Agnostic.com

2 0

The dark side of liberalism is that its philosophy rejects some important ideas which are required for human self-limitation. It rejected first the idea of a natural order to which humanity is subject, and later the notion of human nature itself (as an obstacle to the self-actualization of individuals, to their pursuit of happiness).
According to liberals, nature is something outside of humanity, something (or 'some things' - ) that could be used or exploited for human purposes and ends, but nothing that has any value in itself.
Liberalism therefore inaugurated a transformation in the natural and human sciences and humanity’s relationship to the natural world which eventually led to the dire ecological situation we are now witnessing.

Matias 8 Aug 11
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

The word liberal has meant so many different, sometimes diametrically opposite, things that it’s hard to know one’s intent unless a definition is specified.

If by liberal you mean in favor of human progress, otherwise known as civilization, you are not wrong. Change creates problems. It’s difficult and challenging, and there will be unforeseeable consequences.

The usual response from conservatives is that they are not opposed to change - they just want it to happen more slowly and cautiously. But in this country at least, in practice, they are not only opposed to progress of any degree, they want to reverse it and go back to “the good old days” of slavery, racism, environmental plunder, and authoritarianism.

Both groups have their extreme factions, and those extremists energize the extremists of the opposing group, such that division and extremism grow.

Civilization is, in one sense, not natural. No other species did it. Our choices are… to continue with the experiment, or go “back to nature.” The problem is, at this point, only one of those options is available to conscious choice, even though that choice may eventually lead back to the other consequence or even to extinction. E. O. Wilson was right. We are a conflicted species.

skado Level 9 Aug 11, 2022

@Matias
Ok, I can work with that definition of liberalism. And I agree it has led to the outcome you mentioned. So… what do you prescribe as a solution?

@Matias
Our species is uniquely (in degree at least) creative. Creativity makes change. And change is destructive of previous conditions.

None of this is done at the conscious level - it is just our nature. We alter our environment to suit our current whim, and then use our ingenuity to repair or cope with the damage. We could eventually paint ourselves into a corner that way, from which there might be no escape.

We have escaped such self-made traps in the past, but it remains to be seen how well we will cope with the impending challenge.

Individuals vary, but as a group we are a lot better at creating/destroying and repairing than at conserving. So, in that sense, yes, it is conservatism that we are in need of.

0

I've never heard any liberal express anything that even suggests that they believe this to be true. Liberals tend to be the ones that are pro-green and pro-environmentalism. I can't imagine how you could have reached the conclusion that liberals were the cause of climate change.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:680928
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.