Eco-Insanity

[dianahsieh]

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

(Note: I meant to post this entry a few weeks ago, but it got lost in the queue. It's still relevant, however.)

Well, it's hardly a loss to the world that some eco-freaks refuse to reproduce:

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years [Toni] was sterilised to "protect the planet". Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal. "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

...

Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly. "We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. "In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.

"That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth. "Sarah and I don't need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet."

I doubt that organic-buying soccer moms will be rushing to sterilize themselves anytime soon. That's one reason why I don't regard the ecological movement as a long-term threat anywhere in par with religion, as dangerous as it might be in the short-term.

In its most consistent form, the ecological movement is nothing better than nihilistic destruction of human life. That's not true of its mass base, however. Most ordinary-folk "environmentalists" are moved by the worry that we're destroying the environment in ways that will be ultimately harmful to human life. They're wrong in that embrace of environmentalism, as real as environmental destruction can be, but they're not nihilists ready and eager to sterilize themselves for the sake of the planet.

To put the point in the standard terms of environmental philosophy, most ordinary folk describing themselves as "environmentalists" are fundamentally anthropocentric (i.e. human-centered) in their reasoning. They think that preserving and protecting the environment is necessary for human well-being. In contrast, the ideological leaders of the environmental movement disdain all such anthropocentric thinking. They regard nature as valuable for its own sake. It's not just living beings (including rats, slugs, and deadly bacteria) that have such intrinsic value, often rocks and rivers to too. Humans are also intrinsically valuable. So we count for something, albeit much in the same way that the individual counts for something in utilitarian calculations with a global population of billions. Actually, we're not even all that, since humans do so much damage to other species and environments without contributing anything good in return. (For a prominent example of this general view, see Paul Taylor's well-known article "Biocentric Egalitarianism.") The explicit purpose of environmental ethics is to de-humanize ethics, i.e. to remove humans from the forefront of ethical concern.

In contrast, no such disconnect between the ideology of leaders and mass base can be found in religion. The ideology is not nihilistic. Instead, religion promises all the wealth of values that the faithful might imagine in the afterlife. That can motivate mass fervor and mass sacrifice in this life. It is a possible basis for centuries of unquestioned darkness, destruction, and ignorance -- as the history of Europe shows quite clearly.

So as dangerous as environmentalism is on a policy level, I do not see it as a possible driving force for some new world order. Although it has broad support, it does not have deep support necessary to make "eco-topia" the goal of more than a few man-hating nutters.

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003148.html

[Capitalism Forever]

I don't regard the ecological movement as a long-term threat anywhere in par with religion, as dangerous as it might be in the short-term.

Environmentalism is definitely not a threat in the long term--because if they get their way in the short term, there will be no long term. Environmentalism has no concept of dhimmitude: if you're a human, you've got to die.

[Scott_Connery]

I disagree about environmentalism being a long term-threat. The leaders of the "environmentalist" movement are exactly the sort of dangerous nihilists you have described. Even though their followers may not understand the philosophy fully, they certainly vote and donate enough to ensure that these leaders have plenty of political power.

Furthermore, there seems to be no shortage of consistently man-hating environmentalists waiting to take over the movement, and lead it into the future. There is also no reason, which I am aware of, to believe that environmentalism as a philosophy will dwindle in popular support or political power.

[Tenure]

I disagree about environmentalism being a long term-threat. The leaders of the "environmentalist" movement are exactly the sort of dangerous nihilists you have described. Even though their followers may not understand the philosophy fully, they certainly vote and donate enough to ensure that these leaders have plenty of political power.

Um, isn't that exactly what she just said? That the leaders are dangerous nihilists (complete with black suits and marmots) and the followers are just keeping them up thinking they're doing the irght thing for themselves. Sure, they vote and donate enough to give these crack pots strength, but this 'movement' will only last as long as the crack pots go unchallenged. This is very similar to any movement, where the mass wants something - say, Russian peasents wanting to be able to eat food every once in a while - and they form a movement behind leaders promising these things, without really understanding or believing in the explicit philosophy of those leaders.

The environmentalists are playing in the intellectual arena with sticks and stones tactics, because sticks and stones is all they have. We, of course, have more than that - we have the truth on our side. It's just a matter of getting our voices heard, really (which is, incidentally, why I'm very excited about the opening of the ARI in Washington, DC).

Edited January 13, 2008 by Tenure

[DarkWaters]

I disagree about environmentalism being a long term-threat.

I think the anti-man strain of Environmentalism can become a long term if there is a modern day Saint Augustine to fuse Environmentalism with Evangelical Christianity. That is, if religious leaders start to advance the idea that God wants his subjects to sacrifice their well-being and comfort to protect the environment. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has already stated that God wants us to combat global warming.

Anyway, I presently do not know of any intellectuals who will be writing books or having regularly watched television shows that Evanmentalism (or whatever we would call it). Hopefully this will not happen.

[Capitalism Forever]

Um, isn't that exactly what she just said?

Diana's premise is that environmentalism will not be a threat in the long term because Christians will overcome it. Mine is that environmentalism will not be a threat in the long term because it will overcome Christians (and all the rest of us).

And by overcome, I mean KILL. That is: exterminate, wipe off the place of the planet, remove every last strand of man's DNA from every tiniest nook of the Earth, and do the same to all primates, just to make sure man does not re-evolve. Well, that is what the environmentalists want to do, anyway; of course it isn't really possible to do it with the perfection I described--but rest assured, they want to kill us all, and themselves too. And they're hard at work at it right now, with a religious fervor of an intensity even the horniest Muslims can't match. THAT is what nihilism means, and that is what these people are.

The last time I checked, abortion was still legal in the United States, after seven years of this all so dreadful "theocracy"--but the days of your light bulbs and cars have been numbered. And have you heard of California's latest idea? California Proposes Taking Control of Thermostats. I wouldn't be surprised if this became federal law within the next 12 months--that's exactly what happened to the light bulbs. The viros have smelled the blood, and stopping a hungry shark from devouring its victim is a child's play compared to what it will take to stop them from tearing mankind apart.

Especially if Objectivists are busy fighting every windmill that has a cross on it.