Are you a wasteroon? Readers suggest antonyms for environmentalist

Proposed antonyms for “environmentalist” have flown in on the four winds, and it seems wise to recap the candidates before making any hasty selections. A vote may be in order between finalists, recognizing however that everyday usage is the vote that matters most to language.

First, some winnowing. We’re looking for a functional antonym, which really shouldn’t insult anyone, a point I tried to make in my original post by disqualifying Blockheads (the antagonists of that green pioneer, Gumby, and his horse, Pokey). So we have to disqualify some submissions as derogatory, including some we shan’t print here, and also “destructionist” and “pillager.”

On the borderline is “wasteroon,” which makes a compelling case via its own Sesame Street jingle. But people who oppose environmentalism probably don’t think of themselves as wasteful. Ditto with Stan’s suggestion via John McIntyre’s You Don’t Say blog: “squanderist.” Quite so, but we need a word that’s more neutral, or at least one that feels neutral to those upon whom we’re fixing to stamp it.

One suggestion, “balancist,” struck some readers as too complimentary. Mike’s idea is that balancists balance their concerns instead of caring only about the environment. He wrote, “As with the pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy, one side could be pro-environment and the other side could be pro-balance.” But we think we can count on nearly all humans, even environmentalists, to preserve ample self concern. Plus, nature is the ultimate master of balance, not the people who care less for nature.

Oregon State University via Flickr

No one suggested “exploitist,” but an anonymous reader, thinking of mining and oil drilling, proposed “extractivist.” It nicely echoes “activist,” but it focuses perhaps too narrowly on one form of environmental abuse and misses others, such as, for example, the motorist who just sped by in a Nissan Pathfinder and threw a Snickers wrapper out the window.

Likewise, “industrialist” won’t work because plenty of people who aren’t engaged in industry oppose environmentalism. Hans said, “Try capitalist,” and while perhaps Hans was being glib, the term makes a claim. If environmentalists want to preserve resources, capitalists want to capitalize on them. But here’s the problem: capitalism is all we have.

Even Karl Marx, in his later, wiser years, acknowledged that there’s no getting rid of capitalism by conscious means. It will take the kind of invisible, multi-generational economic thunder that got rid of feudalism. So if we oppose capitalism to environmentalism we might as well start digging our graves. We need capitalists to figure out ways to make solar energy profitable, for example (but not too big).

Zemanta, the software that automagically generates images for these posts as I type them, just suggested “kamikaze,” which is  chilling and makes me wonder if Zemanta can see into the future. Nonetheless, Zemanta seems to be labeling our species rather than just those of us who think environmentalism is poppycock. If the Earth goes down, we all go down, not just the anti-environmentalists.

That’s odd. Zemanta just said, “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

Kamikaze assault: japanese dive bomber dives on the Essex (Nov. 25, 1944). Image via Wikipedia.

Some readers thought of the environment as being outside and its opposite being inside, thus we received “insularist” from Amy and “mentalist” from Stan.

Stacey saw the opposite of environmentalist as “materialist,” while David saw it as “ephemerist,” showing again that the environment is seen as both spiritual and material. Jim in Austin suggested “homocentrist,” but Johnnyboy pointed out that these folks put the economy at the center, not necessarily mankind, so he proposed “econocentrist.”

While we’re flipping through the Es, both “envirodiffident” and “envirodissident” arrived, the former sounding feckless and the latter, noble.

At You Don’t Say, Mike Livingston wrote that “In scientific environmentalist circles, the missing word is ‘Cornucopian,’ describing people who believe the environment can indefinitely replenish itself and support unlimited population growth.”

Cornucopian. Not bad. And it’s already in use.

Michael wrote that “consumer” moves in the right direction, and it does, but “consumerist” is already busy meaning something else. But Karen in New Haven suggested “consumist.” That word is available. It’s neutral, in the sense that you can imagine one side yelling, “You’re a consumist!” and the other replying, “You’re damn right I am!” It has purchase on most forms of human interaction with the environment–I think it may even catch that candy wrapper–and it just might take the prize.

Do we have a winner? Or do we call a vote?