The dispossessed ecologist

[Exnihiloest]

Ecology is a science. The ecologist would be the natural term for the ecological scientist, as the biologist is for biology.
Today, it is no longer that to the point that it is necessary to invent a new word, ecologist, to distinguish the scientist from the political activist.

"Ecologist" could also have been used to designate people who apply the scientific principles of ecology such as less polluting lifestyles. But in my opinion we also need another word, personally I use "an ecological", not to put these respectable pioneers at the rank of vile activists basely political and not at all exemplary that we call today "environmentalists".

If you are ecologists or ecological, it does not bother you this political recovery, this confiscation of the term "environmentalist" by politics? Don't you think it's counterproductive?

[to be chafoin]

Even if the science of ecology is older, I believe that the terms ecology and ecologists, in the "modern" sense, took on a certain social dimension in the 70s: historically, it is the political side (with scientific knowledge extra) which prevailed. It was only later, in a second step, that the scientific side took on more importance in the debates of society (marker of the IPCC of the 90s). The term ecologist was then used to differentiate the activist from the scientist. But these are, without doubt, cloche-merle quarrels ...

[Did67]

If memory serves, "ecology" was indeed invented to designate the science that studies the relationships between living organisms, one could say the global functioning of living things, with nutritional mechanisms, predation / symbiosis relationships, etc ... And so logically, an "ecologist" is a scientist, specialist in this science.

Certain movements have straddled the political battle of taking into account the limits of human predation, seeking lifestyles that are more respectful of nature, etc.

But very quickly, many other political objectives were grafted onto it, which have nothing to do with environmental protection. Which are rather a form of humanism: fight against Pershing rockets in Germany, against nuclear power (there is no ecology in a nuclear power plant or in a wind turbine) ... Social struggles: abortion, gay marriages, etc ... The "environmental activist", before putting it into the political grub, the "push yourself away that I get started", the media battles, was sometimes only rather mediocre in "ecology" .

The search for more environmentally friendly lifestyles is not always ecology in the proper sense. Even if the opposite has consequences for living species. "Green lifestyle" is not an exact term. It would be a "less destructive way of life" ... I mentioned energy, but we can also talk about our "transport machines" which are not ecological. Whether it's the plane or the bike! But cycling is green. The plane is not. In reality, none are. But the impact of one is considerable, that of the other very limited (but not zero!).

So yes, that doesn't mean anything anymore. In my book, for example, about an ecological reflection in my vegetable garden, I specify in brackets that it has nothing to do with politics. But that it is science.

But hey, we will not change anything. A language lives. And words collectively take on meaning in a context.

An "auto" (the car) is therefore called auto because originally, they were "car carriages" (which move themselves), as opposed to those where horses had to be harnessed. Today, therefore, an "auto" is a "self"! Difficult to understand !!!

[Exnihiloest]

...
But hey, we will not change anything. A language lives. And words collectively take on meaning in a context.

An "auto" (the car) is therefore called auto because originally, they were "car carriages" (which move themselves), as opposed to those where horses had to be harnessed. Today, therefore, an "auto" is a "self"! Difficult to understand !!!

Certainly the language is not fixed, but also it is well known that the semantic drifts blur the meaning.
The fact that "environmentalist" has become a political term, and that ecological parties are on the left, suggests for example that one cannot be an environmentalist if one is on the right, perhaps not even if one is on the right. is from the center. A person of the right will she not sulk ecology simply because the term "ecologist" seems monopolized by the left, when he may share ecological aspirations?

[to be chafoin]

That seems to me to be a bit of a thing here, today all politicians call themselves ecologists!

[sen-no-sen]

That seems to me to be a bit of a thing here, today all politicians call themselves ecologists!

Indeed since the end of the 90 years ecology has become an economic sector, so it is necessary for all politicians to call themselves ecologists!

[Did67]

Certainly the language is not fixed, but also it is well known that the semantic drifts blur the meaning.
The fact that "environmentalist" has become a political term, and that ecological parties are on the left, suggests for example that one cannot be an environmentalist if one is on the right, perhaps not even if one is on the right. is from the center. A person of the right will she not sulk ecology simply because the term "ecologist" seems monopolized by the left, when he may share ecological aspirations?

We should qualify. There was a right-wing (Waechter) or center (Corine Lepage) "environmentalist" movement ...

If the right has such a hard time getting hold of ecological thoughts, and Macron is quite symptomatic about it, it is because the "at the same time" does not work !!!! We cannot promote economic development based on capital initiative and ecology at the same time.

So we have to admit that for a business owner, the easiest way is to ransack, sell, make a profit. And leave polluted sites ...

And if we start to regulate all this seriously, we are de facto socio-democratic!

I would be tempted to say that it is not the semantic confusion which makes ecology not very far to the right. This is because they should say "stop" to their friends, those who are growing!

[to be chafoin]

Yes certainly, basically there is a fundamental, irreconcilable contradiction between the capitalist push (unlimited increase in profits, consumption ...) and a coherent ecological political thought (a certain limitation of growth according to the available resources, control or concern for the environmental impact of production, promotion of responsible consumption or even a certain frugality, new modes of consumption / sharing / recycling ...).

As part of this reflection, one of the big problems in the history of the green party, in my opinion, has been the failure to take social issues into account. Suddenly, they put themselves in a way, on the sidelines, and more recently, have been completely atomized, or rather brutally and literally quartered, by the appearance of the movement of yellow vests!

[Did67]

It was mentioned somewhere about Hulot.

The delicate question is that of "entryism" or "non-entryism"!

- "entryism": should we get our hands dirty in a system that is globally hated and contrary to the principles that we defend, in the hope of making it "less worse", at the cost of an indigestion of snakes. .

- "non-entryism": remained more "pure", sticking to its ideals, at the risk of society continuing such that ... The dream is intact. Easy criticism. The marginality somewhere comfortable ...

The "official" green parties have always tangoed between these two alternatives. Their leaders contenting themselves with engaging in government - often to flatter their egos!

Let it be clear: I am an "entryist". I have been. My "ideas" appear "in my writings, especially on the PP. And yet, I have been at the heart of the French administrations (Ministry of Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture). I" cooperated "- operated together - with the local branch of the FNSEA ... These are very difficult exercises. But the only ones, in my opinion, which seriously move the lines. Changing the practices of 10% of producers by 80% will always be more effective than install 1 farmer in 1 in an "ideal" micro-farm, including for nature!

Of course, we are there in the convictions. Not in scientific truths.

[Exnihiloest]

That seems to me to be a bit of a thing here, today all politicians call themselves ecologists!

If political demagoguery uses it for its ends, it is a sign that ecology is the popular well-being of the moment.

We should qualify. There was a right-wing (Waechter) or center (Corine Lepage) "environmentalist" movement ...

Waechter wanted to fight against the unlimited production of goods, it is not really "right".
We still have the impression, especially with the "Greens" and what followed, that the positioning is mainly on the left.

If the right has such a hard time getting hold of ecological thoughts, and Macron is quite symptomatic about it, it is because the "at the same time" does not work !!!! We cannot promote economic development based on capital initiative and ecology at the same time.

So we have to admit that for a business owner, the easiest way is to ransack, sell, make a profit. And leave polluted sites ...

And if we start to regulate all this seriously, we are de facto socio-democratic!

Obviously, and with good reason. The right also has a role of regulating capitalism for ecological questions. Regulating something does not mean having to wreck everything else. I have the impression that this is what the ecologism of the left criticizes that of the right because it is in fact opposed to "economic development".
But there is no need for any ecological policy if the recommended method is only to ban all that pollutes or to force alternative solutions whatever the price to pay. This effectively amounts to prohibiting production, or drastically eliminating 95% of production by solutions of the kind proposed by Eclectron: we only keep one model of smartphone.
We don't need an ecological policy just to produce with less pollution. Because not to pollute, we know how, the economy of the 17th century and before can serve as a model.