Is it normal to think that too many environmentalists are clueless sheep?

I am an environmentalist college student myself but I'm starting to have the feeling that a significant portion of environmentalists are just following the principle of environmentalism without even understanding its intention or procedures. So many of them have almost no grasp on the science of the environment or life of it and just throw themselves into some dumbed down version of the big picture. Is it normal to feel this way?

Voting Results
81% Normal
Based on 54 votes (44 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 58 )
  • Holzman67

    I think it's the opposite. Too many sheep are environmentalists. They make baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad environmentalists

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • squeallikeasacofpigs

    Well obviously to the majority of people the science of the environment is largely inaccessible. So media often presents a much more simple version of the science to people to make the concepts seem more accessible.

    Whilst I hate the idea of a flock mentality and people only doing things because it's "cool", I think it's only a good thing that more and more people are being environmentally responsible. Even if they don't fully understand the reasons why.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • I am happy that people are more environmentally conscious, too. But the problem is that people are starting to form deviations and people are going off tangents using this oversimplified and skewed version.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • bananaface

      Good point. I completely agree.:)

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • CountryChick

    I agree. I am all for keeping the planet clean and stuff too, but many environmentalists are, in fact, sheep who go too far and just come off as annoying.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • davesumba

    Yeah. Like how people cry about " they are destroying all the trees." Even though for every tree we cut down, we plant 2-10 more in its place. And the amount of trees in the world has remained the same if not grown a little for many many years.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • thegypsysailor

    You are probably correct in your assumption. But as the environmental deterioration of this planet is at a critical point, everybody who can do something, should.
    As long as big business can pay money to the government for the privilege of polluting, it is all just lip service anyway and pointless.
    If enough folks got off their asses and actually forced the big polluters to clean up their act, perhaps your children's children could live in a world with clean air, water and a see few wild creatures outside of zoos.
    But I have little faith that any of you will make a difference and most will surely cower before the dollar signs, seeking a safe if unimportant, existence.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Grapist

    Who cares about the environment, it is a hindrance to progress. When you think about it, they complain about deforestation and greenhouse gases. But think about how much oxygen and clean air we could fit in the space trees take up

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • No. Environmentalism is supposed to be pro-human. It is NOT supposed to hinder humanity. Rather, it seeks to find ways to prevent future catastrophes that would otherwise hinder humanity.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • disthing

        Grapist is a troll. You shouldn't feed trolls, or they become dependant on you for their next meal.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • anti-hero

    Do you even know the true (first, actual, original) definition of environmentalism?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • "Environmentalism denotes a social movement that seeks to influence the political process by lobbying, activism, and education in order to protect natural resources and ecosystems."

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • anti-hero

        Not even close :) I mean the ORIGINAL meaning of the word.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Tell me.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • anti-hero

            Without looking up an true definition. Basically it was a word/idea/theory used by psychologist to explain people's behavior based on the environment they were raised it. So someone who believed in environmentalism believed that you were the way you were based on your surroundings/How you were raised.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • Shackleford96

              Don't know who the fuck downthumbed you, but I found that very interesting. Thumbed you back up.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • dom180

    It's certainly normal to generalise a group of people, especially if you disagree with them and see them as "other". I've never met someone I would think of as an environmentalist who I would describe as you do, though.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • q25t

      OP is a college student. People fawning over causes they know nothing about is commonplace. Environmentalism luckily is actually the right position, but when you ask someone why they're recycling and planting trees, and their entire response is "for the trees", you can be fairly sure they're not exactly thinking too hard.

      They're being herded into a good cause, but without their own reasoning, they become much easier to dupe with bad science and lies that are rather common in many environmental efforts.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • dom180

        Perhaps the OP should look beyond the people he or she associates with on a daily basis before judgement.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
      • Precisely.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
    • I changed it to say "many".

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Wuggums47

    That being said, the people who think global warming isn't happening are pretty dumb too. I'd just say people in general are clueless sheep.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • throat_cutter

    Its similiar to the "breast cancer awareness" hype that commercialized the pink ribbon for profit and for glamour. Really people buy shuch things without questioning the likely scientific progress towards a breakthrough in cancer, but of course such a discovery would be repressed. why? then ppl will stop buying such things and marketers would lose money

    however this topic more so reflects on the big schemers in the picture, not necessarily the blind crowd who supports the "work" towards it

    I saw a bag of chips with a pink breast cancer awareness on it. haha really.? considering trans fat gmos and all other chemical syntethics that alter cell metabolism, this must be a joke. but w.e

    your exasperation is pretty normal

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Terence_the_viking

    you could say that about any group faction etc.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Brice1

    Honestly most of them are

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • What a load of wank. Your post doesn't actually mean anything, the principal and the intention are not seperate to begin with. And procedures? Helping is helping. You try to sound smart and make something out of nothing.

    I shall not stand for this blatant disregard of other people's intelligence, there's no way anyone will buy into your po....oh wait they are.....oh dear.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • The point is that some of these organizations are forming renegade groups and are actually set to do things that will do more harm than good, like some rules of certain religions.

      Look at the Westboro Baptist Church. The original intent of Christianity is about love, but they took it the wrong way and turned it into a message of hate.

      Comment Hidden ( show )