[soheil]

You may be a minority in that group. What should most readily be understood when the word environmentalism is invoked is an existential question with regards to humanity as a whole and what impacts the well being of all people on the planet anything other than is a twisted interpretation to fit one's own agenda.

[bmitc]

That’s doubtful. The word environmentalism has a definition and it quite simply is not a human-centric one, so there’s no agenda, whatever that was supposed to mean. Stretching it to mean something else, for whatever reason the original commenter wanted to, doesn’t really make sense other than to apparently place blame on environmentalists.

Environmentalism is a question of balance and sustainability of entire ecosystems and environments. The idea is that by restoring balance, everyone benefits, including humans. How nuclear threats apply to that other than yet another source of environmental pollution or how it’s supposedly on environmentalists is beyond me.

[soheil]

Anything that happens to the environment can absolutely be good for some species and ecosystems including the entire planet turning into a giant ocean, in that case for the fish. So it's bizarre to somehow surgically remove humans from the discussion and have a twisted conversation about balance and sustainability as if those things are absolute.

[bmitc]

I didn’t remove humans from the discussion. I said humans are not the sole focus of environmentalism, which they aren’t.