>>5354
>How so?
I was referring to people like Greenpeace or others that are militantly devoting themselves towards the "protection" of some "nature" and that would even attack or harm other people over this.
Or just common people that obsess over their environment or their "ecological footprint" all the time.
I have seen this becoming a dangerous trend.
Same with Vegeterianism or the likes.
These new movements have started to replace religion for a while now in the life of the common man. All of them, also feminism ie.
It fulfills the parametres of religion imo. It causes a certain group feeling, makes you follow a moral code, declares certain acts "sin", declares certain individuals "enemy" and the only cause it serves is itself.
Environmentalism for instance only serves the environment and further environmentalism. Nothing else.
Anything that could help humans is rejected as harmful and taboo.
So saving forests is kosher, but encouraging people to actually visit and use them for wood or at least relaxation or whatever is taboo and declared harmful for the forest because it could disturb animals ie. Note that this serves only itself again, the animals are to be left alone because this is the rule, not to increase their use for us.