Trails

Reviews

Community

Tips

Latest Articles Podcast Deals

Support Singletracks Sign in Create an account Merch About us Newsletter signup

Home / Mountain Bike Trails / Survey

Do You Consider Yourself an Environmentalist?

According to the Oxford dictionary definition, an environmentalist is "a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment."

By Jeff Barber
January 2, 2022

6 comments

Singletracks may receive compensation for purchases made through any affiliate links in this article.

According to the Oxford dictionary definition, an environmentalist is “a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment.” Of course we all ride for different reasons, and mountain bikers represent a diverse group of individuals and perspectives.

Community

Renee Hutchens is a Mountain Biker Advocating for Indigenous People and the Environment [Podcast #286]

California

Closures, Floods, Erosion: The Wildfire Effect on Trails and Why it Probably Won't get Better Soon

Italy

A New Rewards Card in Finale Ligure Directs Tourism Dollars to Trail Building

Mountain Bike Trails

Showing the Luv to Your Mountain Bike Trails and Trail Builders

Jeff Barber

Jeff Barber has been mountain biking since 1992 and has tested hundreds of mountain bikes and components. He is the co-founder of Singletracks and serves as Editor in Chief. Contact him at [email protected].

Featured Articles

Mountain Bikes and Gear

These Are the Gifts Mountain Bikers Actually Want

Mountain Bikes and Gear

MTB brands and retailers aren't messing around with these early Black Friday deals

California

California riders rally to save a popular beginner-friendly flow trail

Mountain Bikes and Gear

The new Bosch Performance Line CX motor could mark a turning point for electric mountain bikes

6 Comments

Please log in or create a free account to join the discussion.

OhioFatBiker Ohio // 2016
Jan 2, 2022

I am a conservationist more than environmentalist. It is OK for humans to interact with the world while being good stewards of it. It is OK to cut down trees while taking care of the forest. I am concerned when I hear leaders well funded environmental organizations speak of humanity as a though it is a scourge on the planet. I care deeply for the natural world but don’t align with that view at all

4 reply

CycleKrieg Minnesota // 2017
Jan 3, 2022

Though, to be fare, if there were less humans, it would be easier to conserve the earth. We can both push for a more conservation based viewpoint while pointing out that its harder given our human population, our population growth and with the political and economic imperatives that are set toward exploitation. Critiquing the actions of humans is not the same as suggesting humans are a scrooge.

-1 reply

Sunspot Colorado // 2019
Jan 2, 2022

Agenda driven groups need not apply. There are some of those whom of which want to close a place to everyone else once they have seen it.

3 reply

OhioFatBiker Ohio // 2016
Jan 3, 2022

The inevitable question that arises from your comment "Which humans should there be less of, and who decides?" It gets ugly very quickly if you don't start from the position that human life has intrinsic value.

0 reply

CycleKrieg Minnesota // 2017
Jan 3, 2022

That is a a strawman argument. No one is suggesting mass murder in reducing the human population or its growth curve. You can manage to have less humans without having to "less than" a group of people. As an example, it could be as easy as providing a series of free benefits (college, job training, etc.) to the first child born a mother and a (steep?) reduction of said benefits to following children. The economics would provide the driver, not a specific policy. While, humans have an intrinsic value, not sure uncreated potential future humans have a value. Making the "Every Sperm is Sacred" argument is really about trying shut down any discussions suggesting that consideration of human's impact is valid. If every mouth needs to fed because every human is the pinnacle of worth, that means farms, orchards, fields - all fine when balanced but often mentioned as more important usages of land than wild spaces. That means mass and commercial fishing, unregulated hunting, etc. Same for housing of these unique and beautiful snowflakes. All of which makes it harder to conserve and maintain wild lands or the species within. Or... we can stop pretending everyone needs to have their own Walton family and adjust the incentives to maintain a healthy, diverse, happy and much smaller global human family. No one has to be killed and no group would be subject to unfair sanctions to do this. Not only would it be better for our human progeny in the future, it would far, far, far better for the planet's non-human progeny.

-1 reply

OhioFatBiker Ohio // 2016
Jan 4, 2022

Straw men indeed. Trivializing my point with a snide remark about sperm is not polite and is also not convincing. In fact, you seem To be heading down the slope I mentioned with your subsequent remarks. A human being is not just a “snowflake” requiring a house, nor are they just a “mouth to feed”. The value of human life should not be derived simply from an equation of food produced-food consumed. A topic best explored somewhere else.

We can manage the environmental impacts of people while valuing them at the same time. In fact, we could probably support even more population if done right. We have societies on the planet that do it better than others right now.

1 reply

Tagged: environment, survey, trails

First published January 2, 2022 @ 3:53:00