the phony environmentalists.

And especially stop saying that those who say that immigration increases the population, which in turn brings us closer to X, are fascists. Makes you look stupid. Lots of Reds say it -- so what? They watch Tucker Carlson. It's easily shown that they have no environmental ethic that isn't based on bigotry. More importantly, dear children, it does not follow that all environmental ethics are based on bigotry. No more than John Muir's "racism" makes the Sierra Club a club for bigots.

Someone has to say no to homo sapiens in a big way, to everybody; of course it's going to P everybody off. Too bad. X is coming, from both numbers and rates. It's a F ing equation.

I know, I know. Technology is magic.

[L.W. Baxter]

first, "open borders" is a canard, a red herring. liberals supporting humane treatment of desperate people are not preaching "open borders" any more than liberals criticizing institutionalized racism are seriously campaigning to do away with law enforcement. you can find radical academic types saying anything you want, but in reality there are few if any adherents to the radical positions.

second, the "environment" is global. stopping the movement of people into the u.s.a. is not a position for the environment. only my environment.

[L.W. Baxter]

a good argument can be made that increasing immigration from the least developed countries to the most modern and functional, thereby relieving population pressures there, and increasing wealth through direct remittances from emigrants, is a net positive for the environment.

particularly considering that improved living standards are shown to be accompanied by a decline in birth rates.

[Hugh MacD]

Can't disagree on you with most of that. The curve is approaching regardless of where the population is...here, Mexico, Guatemala or India. Don't think that by closing a border you're slowing the car approaching the curve, however. Allowing people into this country isn't just a two edged sword...it's more like a buzz saw blade. It doesn't decrease overall population in any way, but it moves people into the highest resource consumer zone on the planet, increasing the rate of each of their resource use. On the other hand, it may provide them with an opportunity for an education that may discourage them from having 5 or more children, decreasing ultimate resource consumption. For my part, I'd rather see border controls that allow in immigrants who are willing to be educated and work within the system. I'm not smart enough to figure out an immigration policy that will support that and, unfortunately, neither can our legislators apparently.

[CWSmith]

If you really want to talk about border control, why not address the source of the problem? Is there anyone here who can argue that the USA is not a major factor in the instability and violence that drives people from their homes? Can you argue that our drug problem is not their problem? Can you argue that our history of supporting dictators to maximize corporate profits has not produced a long-term problem that we are still dealing with?

[L.W. Baxter]

hugh, i will reiterate, from previous discussions here: the obama administration was in the process of humanely rationalizing policy towards existing undocumented immigrants, border security, and future immigration. the result was a net decrease in attempted unauthorized border crossings. and a reasonable path to full citizenship for the most obvious class of deserving undocumented: the children of undocumented immigrants. fully integrated into our schools and social fabric, and, to our great shame, still waiting for just and moral treatment.

our current border crisis (and we do have one) is a direct result of the reactionary demagogues ****ing up the process of rationalizing our border and immigration policies.

[stromborg]

L.W. nailed it

[Hugh MacD]

L.W. nailed it

Said it far better than I

[Osborne Russell]

first, "open borders" is a canard, a red herring.

It's what you have when you boil off the liberal bull S. Why does "immigration" need "reform"? Because it's a mess, on purpose.

liberals supporting humane treatment of desperate people are not preaching "open borders" any more than liberals criticizing institutionalized racism are seriously campaigning to do away with law enforcement. you can find radical academic types saying anything you want, but in reality there are few if any adherents to the radical positions.

It's the de facto situation; no professors necessary.

The United States is not responsible for the humane treatment of people outside its jurisdiction.

second, the "environment" is global. stopping the movement of people into the u.s.a. is not a position for the environment. only my environment.

I don't follow.

[Osborne Russell]

a good argument can be made that increasing immigration from the least developed countries to the most modern and functional, thereby relieving population pressures there, and increasing wealth through direct remittances from emigrants, is a net positive for the environment.

particularly considering that improved living standards are shown to be accompanied by a decline in birth rates.

The power to protect the environment resides in the nation state, which must plan and budget for it, along with the rest of its operations. How much immigration, of what types, is planned and budgeted for? Hospitals, roads, everything, all the way down to extra Postal Workers. How much should be planned and budgeted for? Say any number, and you admit that there's a limit.

[woodpile]

Not to worry about the environment, As Kerry said "he called himself and his fellow attendees a "select group" with an "almost extraterrestrial" plan to save the planet.

Hundreds of ultra-short private jet flights to Davos revealed, as global leaders head into World Economic Forum - Greenpeace International

[Paul Pless]

hugh, i will reiterate, from previous discussions here: the obama administration was in the process of humanely rationalizing policy towards existing undocumented immigrants, border security, and future immigration. the result was a net decrease in attempted unauthorized border crossings. and a reasonable path to full citizenship for the most obvious class of deserving undocumented: the children of undocumented immigrants. fully integrated into our schools and social fabric, and, to our great shame, still waiting for just and moral treatment.

so was george w
then 9/11 happened

[Ted Hoppe]

deleted

[woodpile]

Heh, like you follow Greenpeace. What right wing source fed you that? Fox News?

Anyway, just because your right wing sources manufacture perceived hypocrisies, does not mean that it is OK to wallow in snark and ignore environmental crises.

"manufacture perceived hypocrisies"?, Greenpeace a right wing source? Fox news? The article spelled out the real hypocrisies quite clearly, you obviously didn't read it and have no interest in discussing facts, just your usual hyperbole.

[Jim Mahan]

Snark wallower!

[George Jung]

Woodie doesn't do 'discussion'. Only Talking Points. Well, to be fair - he doesn't 'discuss' those, either. What a waste....

[skuthorp]

#5 and #10
LW and Osborne. Our species continues to promulgate the fiction that it can be trusted with.the fate of it's own and other species environment on this planet, or that a mythical god will save it. A fiction in both cases, but convenient. The reasons for it's own success as a species will be the reasons for it's failure, and there's increasing evidence for that, but some will not see.
Humans are like that.

[Osborne Russell]

There is something that might be called "eco-fascism" as the Sierra Club article describes. In the bombings in New Zealand and El Paso, the perps mentioned population and ecology, in connection with immigration. They don't push it too hard because the ecology stuff applies to white people too.

What I object to is the mincing flirtation with woke cancel culture, which has the object of convincing people that all environmentalism is white supremacy in disguise, not just some Red nut here and there, but John Muir too. That needs to be fought.

[Osborne Russell]

Whereas in the 50's thru 70's the support of Science had substantial bipartisan support, beginning with Reagan and since then, academic pursuits have been demonized. The reasons are manifold, but I think that two undercurrents stand out: efforts to legitimize de-regulation of industry, and to draw the non-college educated working class away from Democratic/Unionization allegiances and into the Republican fold.

I see it as Red deconstructionism. Liberalism is a mortal threat to tribalism. Science is liberal. Everything liberal is evil.

More used to be said about science deriving much of its value from its vanquishing of superstition, ignorance and bigotry -- apart from the Horn of Plenty aspects. The triumph of science was a moral triumph of man over his nature.

[wizbang 13]

I had such hope for Covid .

[L.W. Baxter]

The power to protect the environment resides in the nation state, which must plan and budget for it, along with the rest of its operations. How much immigration, of what types, is planned and budgeted for? Hospitals, roads, everything, all the way down to extra Postal Workers. How much should be planned and budgeted for? Say any number, and you admit that there's a limit.

yeah, no kidding. the idea of immigration without limits, of "open borders", is, as i posted above, a right wing reactionary canard. a point of populist demagoguery, of emotional manipulation. that you are terribly concerned about it is evidence that you have been tampered with.

look at the situation as it is, at the "liberals" who have real influence, who have the real possibility of legislating and governing, and the notion of "open borders" is not worth giving the time of day.

[L.W. Baxter]

It's what you have when you boil off the liberal bull S. Why does "immigration" need "reform"? Because it's a mess, on purpose.



It's the de facto situation; no professors necessary.

The United States is not responsible for the humane treatment of people outside its jurisdiction.



I don't follow.

i don't care. i take the responsibility personally.

[Osborne Russell]

i don't care. i take the responsibility personally.

Don't follow that either. My government exists to carry out that which I cannot carry out on my own.

If you mean that death in the desert, or in the fields, or on the killing floor, or on the construction site, is a question of national moral responsibility, I agree. But there is no legal responsibility. Let us be clear on that, when we are speaking of policy, which has effect only in furtherance of the law.

The surest way to curtail the exploitation of immigrants is to curtail immigration. Let's hear a Dem say that. No? Why then, may they STFU. Let the broccoli be picked by college graduates, if it comes to it, or let it not be picked, and the people starve -- better than they should live by such inhumanity.

College graduates in appropriately dense housing with full pronouns, or F off, no broccoli nor kale, bull S San Francisco Sierra Club; except you can't build it there, nor here, on account of environmentalism, you know, carbon footprint, F the Sierra, F wilderness. You know, capitalism.

[Osborne Russell]

yeah, no kidding. the idea of immigration without limits, of "open borders", is, as i posted above, a right wing reactionary canard. a point of populist demagoguery, of emotional manipulation. that you are terribly concerned about it is evidence that you have been tampered with.

look at the situation as it is, at the "liberals" who have real influence, who have the real possibility of legislating and governing, and the notion of "open borders" is not worth giving the time of day.

Then let liberals, with their voice, the Sierra Club, say what the limit is; and why, on moral grounds, there is a limit.

[L.W. Baxter]

Don't follow that either. My government exists to carry out that which I cannot carry out on my own.

If you mean that death in the desert, or in the fields, or on the killing floor, or on the construction site, is a question of national moral responsibility, I agree. But there is no legal responsibility. Let us be clear on that, when we are speaking of policy, which has effect only in furtherance of the law.

The surest way to curtail the exploitation of immigrants is to curtail immigration. Let's hear a Dem say that. No? Why then, may they STFU. Let the broccoli be picked by college graduates, if it comes to it, or let it not be picked, and the people starve -- better than they should live by such inhumanity.

College graduates in appropriately dense housing with full pronouns, or F off, no broccoli nor kale, bull S San Francisco Sierra Club; except you can't build it there, nor here, on account of environmentalism, you know, carbon footprint, F the Sierra, F wilderness. You know, capitalism.

meh. why would a dem say that? some might, but they would be wrong.

it is true that immigrants can only be directly subject to exploitation within a given country if they successfully immigrate. but "exploitation" is global, just as "the environment" is global.

our (u.s.a.) exploitive influence reaches far beyond our borders. it's easier to exploit people in other countries than here at home. we do it all the time.

so spare me the rest of your rant.

[L.W. Baxter]

Then let liberals, with their voice, the Sierra Club, say what the limit is; and why, on moral grounds, there is a limit.

the limit isn't moral, but practical.

that is my moral position on national borders.

[L.W. Baxter]

I'm guessing Osborne simply wants you to give an estimate of a reasonable numerical limit. What's wrong with that?

I think currently there are just over a million (maybe 1.2 million) legal immigrants per year, and probably a million or more illegal immigrants.

Should we plan for immigration? You know that there is a practical limit. Should we contemplate what it should be?

sure we should plan. and sure there are practical limits. the practical limits will vary by our planning. our planning will be limited by whatever level of understanding we settle on.

how can we plan well, if we start with demagoguery and incomplete logic?

"open borders" is a fake news talking point, emotional manipulation, little more.

"immigrants are exploited", intimating that if they are not allowed to immigrate they will escape exploitation, is incomplete.

"immigration damages the environment" suggests that the environment is contained within manmade borders. which is obviously false, and yet many will lean on it as a pillar for their reasoning about immigration.

[George Jung]

I'm guessing Osborne simply wants you to give an estimate of a reasonable numerical limit. What's wrong with that?

I think currently there are just over a million (maybe 1.2 million) legal immigrants per year, and probably a million or more illegal immigrants.

Should we plan for immigration? You know that there is a practical limit. Should we contemplate what it should be?

Are you saying that Congress should get off their DA and pass comprehensive immigration reform???

[L.W. Baxter]

Are you saying that Congress should get off their DA and pass comprehensive immigration reform???

a snippet from the arizona republic:

Sinema said she plans to spend her time trying to build a consensus on immigration reform and border security.Earlier this month the newly minted independent Sinema and Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn led the eight-member delegation to Yuma and El Paso, Texas, with the idea of finding some common ground.

Late last year, Sinema and Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina tried to get passed a bipartisan proposal that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers,” increased funding for border security and included plans for swifter removal of immigrants who don’t qualify for asylum.

It failed.

But at least she gave it a try. And it looks as if she’s going to try again

where are the progressives. immigration reform ought to be in their wheelhouse. why won't they do any work.

no question marks because, well, we already know. crazy kyrsten has more government in her little finger than the whole progressive pack put together.

[woodpile]

I'll discuss facts with you.

You write 200 of your own words on climate change.

Then I will respond with 200 words on climate change.

We will keep going until we each reach 1000 words.

Fox News? Googling the C&P in your post gave Fox News as the first hit.

You don't follow Greenpeace, and so I wondered where you learned of the link. What was your source? What fed you that?

You did not respond.

Again, I will discuss facts with you. Anytime. You write 200 of your own words, and I will respond with 200 of mine.

I can write 200 words on climate change, off the top of my head, in 5 minutes. Whereas you can only manage a few words of drive-by posting.

You ever hear the saying, don,t get in a peeing contest with a skunk, you'll always lose, if you thing you're going to dictate my posting format you're wrong, I can make my points without a "200 word" dissertation as you prescribe and that's the way it will be, if you have a problem with that, your problem.

[Osborne Russell]

the limit isn't moral, but practical.

that is my moral position on national borders.

But that's open borders.

The person doesn't come in because it's impractical, but he would otherwise -- the last part is open borders. You can't turn him away except for "practical" reasons? What does that mean? How does practicality come to over-rule morality?

[Osborne Russell]

"immigrants are exploited", intimating that if they are not allowed to immigrate they will escape exploitation, is incomplete.

"immigration damages the environment" suggests that the environment is contained within manmade borders. which is obviously false, and yet many will lean on it as a pillar for their reasoning about immigration.

Both are complete because the host country's power to do anything, right or wrong, is limited by the reach of its legitimate powers. The environment is not contained within borders, but the powers of the government are, largely. Helping foreigners escape exploitation is something immigration policy is very ill-suited to address. At some point, you're going to have to say no. Meanwhile, you're co-depending the regime whose responsibility for the exploitation is direct.

[Osborne Russell]

What would immigration "reform" do?

What are the policy objectives?

[Osborne Russell]

I'm guessing Osborne simply wants you to give an estimate of a reasonable numerical limit. What's wrong with that?

Yep. Pretty simple in concept.

Even if you set the number quite high, say, 20 million a year, would you have addressed the contention that "No human being is illegal"?

[L.W. Baxter]

Yep. Pretty simple in concept.

Even if you set the number quite high, say, 20 million a year, would you have addressed the contention that "No human being is illegal"?

that is not reasoning, but resentment. i can't argue with your argument, because it doesn't exist. so i will approach your resentment.

you resent the semantics, the attempt at changing discourse by changing the language. you are certain reality is fully expressed by the expressions you already know and use.

"no human is illegal" is a recognition that for some migrants, migrating is not optional.

and being a "migrant" becomes identity, in any conversation, any news story. "illegal alien", or the even less respectful shorthand "illegal" becomes the morally loaded summation of their being in popular discourse. all grouped together, judged morally for an infraction of a rule of no moral content.

how can we begin to reason when judgment has already been rendered.

which is the point of demagoguery. "open borders". "illegals". "exploitation". "build the wall!" make you feel something before you can think.