Talk:Bright green environmentalism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bright green article

Note that at a couple points in time an article on this topic had been at Bright green, where it was a major cause of two AFD discussions. Some of the history for this article is in that page's history, and a small portion of discussion about this article is at Talk:Bright green#Bright green and technogaianism. GRBerry 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved to this page. — Omegatron 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced weasel phrases

Per WP:WEASEL, unsourced "some people say" statements do not belong in articles. I have accordingly removed them. I encourage people to re-add any of them with appropriate references. —Ashley Y 09:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statement / bias

and the fact that every major new phase of technological growth has ushered in tremendous new powers whose benefits are reaped by social elites while the costs are borne by the underclass,

To me this isn't NPOV, is unsourced, and quite frankly wrong (or at least very contentious) - railways, automobiles, mass commnication etc. are all very arguably technologies which decrease social inequality. Pjc51 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole paragraph was unsourced and non-neutral. I have removed it. —Ashley Y 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bright green and technogaianism

Could someone more knowledgeable than me on bright green and technogaianism explain the differences? I tried to do so, but I may very well be wrong.

The difference with technogaianism is a subtle one. While “bright greenists” are optimistic environmentalists who refuses a manicheistic view on technology and nature, technogaianists seems to adopt a more pragmatic, evolutionist approach. These former may, or not, be considered as utilitarianists.


David Latapie (✒ | @) 10:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term "Technogaianism" before (I am also unable to find out what "manicheistic" means). From what its article describes, it seems to be a subset or variant of bright green environmentalism with an emphasis on evolutionary philosophy. As far as I can tell they aren't really distinct enough (nor established enough) to warrant a comparison in their articles. Bright green environmentalism draws much of its identity-- and in many ways owes its origins to-- its differences with traditional environmentalism. --Holdek (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The writer of that sentence probably meant to write "manichaean" rather than "manicheistic" in the sense of "black and white thinking". --Loremaster (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of technogaianism either, despite being well-versed in the field. Certainly it's obscure enough not to merit discussion in the entry, IMHO. -

I never heard of it before stumbing upon the Wikipedia entry. Fact is it is there now, so either we delete the technogaianism entry or we explain the difference with Bright green. By the way, I reverted an IP deletion for the whole term, as there was no justification.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend deletion of the entire technogaianism entry, but certainly I don't think the term belongs on the same page as bright green, as bright green is now widely-used but technogaianism is very obscure and not used. For instance, technogaianism = 1,230 links on google, most (as far as I can tell) to the same set of articles by a small group of people. Bright green environmentalism returned 192,000 links on google. I'd argue for wholesale deletion.

Technogaianism seems to be the hobby horse of a single user who keeps trying to include it on this page for reasons of his own. Recommend deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.97.253 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I am the main contributor to the Technogaianism article is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not is the term is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article or be mentioned in the Bright green environmentalism article. That being said, the reason why I want the term "Technogainism" to be mentioned in the Bright green environmentalism article is because the term was used by a notable sociologist to describe prominent bright green environmentalists before the term "bright green" was coined and became popular. Even if the Technogainism article is deleted, I don't eee why the term can't be mentioned in the Bright green environmentalism article especially since it contributes to the comprehensiveness of this article. I understand that some people like to enforce a strict interpretation of Wikipedia's guideline against neologisms but I don't understand the anonymous deleter's zeal in this particular situation... --Loremaster (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This needs some work:

  • Who calls themselves "bright green"? Examples of notable people, groups or numbers of people
    • The worldchanging folk do a lot, and may be the origin of the phrase. Their website and book may be worthy of a mention, rather than just a link. Pjc51 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How did the term originate?
  • Who are their critics?
  • None of the stuff in the "criticism" section is actually criticism, and criticism sections are Bad, anyway. Include criticism in the main article text. (Though, really, the only criticism that makes sense is something like "It's not possible". Saying that Bright Greens want a win-win situation is not criticism; Everyone wants that.)
  • Quotes would be nice. — Omegatron 16:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It already has a criticism section, you just removed the heading. —Ashley Y 05al:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No. It has a paragraph with some sort of criticism in it. A Criticism section has a heading, and draws people to add more criticism in a false dichotomy sort of way. Criticism should be written about in the same place as the thing that's being criticized. — Omegatron 06:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It was all unsourced and WP:WEASEL anyway. I've removed it. —Ashley Y 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The Criticism section has been restored with new content. --Loremaster (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war over the Criticism section

Anonymous users keep deleting part of or the entire eco-socialist critique of bright green environmentalism from the Criticsm section without a good justification. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them. --Loremaster (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:BRD is the usual way we do things. —Ashley Y 00:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
These anonymous users have been bold and made what they believed to be the optimal change. I reverted (or modified) their edits so I am Most Interested Person. However, they have yet to discuss the changes they would like to make with me to reach a compromise... --Loremaster (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dark greens, light greens and bright greens

We have only Steffen for the "light green" and "dark green" concepts. I think we need to present this as just one point of view. —Ashley Y 00:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think its main value is in explaining the "bright green" term. —Ashley Y 00:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to rewrite the first three sections of the article (1. Lead; 2. Origin and evolution of bright green thinking; 3. Dark greens, light greens and bright greens). I'll tweak if and when necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

This whole article reads like a campaign pamphlet. "There's some people who are kinda nice but they never accomplish anything, and there are some people who're just really angry all the time, but we're juuuuuuuust right. Yay us." No. --Jammoe (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you volunteering for extensive copyediting duty? --Loremaster (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, am not...yet, anyway. But Jammoe's totally right. Thank goodness for the huge criticism section, but balance is still not enough. All parts need to be detached and encyclopedic. So...ahem...someone else do it. :D Fredgoat (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Doesn't the fact that both the sources cited (in re: ecosocialist critique) are from before the term "bright green" was coined undermine the usefulness of this critique? This seems more like someone advancing an agenda than addressing the actual subject of the article? -3/2/9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.107.37 (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally share the POV expressed by whoever added the text now under the "Criticism" heading, but in no way is it neutral. —Ashley Y 02:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The content of the Criticism section has been completely rewritten. --Loremaster (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it make sense to anyone else? I don't understand why either of these particular criticisms are considered important enough to document, and I don't really fully understand the prose involved. Perhaps a more complete rewrite is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.100.244 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Deep greens

Can we add this as well:

Similar to dark greens, "deep greens" put most of the blame of the current environmental problems on the industry, and also follow an anti-consumerist ideology. For individuals, they advocate adopting a simple/low-tech lifestyle, yet accept using green technologies whenever this is not possible. They also follow a non-anthropocentric environmental ideology. They also believe that the collapse of the current society, due to environmental difficulties, is at hand and thus also prepare for this collapse. ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:12CF:B300:2C0:9FFF:FEE0:67A2 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"One-planet living"

"One-planet living" is a frequently heard buzz-phrase.[3][4]

1. Frequently... How often is that? Weasel-word.

2. Buzz-phrase is a dismissive term, intended to undermine the conviction or intellectual rigor of those using such phrases and words.

3. Citation [3] links to the incomplete/inactive mission statement/wiki of an organization, and fails to characterize the meaning or use of the phrase, although it is used in scare-quotes, suggesting it is being borrowed from another source...

4. Citation [4] links to an article that uses "One-planet living" in the same scare-quotes while making an indictment of those trying to maintain an environmentally sound lifestyle. This is no indication of frequency or commonality of use, nor does it characterize it as a buzz-phrase. The phrase's use is probably a reference to David Thorpe's book "The One-Planet Life"

Ref: http://davidthorpe.info/sustainability/the-one-planet-life/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.104.22 (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Synonyms

"Eco-modernism" and "ecomodernism" need pages that redirect to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven noble (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that the Economodernist Manifest has been published and ecomodernism is the subject of a New York Times article "A Call to Look Past Sustainable Development" today it might be possible to create an article. Provisionally, I prefer ecomodernism, as it is simple. I'll look at Bright green environmentalism though, and think about it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Neo-environmentalism or Neoenvironmentalism also seem to be alternatives. Ecocapitalism seem inappropriate as any socialist government could adopt identical policies. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
See http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/Ecomodernism/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we redirect ecopragmatism to ecomodernism ? Also, modernist greens and ecopragmatists also needs to redirect to ecomodernism. See http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/modern_green_movement_eco_pragmatists_are_challenging_traditional_environmentalists.html , http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/modern_green_movement_eco_pragmatists_are_challenging_traditional_environmentalists.html

KVDP (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Citations

While the quote in the first section (Origin...) is cited, should it be attributed to the author within the article? The way it is written doesn't make it very clear of the quote is from Steffen. Bidishakroy (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

International Perspective

Are there any instances of international groups that oppose or critique bright green environmentalism? At the moment, the article seems very one-sided, and this may be a good section to introduce some critiques of this field of thought. Bidishakroy (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bright green environmentalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bright green environmentalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bright_green_environmentalism/Archive_1&oldid=1182913068"