Were the Nazis radical environmentalists?

Dhlazare Dhlazare at aol.com
Tue May 12 06:03:46 PDT 1998


In a message dated 98-05-11 14:26:34 EDT, you write:

<<

> Reds have (or should have) none of the misanthropic, anti-industrial,

> anti-technological pessimism that infects even

> the most progressive of greens

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it does not base itself on

widely-known and generally-accepted facts about biodiversity impacts or anthropogenic

climate change. Whenever we have the discussion with Jim Heartfield he simply

denies that climate change is occurring, or that we are living thru a mass

extinction. You can't argue with people who are simply not interested in the

facts. Mr Lazare's complacency comes in the same category.

>> What is the problem here? I was arguing against pessimism, not in favor of complacency. I think global warming is quite real and that the issue will shape politics for decades to come, if not longer. I think it must be addressed not just through purely technological fixes such as electric cars and solar energy and the like but more fundamental political-economic changes governing how we use energe and shape our technological development. But I remain optimistic that it can be overcome and that technological development can and should continue - indeed, that it must accelerate.

Where I think Jim Heartfield goes wrong is to simply disregard environmental factors and to settle for a kind of left-wing Gomperism that assumes that more cars are better. Where I think environmentalists go wrong is to assume that people and nature are eternally opposed, that nature has inherent value (as opposed to the value created by human labor), and that the "conquest" of nature inevitably means its degradation.

Dan Lazare



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list