Dr. Brin, several right-wingers on the list have been posting screeds like this one against the environment and environmentalism. I am curious as to your thoughts on the matter, as I think this particular article is one of the most mendacious pieces of propaganda ever written.
> ---------- > From: Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Earth Day Remember: If Environmentalism Succeeds, It Will Make Human > Life Impossible > > By Michael S. Berliner > > Earth Day approaches, and with it a grave danger faces mankind. > The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of > > rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to > mankind is from environmentalism. > The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and > clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial > civilization. Environmentalism's goal is not the advancement of human > health, human happiness, and human life; rather, it is a subhuman world > where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion. > In a nation founded on the pioneer spirit, environmentalists > have > made "development" an evil word. They inhibit or prohibit the development > > of Alaskan oil, offshore drilling, nuclear powerand every other > practical > form of energy. Housing, commerce, and jobs are sacrificed to spotted > owls > and snail darters. Medical research is sacrificed to the "rights" of > mice. > Logging is sacrificed to the "rights" of trees. No instance of the > progress > that brought man out of the cave is safe from the onslaught of those > "protecting" the environment from man, whom they consider a rapist and > despoiler by his very essence. > Nature, they insist, has "intrinsic value," to be revered for > its > own sake, irrespective of any benefit to man. As a consequence, man is to > > be prohibited from using nature for his own ends. Since nature supposedly > > has value and goodness in itself, any human action that changes the > environment is necessarily immoral. Of course, environmentalists invoke > the > doctrine of intrinsic value not against wolves that eat sheep or beavers > that gnaw trees; they invoke it only against man, only when man wants > something. > The ideal world of environmentalism is not twenty-first-century > Western civilization; it is the Garden of Eden, a world with no human > intervention in nature, a world without innovation or change, a world > without effort, a world where survival is somehow guaranteed, a world > where > man has mystically merged with the "environment." Had the > environmentalist > mentality prevailed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we would > have had no Industrial Revolution, a situation that consistent > environmentalists would cheerat least those few who might have managed > to > survive without the life-saving benefits of modern science and > technology. > The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from > changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why > environmentalism is fundamentally anti-man. Intrusion is necessary for > human survival. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. > Only > by intrusion can man control his life and project long-range goals. > Intrusion improves the environment, if by "environment" one means the > surroundings of manthe external material conditions of human life. > Intrusion is a requirement of human nature. But in the environmentalists' > > paean to "Nature," human nature is omitted. For environmentalism, the > "natural" world is a world without man. Man has no legitimate needs, but > trees, ponds, and bacteria somehow do. > They don't mean it? Heed the words of the consistent > environmentalists. "The ending of the human epoch on Earth," writes > philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental > Ethics, "would most likely be greeted with a hearty 'Good riddance!'" In > a > glowing review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, biologist David M. > Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): "Human happiness > [is] > not as important as a wild and healthy planet . . . . Until such time as > Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for > > the right virus to come along." Such is the naked essence of > environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually > welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating > philosophy is unimaginable. > The guiding principle of environmentalism is self-sacrifice, the > > sacrifice of longer lives, healthier lives, more prosperous lives, more > enjoyable lives, i.e., the sacrifice of human lives. But an individual is > > not born in servitude. He has a moral right to live his own life for his > own sake. He has no duty to sacrifice it to the needs of others and > certainly not to the "needs" of the nonhuman. > To save mankind from environmentalism, what's needed is not the > appeasing, compromising approach of those who urge a "balance" between > the > needs of man and the "needs" of the environment. To save mankind requires > > the wholesale rejection of environmentalism as hatred of science, > technology, progress, and human life. To save mankind requires the return > > to a philosophy of reason and individualism, a philosophy that makes life > > on earth possible.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
