Sick of Being labeled "tree hugger" or "granola"?
Has your new found interest in the environment and global warming come with a price? The price of being labeled a 'tree hugger' or a 'granola'? Well it's time you fought back with some caddy backlash for all those SUV driving gas guzzling oil mongers. First let us discuss the origins of the terms.
What exactly is a granola and a tree hugger, where did these terms come from? SlangCity.com describes a granola as "crunchy-granola types: Also called earthy-crunchy, they wear natural fabrics (especially hemp) and long hair, sometimes in dreadlocks. They tend to be vegetarians, shop at the whole foods market and give m
oney to Greenpeace." ...Is this true? Do most people who consider themselves modern environmentalists fit any of these characteristics? I fit a couple of them myself, in fact, this post has inspired me to create a poll. I really want to know if the stereotype fits the bill. Please take the poll on the side bar. Wikipedia says that the term granola was derived from conservatives who called liberals granola's due to them being made up fruits, nuts, and flakes. While it is true that edible granola bars are in fact made of fruits, nuts, and flakes, labeling all liberals as granola's in this sense is quite derogatory.
Slangcity.com goes on to say this about tree huggers:
"tree hugger, a person who has strong environmental beliefs and works to protect forest lands. More extreme than the tree hugger is the tree sitter. These environmental activists build platforms in trees and sit on them in order to prevent the tree from being cut down. The most famous of these is Julia “Butterfly” Hill, who sat in an ancient redwood tree in Northern California for over two years in the late nineties." It's so funny that I actually own that book...its really good :). So called tree huggers don't actually go around hugging trees ya know, although some do, I personally don't know anyone who does.
It is my speculation that many people in the environmental world have been getting sick of all the name calling, that they themselves have resorted to fighting fire with fire. They do this by going as far as calling anti-environmentalists "Global Warming Deniers". Green Peace has gone as far as saying that you are either with us or against us, using marketing tactics that chill you to the bone. Even I think this video is extreme. Is it suppose to shock you into submission? I don't know all the answers, but I do know that all this back and forth enviro-drama is quite entertaining to say the least.
Technorati Tags: global warming
6 COMMENTS, ADD YOURS HERE:
very interesting... i didnt have any idea of what the term "tree hugger" is, and never knew it was derogatory.
I think you will find these religious nutters call environmentalist more than just tree huggers.
I suggest they are locked up and the key is thrown away for the sake of the world
http://handsacrossoceanministry.wordpress.com
We believe in going green at funepets.com.
Simple stuff like printing emails only when absolutely necessary is a way of going green.
Please visit us at http://www.funepets.com
Environmentalism is an ironic case for protecting something that needs no protection. A vigilant environmentalist should perform research and careful observations on the environment which they are proposing to ‘protect’. Geologic and paleo-records provide the evidence that over 99.9% of all species that have existed on Earth are now extinct. To consider the human species unique to this trend would be foolish. _____________________________________________________________ Human interest in the environment has revealed the actuality that we have a truly small effect on the Earth in a temporal scale. Although human impacts may be considered long and drawn out compared to massive volcanoes, or asteroids, when placed into the context of Earth’s history, we are part of a very rapid process. _____________________________________________________________ As with most arguments, the fundamental problem is a matter of terminology and definition. The first item to be addressed is the matter of whether humans are a part of nature, or a unique entity that is somehow outside the realm of nature. It can be assumed that if we are outside of nature, and an environmentalist was true to his/her morals, the only answer would be to kill off all of humanity, allowing for nature to regain control. This of course is not a viable option for most people who separated humans from nature. In opposition would be those who believe that humans are a part of nature, a cog in the mechanics of ecology. In this case, we can assume that maybe everything we do is simply the same action that any other species would do in the same situation (of course there are many issues with such a simplified statement as this. There is the issue of our protecting/caring for weak, incapable persons, etc.). Furthermore, if this is true, there may be a hint of relief held within this perspective. _____________________________________________________________ If we are simply a part of nature, a member of an ecosystem, then we should focus our energy on promoting the perpetuity of our species. Maybe if we can acknowledge the impossibility of our ever understanding, let alone controlling, nature we can succeed as a species. It is becoming well known that our impacts to Earth are causing effects that where initially unexpected; resultantly threatening the lives of significant portions of our population. Now that we acknowledge these effects, we can begin to mitigate for them. But why? Well that is back to the original questions. _____________________________________________________________ An environmentalist should focus not on preserving the planet, but on preserving the human species. As mentioned prior, it is well known that all species will become extinct, and that humans have only been present on Earth for a very limited length of time. Why again should we concern ourselves with preserving the Earth when inevitably, it will rid us and everything else? _____________________________________________________________ The answer of course is EGO. More appropriately, it is where we place our ego. Do we feel that we can possible understand nature sufficiently to control it and maintain it for our, and all species’, benefit. Well that would be very conceded of humans. Do we really have so little respect for nature to assume our abilities? Maybe we should place our ego in the hands of God; and God will prevail, making everything proper. But isn’t that just placing it back in our hands by satisfying simplistic needs to ‘be good’? _____________________________________________________________ Lastly, and most importantly to me, we should work towards transcending our egos. At the very least this would lead to a reduction in the oligarchical ruling of poor old torries. It would also contribute to less resource depletion because we would not feel the need to have the newest and best; or to succeed as great as those that we read about; or to understand and manage nature better than anyone else prior. However, these are not why I feel that our ego must be given up. By allowing our egos to disappear, we suddenly feel completely dependent upon nature to provide us with all that it offers. Furthermore, and most profoundly, maybe as a species completely dependent upon nature to fulfill our needs, we can find our place in nature; the human cog in the mechanics of ecology. If we can focus on the perpetuation of humans as a species, we can let nature run the program. As long as we continue to attempt a control/mitigation technique, we will continue to move away from ever knowing nature for what it is. _____________________________________________________________ Maybe we will wake up inside a cave, watching a spider form its web, and understand out place in the world. And from that point on, we will see more, feel more, taste more, hear more, smell more. But the first step in this process is to remove our egos. We are not trying to save the planet… that is just silly. We all know that it is futile; the Earth will prevail and we will never matter. What we are really trying to do is preserve the human species for as long as possible. In doing this we will have to care for that which provides us with the nurturing touch of food, water, shelter. This in turn will require a lessened impact; a preservation of biodiversity; unlimited repairs of the senseless damage that we have caused while assuming that we could gain control.
That kid looks like he's been abused....
*laughs at all those Hummer drivers making fun of us environmentalists* Puh-leez. I am not even close to fitting those descriptions! I think people need to take a better look at modern environmentalists.
Post a Comment