At about the same time, several major foundations decided to throw large sums of money at environmental activism. These foundations further reduced diversity by insisting that, to get any money, environmental groups had to work together on a shared strategy. The sums of money they offered were too large for most groups to ignore. Since radicals dominated what was left of the movement, the strategies focused on radical aims. This further discouraged people with more reasonable ideas and insulated the radical groups from feedback from more their moderate members.
Radicals are important in any society.
They remind us that the status quo is not always perfect, and that even those who want moderate changes may be too complacent. Eventually, the failure of the radicals will inspire some groups to return to a more moderate course. The danger is that the demand for environmental correctness may hinder such a change for so long that serious environmental problems go uncorrected simply because the movement is too inflexible to address them. Members of the public who really want to protect the environment should avoid supporting environmental groups that thrive mainly by attacking other environmentalists. Environmental activists must be more tolerant of new ideas and programs.