Before Thanksgiving, the Pioneer published an Op-ed titled “Environmentalism misses the point” in which the author alleges that Whitman’s environmental movement is misguided. Yet, the reasons for the misguidance are not made very clear. Big words and outlandish claims have substituted themselves for logic and clarity it seems.

I’m here to try and respond to that author’s claims; however, I have four disclaimers. First, I do not have as big of a vocabulary as he does. Second, I am very biased since I have been personally active in the environmental movement at Whitman College for the past year and a half. Third, I probably do not understand all the isms, (ecofeminism, anthropocentrism, post-structuralism, queer theory-“ism”) as well as the author does (hopefully, for his sake). Fourth, the author’s writing style obscures his meaning rather than clarifies it, so if I have misunderstood what he said, I hope he will inform the Pioneer’s readers and me.

The author’s op-ed alleges that human beings view the environment as something to be used for our benefit. This reflects a view that human beings are not a part of the environment.   Rather we’re positioned above it. Hence, allegedly, when we try to promote sustainable development, we’re really saying that it is OK to pollute. It is OK to hurt animals, but just not enough to make them extinct. Human beings are allegedly very self-centered because we don’t treat animals and other forms of life the same as we treat each other. Hence, this attitude somehow reinforces the view that men are better to women, that being straight is better that being gay, that nature is just a tool to be used for consumption and that white people are better than non-white people.

Rather than respond point by point to the absurd and thinly justified claims, I will grant everything
the author says is right but still argue that none of what he says matters. Although, it would be good if the author explained to all of us how fund-raising for a 23kw solar panel system on Jewett inadvertently promotes homophobia, racism, patriarchy and all the other things wrong with the western metaphysics.

Now, is there any way for a human being: me, you, the author: to think of themselves in a non-anthropocentric (human centered) way? When I am presented with the Taste of Sicily, will I recoil at the sight of chicken or the sight of dead grain on a plate? I do not know the answers to these questions but suffice to say, the vast majority of humans are, by nature, consumers. Animals consume too, just we (humans with technology) are better at it than they are. We can manipulate language, use tools, etc. . . . Now, yes, it is possible for us to give up all of that to go back to the Stone Age and interact with nature in exactly the same way every other species does. Is that desirable? Is that, dare I say, natural? Is it “natural” for a species to willingly forgo its abilities and powers?

Setting those questions aside, I think and would hope the author and I both agree that climate change is real and poses a threat to humanity and the global ecosystem’s existence. There are two options:
Option A: use our technological know-how to be more efficient, use renewable energy (See: solar, wind and water), encourage but not enforce vegetarian options at dining halls, recycle our resources and combat poverty and climate change with a green jobs based economy.
Option B: whine with big words about how environmental science is racist, homophobic and harmful to nature.

So, I’d ask the author to tell the people of Bangladesh who live in an area extremely prone to flooding and are thus more susceptible to rising sea levels than we are, that the way to preserve their society and economy is to de-industrialize and stop using these gay-bashing, animal-hating, white-supremacist sciences. Perhaps the author thinks the concept of an economy based on goods and services is also homophobic, patriarchal and racist. Either way, I think the people of Bangladesh would laugh at the absurdity of option B.

While academic theorizing is important and interesting, as Marx said “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” I’d invite the author to come to Campus Climate Challenge’s next meeting Thursdays at noon in Reid 207 to discuss the point of environmentalism.