Hargrove suggests that ecological sabotage will ultimately reserve the positive results of the environmental movement of the 1960's and 70's. He asks "what could be the justification for acts which could easily create a terrible backlash?" From the reading we did for Wednesdays there are many practical justifications for ecological sabotage. Sabotage is meant to be extreme and show just how moderate the moderates like the Sierra Club truly are in what they are asking. Foreman says that when they are inspired they act. Sitting around and waiting to be politically bullied got the environmental movement no where. So long as they are not physically injuring people, there is little harm to throwing a monkey wrench into the paving machines and logging equipment. Clearly large companies can economically recover from these acts, so even if they are financially harming a large company saboteurs who are not physically injuring people reside more in the prank than terror realm.
Hargrove uses Locke's statement that "a man who destroys property declares a state of war with society and in that state, society has the right to destroy the offender." As this relates to the environment this statement is rather problematic. Basically every issue that weve talked about this year about nature and how we should act toward it are brought into question. Hargrove means to use this as proof that sabotage will get you killed and its wrong, but does anyone really own the environment? Some argue yes because you can have a little slip of paper that you bought telling you you own but the collective good of keeping ecosystems intact gives all of us a little bit of ownership since we all feel the benefits and consequences of destroying nature.
Hargrove is convinced by Locke's logic that saboteurs who are not first killed by society will begin killing society to save the earth. Hargrove has a legitimate concern as professor Grady pointed out with the tree spikers. I agree that there is a tipping point that turns ecological sabotage from prank to terrorism, but I do not think that the environmental movement would premeditate how to kill the people who are clearing the forests. It seems more like pranks gone bad that have unfortunately turned into terrorism because people have died as a result. I dont know a lot about this tree spiking but I would hope that after realizing it killed the harmless blue collar worker it would end. When it doesnt is when it turns into sabotage.
I tend to agree with your distinction about sabotage vs terrorism so long as innocents are hurt in the process, whether they are animals, parts of nature, or humans. I think though, that the act of tree-spiking is to prevent deforestation, not to harm anyone. Maybe i do not know enough about it, but when people 'spike' a tree, does the spike not show? Are the resulting deaths due to the spikes being out of sight and their presence unknown or are those deaths due to a stubbornness to stop cutting down trees, even when they know the spikes are there. I do not claim to know about logging companies in the full, but if they are willing to destroy nature and in the process kill other living creatures, would they be inclined to stop just because of a few human deaths and worker's comp's?
ReplyDelete"Clearly large companies can economically recover from these acts, so even if they are financially harming a large company saboteurs who are not physically injuring people reside more in the prank than terror realm."
ReplyDeleteSo if throwing a monkey wrench doesn't do any harm to the corporations that they can't recover from, then what's the point? I think that the heart of the monkeywrenching is plan is to do something more extreme and invasive than has ever been done before in order to put a physical stop to harm being done to the environment. I think these acts are meant to put a real hindrance on those doing environmental damage, and not be easily recoverable from.