Comments on: Leonardo DiCaprio Tries Desperately to Be Modern Day Thoreau

By: Vincent.

Vincent. — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:16:19 +0000

Oops, that was supposed to read like this:

Perhaps. But I also don’t necessary disagree with his stances on nuclear power, or genetically modified food for that matter.

Same here. I just thought it was important to point out that Moore is so out of the environmentalist mainstream that pointing to his writing for examples of how DiCaprio’s movie is flawed doesn’t really prove much except to show that someone who doesn’t really believe in standard environmentalist dogma anymore doesn’t really buy the argument in the DiCaprio film.

And as to the question of ascribing an “orthodoxy” to environmentalism, I would contend that it’s not really as absurd as you make it out to be, at least on questions of (for instance…) logging, nuclear power (another hot topic for Moore, FYI), river damming, etc.

By: Vincent.

Vincent. — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:09:07 +0000

Perhaps. But I also don’t necessary disagree with his stances on nuclear power, or genetically modified food for that matter.

By: T

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:05:54 +0000

Ooooh! Do you get to meet Leo? I’ve heard he’s fat.

By: CJ Ciaramella

CJ Ciaramella — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:02:44 +0000

Yeah, I came across Patrick Moore when I was researching my Info Hell project (the second time around). He wrote a book advocating for more clear-cutting of forests. On one hand, it almost makes sense. Clear-cutting recreates the temporary meadows that naturally occur after moderate to severe fires and can actually increase biodiversity. For example, the infamous spotted owl thrives in areas next to meadows or clearcuts. On the other hand, it was completely asinine.

It’s pretty safe to say that Moore doesn’t represent the mainstream environmental movement. In fact, he’s pretty much the opposite.

By: D

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:59:49 +0000

Somehow, I am in charge of filling the seats for the opening of this crap carnival in Portland.
DiCaprio is on the board of Global Green, who is both promoting the movie and a client of the company I work for. Yadda Yadda Yadda… They gave us (and other companies like us around the nation, I’m sure) nervous, short notice, to fill seats and fill them fast. The goal is to later promote a sold out opening weekend. As a really funny joke, we agreed and will pay for as many seats as we could give away. But after whoring what seems like a social studies 101 lecture today, I was only able to garner about 20 seats. I could probably give away tickets to a fun day in the bathroom with Senator Craig faster.

By: T

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 03:42:50 +0000

Perhaps. But I also don’t necessary disagree with his stances on nuclear power, or genetically modified food for that matter. That’s just me, though. His views can be considered “unorthodox” by some (the sorts of people who rationally refer to him as “Judas”), but that ascribes an orthodoxy to environmentalism, which I think is a little ridiculous. And sometimes founders of organizations leave, like MADD’s Candy Lightner, and they are forever branded traitors.

Still, that’s a good catch on your part and I wish I had mentioned it myself.

By: Vincent.

Vincent. — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:48:48 +0000

I think it’s important to note that Patrick Moore, despite being co-founder of Greenpeace, has repeatedly come under criticism from his former allies in the environmental movement for being a “traitor” and a sellout.

DiCaprio’s film may be a turgid piece of crap, but I don’t think Patrick Moore’s opinion really carries much, if any, weight in the environmentalist movement anymore, given that he’s become an object of intense scorn for his unorthodox views.