Environmentalism and Human Progress

I was reading the sticky-thread "Human Progress Group-- Read this First" just now and I notice this statement:

The only kind of types we don't want posting here are green anarchists or other 'greens', biocentrists, any kinds of bioconservatives or other closet primmies, religious nutjobs or other adults with imaginary friends, or neo-puritans

I was wondering why Green Anarchists are not permitted to join? Do support for environmentalism and support for technological advancement exclude each other? I don't see why any emphasis on the environment is unprogressive. Or am I incorrect on the ideology of the Green Anarchists, and I have not yet noticed it is merely another term for "Anarcho-Primitivist"?

Well not necessarily. I used to identify loosely as a green anarchist a couple of years ago.

I certainly don't think they are inherently conflicting ideologies, but it is my understanding that serious discussions of bio-conservation and its conflicts with human encroachment/development are more suited for the S&E forum. Green anarchism tends to fixate on ecological consequences of capitalist development, which really isn't being significantly discussed here.

--

edit add: after reading serpent's reply, I change my mind. I think there is just general confusion here as to what green anarchism means.

Serpent: calling all green anarchists disciples of Zerzan is like accusing all communists of being Stalinists. You should consider reading stuff by Murray Bookchin, for example, to understand why it is a very diverse movement. (Alan Carter is another "green anarchist" who also takes a positive view of technology)

I basically agree with ya, Serpent. It just seems I have overlooked the real proposition of the Green Anarchists.

I was wondering why Green Anarchists are not permitted to join?

Basically, to my experience there are several different definitions of green anarchism, this due to the habit of playing around with labels within the more insurrectionary wing of anarchism. But, although I have spoken with many who have identified with the label without being primitivists, much of the official stuff, articles etc clearly are just that.

This sort of thing makes it very difficult to get a grasp of what green anarchism actually entails, which might in some cases very well be a deliberate tactic, considering the outright homicidal views of some of it's proponents.. Many primitivists clearly use this label in order to blend into the crowd of more moderate biocentrics.

Due to this it perhaps should be clarified here what kind of people are actually meant.

Sites such as http://www.greenanarchy.org/ publish articles by people like John Zerzan which blame technological civilisation for the 'alienation' of mankind and advocate it's destruction. Now, this is the kind of green anarchists we primarily are opposed to, even though the views of other green anarchists also often collide with those of ours..

Do support for environmentalism and support for technological advancement exclude each other? I don't see why any emphasis on the environment is unprogressive.

It absolutely isn't, see Serpent's post. We are for sustainable development, however not only primitivists, but 'greens' who advocate the abolishment of more effective technology, energy production etc in favor of less effective methods, or otherwise wish to regress development, due to biocentric arguments represent the very trend within the left, which this group opposes.

So, I think it might be safe to say that most green anarchists for one reason or another don't fit into this group, while people who are worried about the environment for purely anthropocentric reasons -- for the future of mankind on earth -- clearly do.

Green anarchism tends to fixate on ecological consequences of capitalist development, which really isn't being significantly discussed here.

It should be however, especially in cases where we need the anthropocentric position on it. Please start any such discussion you feel we should have.

Thanks for the all the information. This clarified the topic to the point it is crystal clear

^^ I erased that sentence a few times and still didn't get it out right.

The only point of contention that any a "human progress group" could potentially have with all people that identify with "green anarchism" is that almost all groups do not want to see human domination of the environment. It is an extension of the anarchist tradition of abhorring domination in regards to class, gender, race, etc. In their view, turning ecology into a commodity is what is creating an environmental crisis within capitalism. For these groups, the destruction of capitalism means destroying capital's dominant relation to the environment.

While this sometimes manifests itself into some sort of "biocentricism" like deep ecology, other's like Bookchin outright reject biocentricism -- but at the same time decry the commodification and domination of the environment. They argue for a 3rd path that utilizes technology to create a mutalistic symbiotic relationship. They argue that any anti-capitalist movement with a persisting opinion that dominating the environment is beneficial, will ultimately also result in the persistence of the current environmental crisis created by capitalism.

They do not mystify the environment, but argue that this is the only realistic way of preserving our own habitat. I don't really go so far as to identify with them, but I certainly think that this line of thought has a lot of merit. My major criticism of any leftist "human progress" movement is that it gets so excited and fixated over immediate technological progression, it blinds itself to long term ecological consequences.

I feel that green anarchists at their best is yet another form of lifestylism, and at their worst a path-way of entryism for more sinister forces (I have seen green anarchist websites link to the UNA-bomber for example)

If you are accusing the social ecologists of "lifestylism" than you really should read more by them. They despise lifestyle anarchists. I believe Bookchin even "broke" with anarchism for his brand of "libertarian socialism" over the issue of lifestylism.

Well, we clearly are, if obviously not for the commodification of it -- being communists and all -- strongly in favor of human domination of the environment. The environment is powerful, and hostile in the sense that it kills off species unable to cope with it. A slight temperature change can have enormous consequences and kill millions, a hurricane or tsunami can destroy countries..

Do we want this? Humanity is now entering an era in it's development which can potentially enable effective control and modification of the environment, and I see it as our duty towards ourselves and future generations to thread on that path -- carefully, weighing every step, but without respect for the environment for it's own sake.

Humanity is now entering an era in it's development which can potentially enable effective control and modification of the environment, and I see it as our duty towards ourselves and future generations to thread on that path -- carefully, weighing every step, but without respect for the environment for it's own sake.

I agree with your sentiment. I also agree that we are entering an era that could see human influence on the environment on a massive scale. But what I disagree with is that we have the ability to predict consequences of that kind of activity. The earth doesn't exactly have an easy "undo" button if we fuck up.