The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

More Anti-human Enviro Lunacy

November 8th, 2010 by Mike N · 15 Comments · Environmentalism, Uncategorized

Critics of environmentalism like Objectivists and many private scientists (private means not bought and paid for with government money ) have long contended that the green movement is against all forms of energy production. Ample evidence of this lies in the fact that whenever any kind of power plant is proposed, green groups immediately file law suits to stop it. Now from Pajamas Media comes even more evidence of their hatred of the good because it is good. Writer Patrick Richardson reports on the green opposition to power lines leading to and from wind farms. A key quote from the article:

“Environmental groups, which are as quick to fang each other as they are dirty polluters, are lining up in opposition to the lines and to wind farms in general. In fact, they’re lining up against most current sources of renewable power: the Audubon Society hates wind farms because the blades kill birds and bats; hydroelectric covers up large swaths of land and releases “greenhouse gasses” when decaying material is exposed to the air; the Sierra Club has opposed solar plants in the Mohave. Apparently, even geothermal creates toxic waste no one wants. So what’s the solution?”

Mr. Richardson goes on to say:

“There isn’t one. The power companies involved in the Kansas program are still trying to get the approval they need. Lawsuits have already been filed to stop the construction. The lesser prairie chicken is still doing its mating dance, and environmental groups still continue to oppose all types of power generation.”

We see the general attitude of the green movement here against human life; the lesser prairie chicken has a right to its habitat but humans–who must reshape nature for their survival–do not have a right to theirs.

For more on the green anti-human attitude, check out these quotes from the horses’ mouths.

15 Comments so far ↓

  • Mike N

    I just found more anti-human and anti-American quotes here.

  • Mike Bahr

    Great post! Thanks for linking the comments especially. Though I had an idea what to expect from them, some of them you have to see to believe, like this nugget from Maurice Strong:

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

    Um, how about NO, Maurice?

    See, these people REALLY think that. This is no joke. This is what they actually believe and are working to make happen. And this is why we have to continue to spread a philosophy of rational individualism and liberty to counter it. Because if the lights all go dark on society, it’s going to be shotguns-and-barbed-wire time from coast to coast.

  • Jack

    Individualism is the foundation of ethical conduct. However, we, as individuals, are also part of that group known as humans. We have the capability of completely eliminating some species or habitats (e.g., carrier pigeons). Anything I do as a single individual is unlikely to do significant harm to our environment. Anything that several hundred million of we individuals do is likely to have significant impact on the world in which we live. Clearly, there are occasions in which we should all abstain from some activities. Not as a sacrifice but as selfish action to protect our future.

  • Jack

    There are environmentalists that think CO2 reduction is more important than nuclear waste issues or dessert wilderness protection, and those that think the reverse. So there’s dissent.

  • madmax

    Anything that several hundred million of we individuals do is likely to have significant impact on the world in which we live.

    This is the “aggregates” argument that environmentalists use. I’d like to see a good Objectivist response to this as the argument is always used to further statist ends.

    So there’s dissent.

    Its not meaningful dissent. What is accepted by both is that man’s freedom must be sacrificed to nature and that political collectivism can not be challenged.

  • NT

    madmax: Where is the argument here? Having a ‘significant impact’ upon the world is not necessarily a bad thing. The standard by which we have to judge things is human life. Are things beneficial to our lives or are they detrimental to them. The trees or the rivers or the wild life do not have an intrinsic value.

    A valid environmentalist argument would have to be something along the lines of: A. Our actions are changing the environment. B. The change is bad for humans. C. We offer an course of action which provides better results for human life.

    I have yet to hear a solid, fact-backed, argument on a global scale that establishes A and B from the environmentalists, much less A, B and C. Even if they do establish A+B in an argument, then technology and industry are most definitely the solution to the problem. By acting to remove sources of energy and industry, the environmentalists are promising humanity certain doom.

    As far as I understand this is the formal Objectivist position.

  • Fareed

    I’ve heard of one argument that goes like this (in this case meat production):

    The health of the human race is completely dependent upon the health of the planet. A weak and sickened planet equals a weak and sickened humanity.

    Thus, one is always mindful of the environment and his/her impact on the environment, and the bottom line is that commercial meat production (factory farming) has an immensely negative impact upon the environment.

  • NT

    ‘The health of the planet’ needs to be defined first. It can mean just about anything. They need to be explicit in exactly what it is that they claim is ‘sick’ about the planet.

    “Thus, one is always mindful of the environment and his/her impact on the environment…”
    “…and the bottom line is that commercial meat production (factory farming) has an immensely negative impact upon the environment.”
    Wait. What? How is commercial meat production negatively impacting the environment?

    I doubt commercial meat production can be shown to causing the ‘sickness’ of the planet. However before that can be debated one way or the other the environmentalists need to define what they mean by the planet becoming ‘sick’.

  • Fareed

    Here are some various others I found:

    It’s just sad that there are so many people like you in the world that take the deluded view that man is the superior being.

    The ‘doctrine’ of environmentalism is not about putting “producing” humans at risk, it’s about living in harmony with the planet, about balance in nature. It’s not about forcing man to live in caves or put the life of an animal above that of a human, it’s about being respectful and not shitting in your own nest. Whether you like it or not, you are fundamentally connected to the earth and its environment in every conceivable way.

  • NT

    “It’s just sad that there are so many people like you in the world that take the deluded view that man is the superior being.”

    Personally I think it’s sad that there aren’t enough people in the world that view man as a superior being.
    Humans can objectively be demonstrated to be superior to all other life forms on the planet (although that somewhat depends on what one means by superior). As one example: How many species developed space rockets and went to the moon? Only humans. Checkmate non-humans. Humans are actually superior in multiple different ways which I could start listing, but anyone who doesn’t see this has his value system twisted.
    By the way, regardless of whether or not humans are superior to other animals (they are), I would still support human benefit over all other. The reason is that I am human, and it is right for me to do so. Not for the collective well being of humanity mind you, but for my own selfish good.

    As for the second argument, I think the examples are abundant where environmentalists are trying to do just the opposite of what is claimed here. The mere fact that they oppose power stations regardless of type, even solar or wind power stations, demonstrates that they in fact do not care about human life.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are some environmentalists that identify with the claim in your second argument. I shared that view back when I was a child and I was indoctrinated by the school system / media with the ‘humans are destroying the planet’ / ‘we gotta stop making animals extinct or the whole eco system will come crashing down on our heads real soon’ lines. From my experience, people sympathize with these arguments because one of these reasons (or several):
    1. They are unaware of some facts. For example, they believe that humans are destorying the rain forests, and pretty soon we’ll have no trees left. This is factually wrong. Often they believe, because they have been told, that changes we are seeing around us are unusual in the planet’s history. For example that species becoming extinct is something we must prevent at all cost, when in reality species become extinct in nature all the time. I read somewhere that 99% of all species that ever walked the planet are extinct. Another example is that they believe climate changes are unusual, and that raising temperatures are alarming. In reality, the planet temperatures have changed throughout history, they were warmer than they are now back in the middle ages (and in many other times), and it wasn’t because they were driving cars.

    2. They view nature has having some kind of intrinsic value. This goes back to the first argument you’ve brought up. If there used to be a grassland, and then humans came and built a city, and the glassland is worth more than a city, then humans are evil. Once one understands that human life is the standard for what is good, and that humans require the city in order to benefit their lives, then it becomes an easy choice.

    3. They don’t understand the cost of performing what the environmentalists propose. The environmentalist movement doesn’t just want you to put your glass, paper and aluminum into separate recycle bins instead of the trash (although recycling has a substantial added cost to society by itself). They want to raise the cost of living for everyone. By raising the cost of living, not only do they hurt everyone’s life quality and stop progress, but they are actually killing human beings. That’s right, the environmentalists kill humans. The most obvious example for this is the cap and trade, which make all businesses more expensive to operate. Then you have environmentalists preventing humans from building power stations and from extracting oil, raising the costs of energy. Then they propose taxes on cows (because cows emit co2, like every living animal on earth), raising the price of meat and milk. Then they oppose the sales of cheap cars in India, which would raise the quality of living in India. These things all have consequences. Real actual human lives get hurt and lost for these. They don’t want you to go to the recycling bin, they want you dead.

    Unfortunately those who fall into these groups are (often unawarely) supporting those that genuinely want to see humans go away. This is unfortunate because the environmentalist movement is making damage all around the world due to naive belief of large amounts of people.

    One doesn’t need to be an environmentalist to understand that if we totally destroy everything around us, kill all the fluffy and non fluffy animals, burn all the trees, and nuke the surface of the planet, then we will not survive. The environmentalist movement isn’t about preventing this from happening, it’s about destroying humans for the sake of that which is non human.

  • Fareed

    no.2 describes the essence of environmentalism. they don’t see human flourishing as the standard of value but nature as a value in and of itself.

    You then have the so-called moderate environmentalists like Bjorn Lomborg who are pragmatists (either that or utilitarians). This means that they accept the philosophical premises behind environmentalism but differ on the means. This is problematic because it enables the more extreme (read consistent) elements of the movement e.g. eco-terrorists and it prevents them from coming out and acknowledging that human life and flourishing are the standard of all value. So they might quibble about which form of energy is better or worse for the environment rather than humans. they will also say that we should not become “ideological about technology.”

    Before talking about environmental policy with others you have to begin with that standard of value. If they don’t accept it then its pretty pointless to continue further about property rights and pollution because you will find yourself addressing it from the POV of nature as opposed to human wellbeing.

    I think it would be safe to say that environmental policy should recognize:

    1- That the standard of value is man’s life
    2- The basic Aristotelian wisdom that that which nobody owns, nobody will care for.

  • Rogue Operator

    I’ve always considered radical environmentalism to be an anti-humanistic totalitarian ideology, but I didn’t expect the nutjobs who adhered to it to be so transparent in their destructive anti-capitalist designs through the numerous contradictions in their thinking and behavior. For evil masterminds, they sure could use some courses in basic logic.

  • Jim May

    Rogue Op: they are transparent to the extent to which they believe that we are blind.

  • Fareed

    here is another example of that intrinsicism:

    We, therefore have an equal obligation to the toads and the owner of the land. If we expropriated his land, or the use if it, in favor of the toads, then toad protection is a public use which must be paid for.

    Toad preserves don’t have that income stream, but that does not mean we don’t have an obligation or a need to protect the toads, same as game.

  • Mike N

    It’s a valid question when someone asks “How can I help to preserve nature?” What advice should we give to someone who wants to preserve nature but without violating anyone’s rights or destroying industrialization?
    I would advise them to look for for-profit organizations and businesses like hunting and fishing clubs, canoe ride liveries, rapids riding outfits, and other hiking and camping businesses. These enterprises have a vested interest in keeping their parcel of nature as natural and clean as possible.

    I agree with Fareed: “The basic Aristotelian wisdom that that which nobody owns, nobody will care for.”

    If all property were privately owned as laissez faire demands, someone would be responsible for all of it.

    But to declare that nature has an intrinsic value apart from any valuer is a misunderstanding of the concept value. Nature is always destroying it self, wiping out species and evolving new ones. Nature doesn’t value itself because it can’t.