Friday, May 15, 2009

Lockitch: "No Environmental Footprint = No Life"

As a follow up to my post from yesterday in which I argued that environmentalists must regard man as innately evil since our nature requires usage of the earth to survive, here is a brief but excellent video op-ed by Dr. Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Lockitch observes the fact that no matter how much anyone actually adopts so-called "green" solutions, no amount of sacrifice is enough to satisfy environmentalists. For example, even when their favored solutions are implemented like solar power or wind farms they complain that the farms despoil the land, or if you switch from disposal to cloth diapers, they complain that it takes water and detergent to clean the cloth, and so on. In other words, Lockitch states:

So long as you are still alive, no amount of green penance can fully erase your guilt...The only way to really leave no footprint would be to die - and that conclusion is not lost on many green ideologues.

He then asks us to "consider this chilling anti-human statement" made by an environmentalist who decries the birth of human life:

From the earth’s point of view, it’s not all that important which kind of diapers you use - the important decision was having the baby.

Think about that for a second! It perfectly captures the the logic of environmentalism, i.e., that human beings are a problem and that less would be more as far as their deity "earth" is concerned. Appropriately, he adds:

Remember that the next time you trustingly adopt a green solution like fluorescent light bulbs, cloth diapers, or wind farms and then find yourself puzzled because you’re still made to feel guilty and asked to sacrifice even more – remember what counts as a final solution for these ideologues

Businesses and individuals must stop kowtowing to the hysterically sanctimonious propaganda of the environmental movement and oppose them philosophically and morally. I agree with his conclusion:

The only rational response to green philosophy is to challenge it at its core. We need to recognize that it’s the essence of human survival to reshape nature for own benefit – that’s not a sin – that’s our highest virtue. It’s time we recognize that environmentalism is a philosophy of guilt and sacrifice – we should reject it in favor of a philosophy that actually values human life.

Human life depends not on adopting "green solutions" - but on opposing them.

3 comments:

Harold said...

"Lockitch observes the fact that no matter how much anyone actually adopts so-called "green" solutions, no amount of sacrifice is enough to satisfy environmentalists."It's never enough. Even in death, one is decomposing and therefore still emitting.

"Businesses and individuals must stop kowtowing to the hysterically sanctimonious propaganda of the environmental movement and oppose them philosophically and morally."

That's what troubles me the most. These guys just don't get it. When you say,

"Well, we agree that nature (qua wilderness) should be conserved but..."

or

"Reducing CO2 is an admirable goal, but..."

or

"We're committed to working with government officials to develop pragmatic, sustainable solutions to climate change..."

...you lose. Why? Because you've ceded the moral high ground to your opponent before you've even begun to argue. And so what do you get? Maybe a few concessions here, some carbon credits or compliance extensions there, but in the end, it's titanic deck chairs...the ship is going down and you with it.

Part 2 is available.

Doug Reich said...

Harold,

Exactly!

Virtually every "opponent" of environmentalism cedes the moral high ground with just the type of statements you cited.

You can observe the same phenonmena with regard to socialism of the form: "well, socialism/communism is well intentioned but it just doesn't work..."

Once you cede that - you have lost. If something is "moral", people will keep trying to do it despite the consequences. That is why despite the facts and despite over 100 years of economic theory - the left marches on. This is exactly why I am trying to focus on the moral-philosophical issues rather than on the "science" or even economics (not that those issues are not important - they are vital but it alone will not win).

Altruism is the root premise of the socialist or environmentalist movements and that is what must be challenged. Socialism and environmentalism are NOT well intentioned - they are evil in theory and in practice.

Thanks for you insightful comments as always

Anonymous said...

I agree with these posts on environmentalism. We use the environment to support life, and we must also acknowledge that we need an earth suitable to supporting human life. Thus, we must focus on sustainable consumption of the environment so as not to destroy our habitat. In this way, wind farms and cloth diapers allow us to use the environment more efficiently, which allows the earth to sustain a higher human population.