Reflections about "Eco Terrorism"

The fact that there is such a rampant debate about what qualifies as terrorism and what does not proves that it really is a matter of opinion. If it were a simple case of right and wrong, the question would have been answered long ago, however it is clear that this issue will not be resolved soon.


While most would agree that eco terrorism is not as destructive, violent and evil as the traditional meaning of terrorism, it still is widely looked down upon in society. Why is it that even though the final goal of a group is to actually preserve life, they can still be thought of as a burden to society? It is probably that this is really the first time in history that prosperity is not being seen as a totally positive thing. If a lumber company is prosperous, it means they are able to cut down a huge amount of trees and distribute the wood to those that need it. This is the first time that such companies are being told to slow down, to produce less. In the last century the environmental problems caused by human actions have become tangible. Up until relatively recently, people believed that the earth’s resources were unlimited, however as technology changed, this attitude did not. For instance, one argument that Japan has brought up in defense of whaling is that eating whale has been a tradition in their culture for centuries. This may be true; however they were not always killing hundreds of them in a season as they are today. For generations, people were used to taking what they could get without consequence and because of this it will be a battle to demonstrate to them that this is no longer true.


A question that arises is, why don’t environmentalists take these issues to the government and have them properly solved? Even though there are programs in place to protect the environment, many would argue that it is not enough. The environment is also now a politically controversial issue that politicians do not like to bring up. It is likely that negative stereotypes about environmentalists and eco terrorists have changed opinions about the issue, in effect hurting their chances of getting politicians on their side, producing a cycle of resentment. At this point in time what causes many environmentalists to be labeled as terrorists is that to most of society the ends do not justify the means. It does not matter that they destroyed property with the best intentions, what matters is that they destroyed property. It is an unreasonable thing, to destroy property of those that we disagree with. Most people’s reaction is something like, what right does someone have to cause destruction to someone else’s property? While on the other hand the group causing the destruction is wondering, what right do these people have to cause such harm to the environment without any consequences? So, once again it is a cycle of resentment where one side is completely unsympathetic to the other.



Image:http://inhabitat.com/housing-crisis-worlds-trees/