WI: Ecoterrorism common in modern age?

I've been thinking about how futilely the crew of the Sea Shepherd and their ilk oppose Japanese whalers and other such things lately, and it suddenly came to me; what if conservationists actively used methods of sabotage and terror (by which I mean more than just stink bombs or ramming) to get their message across? I'm thinking rogue Sea Shepherd-type ships firebombing or otherwise directly assaulting whalers and fishing ships, other groups bombing animal testing laboratories and factory farms...you know, basically, the animal rights movement going much more violent. How could we get this to happen?

(Note that I don't support ecoterrorism; I just think this is an interesting idea)
 

mowque

Banned
They get arrested because unlike paramilitary and real terrorism groups they don't have the resources or training to hide effectively.
 
I think not, unless the basic moral and ethical premisies of western culture was turned topsy. To this, you'd have to create a PoD in the distant past that led to the rise of societies that did not base their morality on the premise that a principal aim of civilization was to benefit humanity - or certain segments thereof. This would so radically alter the course of cultural evolution that there wouldn't be whalers, ships, or probably even any sort of post- paleolithic technology.

When push comes to shove, people care a lot less about whales and redwood trees than they do their own aspirations. Careful application of terrorism can energize "national liberation" movements because many people who might otherwise be opposed to violence will support it if it is done to eliminate perceived oppression and human rights violations against them.

Violence perpetrated by humans against other humans in the name of animal rights or protecting the environment will be perceived by the vast majority of people - even those sympathetic to the aims of the ecoterrorists - as at best misguided and at worse criminal. To emphasize their legitimacy, mainline ecological groups would always publically oppose ecoterrorism, placing the ecoterrorists beyond the pale of reasonableness.
 
Well, yeah, with OTL's situation. But is there any POD with which we could get a long-running ecoterrorist group?

You would need to base it out of a country that suffers from serious issues regarding law enforcement or a partially sympathetic population (or both). Some groups like Al-Queda operate generally from countries that are poverty stricken, corrupt and divided. The chaos allows them to stay hidden as there is basically nobody there to stop them or those that can, have been bought out. Other groups like say for example the IRA, had sympathy from the local population, which allowed them to stay hidden from the British.

The problem you would find with a long-standing militant eco-terrorist group is that it would be difficult to stay hidden for long. Most eco groups are first of all, based in Western nations (Eg. Greenpeace was founded in Canada, or PETA in the US) where (not to sound cynical) they have the education and the time to worry about environmental issues. They would probably have to be based out of Western Nations (they can't really go anywhere else, because their cause wouldn't garnish local support and protection) and that is extremely difficult to maintain. Unless there was some sort of populist movement supporting this eco terrorist group, they are going to be hunted down and captured by the authorities very quickly.

Also, in all honesty, having a more militant group like the Sea Shepherds isn't really possible (at least not for long). If they attacked a Japanese whaling vessel with weapons, they would be rightfully declared pirates and dealt with accordingly by naval authorities (either arrested or finding themselves on the receiving end of a Japanese exo-set missile.)
 
Also, in all honesty, having a more militant group like the Sea Shepherds isn't really possible (at least not for long). If they attacked a Japanese whaling vessel with weapons, they would be rightfully declared pirates and dealt with accordingly by naval authorities (either arrested or finding themselves on the receiving end of a Japanese exo-set missile.)

I'm half-surprised the Japanese haven't already done it. The French would have. As of now, Sea Shepherd isn't even terrorism. They're just doing their best to harass the whalers and their "research".
 
I'm half-surprised the Japanese haven't already done it. The French would have. As of now, Sea Shepherd isn't even terrorism. They're just doing their best to harass the whalers and their "research".

Unfortunately, the Japanese are still afflicted with a constitution that limits their ability to employ their quite capable navy to deadly effect outside of Japanese home waters. You are correct of course the Sea Shepherd isn't terrorism, but to the extent that the Japanese "research" is legal under international law, I wouldn't be at all surprised to read sometime that it sank under mysterious circumstances at harbor in NZ or wherever it is based.
 
What about a guerrilla force of displaced tribespeople in Brazil taking up arms after their traditional way of life is destroyed by damming or deforestation?

This could spread to societies under similar threat, and be a "national liberation" struggle with ecologist overtones.
 
What about a guerrilla force of displaced tribespeople in Brazil taking up arms after their traditional way of life is destroyed by damming or deforestation?

This could spread to societies under similar threat, and be a "national liberation" struggle with ecologist overtones.

I would not see this as ecoterrorism. It would be typical liberation (or revenge) terrorism. The people are fighting because the economic basis of the culture was or is being destroyed, not to save or preserve the environment (even if to garner more support they say it is). Just as hypothetically, what if the Inuit peoples of the USA and Canada rose up to expand their right to hunt whales (a key element of their traditional culture) and attacked fish and game wardens regulating their takes. Would this be "anti-ecoterrorism"? No, both would just be regular plain, old, national or ethnic liberation.
 
I would not see this as ecoterrorism. It would be typical liberation (or revenge) terrorism. The people are fighting because the economic basis of the culture was or is being destroyed, not to save or preserve the environment (even if to garner more support they say it is). Just as hypothetically, what if the Inuit peoples of the USA and Canada rose up to expand their right to hunt whales (a key element of their traditional culture) and attacked fish and game wardens regulating their takes. Would this be "anti-ecoterrorism"? No, both would just be regular plain, old, national or ethnic liberation.

It would all depend on the rhetoric that they used - if they emphasized the value of the rainforest on its own merits as well as just its role in their culture, it might count.

Additionally, if it began to attract positive attention from radical greens in the developed world, it would likely be pained as ecoterrorism by the media.
 
Unfortunately, the Japanese are still afflicted with a constitution that limits their ability to employ their quite capable navy to deadly effect outside of Japanese home waters. You are correct of course the Sea Shepherd isn't terrorism, but to the extent that the Japanese "research" is legal under international law, I wouldn't be at all surprised to read sometime that it sank under mysterious circumstances at harbor in NZ or wherever it is based.

The only research I see from whaling is market research: which sort of whale tastes best? You don't need to kill hundreds of them for science. I mean, how many stomaches do you have to look at before you discover what baleen whales eat?

As for mysterious sinkings and Constitutional crises, maybe they should hire ex-KGB, Mossad or someone like that. "Ship? What ship? We don't know nothing about no ship."
 
Top