The Environment
Written 5-17-07 - Saint Patty's Day - thus all the green :-) Updated 8-15-08
I built this page out of recycled, organic, free-range electrons ;-)
Obligatory, Politically-Correct, "I-Am-Not-a-Meanie" Introduction
As a climber and outdoor athlete, I spend A LOT of my life outside, and I love every minute of it. Because of that, it absolutely burns me up when I see trash on the ground, or witness poor forestry practices that lead to scalped hillsides and destroyed rain forests; and I still don't buy Exxon gas because of the Valdez SNAFU. I also love that we set aside land to be free of development so that we can enjoy public parks and wilderness areas.
Having said all that, I am also a Capitalist, but I reluctantly admit that Capitalism too has to have checks and balances. Many green areas would be swallowed up in revenue-producing pavement and high rise complexes that would detract from our quality of life without some constraint. I feel the pain of that personally, because I am even now losing a ropes course I built in a rare green block in the middle of the Buckhead business district to such greed. Anything can be taken too far - including construction.
Many of my peers and friends are Sierra Club-esque conservation champions. I know that community well, and I agree wholeheartedly with keeping our world as beautiful and well managed as possible. But that doesn't mean I unquestionably accept every theory out there that tries to tell me the sky is falling. To become unquestioningly green is to take environmentalism too far.
The Earth Belongs TO US - Not the Other Way Around
This where I lose a lot of people in the modern environmentalist movement. If you're one of them, I'm sure that headline made your head spin right off. No doubt you have already assumed - despite everything I have already said - that I mean we should feel free to trash the Earth all we want, since it's ours to use. But my house is mine too, and I don't want to trash it. I want to take good care of it. But doing that doesn't mean I embody my living room with divine characteristics and subordinate myself to it.
Humans Are Charged With the Care of the World.
I don't usually mix my politics with my Faith, but yes, I take a Biblical view of the environment. The Earth was given to us. We as humans are the most favored beings God made, and we are much more than just another animal in the food chain. We are unique in all creation. And along with that view is something that the environmentalist will likely not give Christians like me credit for - that we accept the environmentalist's duty. We humans are charged by our Creator with a sacred trust to be good stewards of our world. We are the chosen caretakers. That worldview, and my common sense idea about taking care of where I live, is my foundation for environmentalism.
The World is Not a Museum
I also don't think my house is a museum that I shouldn't touch, which is how many environmental activist groups suggest we treat pristine areas. To apply the modern environmentalist's approach to my house would be to sit in my back yard and just look at it, rather than enjoy or use it in any way. The Earth is our home. It's there for us to USE - but yes, again for emphasis, to take good care of.
Every time I go to a public park, I am beset by "land use managers" who try to baby sit me and restrict how I can use my environment. There is a growing "look but don't touch" attitude amongst such people that - I am convinced - is influenced by the environmentalist's guilt speak on the subject of how humans interact with their environment. Click here for more thoughts on how "conservationists" are restricting freedoms
Squirrels Before Humans: I always think it's interesting that most environmentalists see mankind as the only creature that is not entitled to be here. Squirrels and Caribou, however, are elevated in importance above us somehow.
Civilization Improves the Quality of Life
There are people and movements in every country who think that for a society to improve, and move forward technologically, is to become tainted somehow. Such people romanticize what sociologists call "The Noble Savage" who lives close to the land - in an imagined harmony with it. The environmentalist would have us believe that such "back to nature" tribes are the happiest people on Earth for their purity of purpose and the "more natural" things they eat. Yet the people in these underdeveloped societies know that are naked; and that they are lacking good medicines and all the benefits of civilization that we enjoy in the "first world." If you doubt that they are not, in fact, better off than us...consider that they live shorter - not longer - lives than we do...despite all the fuss about the "impure" foods and medicines of the developed world.
The observable truth is that the more civilized a society becomes, the better the quality of life. Despite the near hysteria in the media about the downhill slide we are on, even pollutants are better now than they were in the 1950's - because of better technology. My grandfather died from environmental cancer as a result of working his whole career in a refinery. That refinery - like all others in America - does things much differently now.
Civilization also protects us from the dangers of what philosopher Thomas Hobbes called The Natural State of Man, where lives are "brutish and short;" and the weak are dominated and perpetually threatened by the strong. Such power plays are a threat to any sense of freedom or quality of life; and are hallmarks of the "noble savage" culture. For more...click on Why Not Simplify & Get Back to Nature?
The Idea of a "Balance of Nature" is a Myth
Despite "circle-of-life," feel-good lessons from "The Lion King," nature is not ever in a state of equilibrium. Nature is always striving against itself. The various species are winning and losing - sometimes to extinction - every day. They are competing for food and for space every waking minute....and they will kill and eat each other to be the victors. These victorious bloodlines are what the same biologists who talk about the "balance of nature" call "successful" species. If there is such a balance, then why are some species "UN-successful?"
(Right): Gratuitous pretty photo to hold your interest while I prattle on. This one is from Mt. Kenya. I spent a week hiking and climbing there once.
Modern Environmentalists are Anti-Technology
We know that already. Nothing radical there. Extreme environmentalists wish it were possible for us all to live off the land and turn back the clock to some past era when we grew, gathered (and hunted?) the things we need. They would say that all of our modern technology is the exploitation of natural resources. For the record, I would agree, but that is exactly what "resources" are there for. That's why we call them that. Salt and steel and oil are - again - not museum exhibits. They are there for us to use. Of course, the environmentalists have a nasty word they made up to describe such "rape of the planet." They call our use of natural resources "Consumptionism." They ignore the fact that all living creatures "consume" their environment. They believe that mankind is the only creature that - for some reason - should not.
"Anti-Consumption," in Politic-Speak, Means "Anti-Capitalistic."
For years, when I have discussed this subject with people, many have asked me "What's the harm in cutting back a little on our consumption? Even if all the hype on Global Warming is exaggerated slightly, couldn't we err on the side of caution?" My initial answer to that is to beware when politicians ask us to make lifestyle changes. This issue has become so politicized, so you have to wonder about - and question - the motives of the politicians involved in the debate.
It should come as no revelation to anyone that a politician will twist anything - even something so seemingly apolitical as environmental concern - into their agenda. What's more, with a little knowledge of the historical push-and-pull between dominant political ideologies, you can figure out that what is called "anti-consumption" by a well-intentioned environmentalist takes on a whole different meaning for a political animal...and we are all political to some degree. Lest you say that you "are not political, but just want a better environment," consider that for you to impose your ideas on anyone else - for good or ill - is you becoming a political animal.
Despite the fact that most of the twentieth century was spent fighting over Capitalism, you don't hear much overt "anti-Capitalism" rhetoric anymore. But all those people didn't just disappear. They have learned that they can accomplish the same goals - and be challenged less often - by using the modern environmentalist's "anti-Consumption" agenda
"Ex" Socialists and Communists Have a New Home in the Environmentalist Movement
I'm sure my mere mention of the words "Socialist" and Communist" made you roll your eyes. The same reaction you are having to my use of the words is what keeps these seemingly irrelevant ideologies from gaining much traction in modern America. That's why the devotees of Communism have had to find a less overt approach, and a new home, whereby they can continue in their efforts to counter Capitalism. They cannot tell the public openly that they "oppose Capitalism," because that would not resonate with most of us. Yet in their opposition to Capitalism, they share a purpose with many modern environmentalists who oppose what they call "consumptionism." More about that in a minute.
Why did Socialists and Communists go over to the Environmentalist movement? Because they find less opposition there. Because it's not politically correct to argue with people who are all about taking care of the environment. These days it's mean-spirited just to question anyone who is all about taking care of Goddess Earth. Their theories and tactics - no matter how destructive - are supposed to go unquestioned because they have such good intentions.
How Can Environmentalists End Up at the Same Table as Communists?
It is because environmentalists are against exploiting resources, that they are in effect "anti-technology" and "anti-progress." It should be no surprise, then, that to them Capitalism is the ultimate spectacle, with its emphasis on the production and consumption of what they deem "unnecessary things." The environmentalist's goal of countering the spread of Consumptionism gives them a shared purpose with Socialists and Communists. Both are opposed to Capitalism. I'm not suggesting that environmentalists necessarily sympathize with the brutal political atmosphere of Socialism and Communism, but I do wish they would look more closely at their peers so they could see the destructiveness of the ideas with which they are making themselves accomplices.
Did you know that there are more trees in this country now than when the Declaration of Independence was signed? The reason for this is obvious: trees multiply exponentionally and are an abundant, renewable resource - especially when forested wisely. But you don't hear that in the media. It's politically incorrect to even point that out to modern day Druids who personify and worship our trees. That's one example of how we are challenged in our attempt to reach true understanding on the subject of environmentalism. For more, click Trees.
Let's Not Mix Poetry with Policy
The public is encouraged by environmentalists to focus on emotional, imagined, romantic, and poetic ideas - rather than facts. I can easily see how that happens. There's a need in the world for a romantic appreciation of beautiful things. But many environmentalists need to stick to poetry, and leave land management to others.
For example, if we were to take the romantic's approach towards deer and antelope, we would be up to our necks in them. It wouldn't be safe to drive down any road, because you'd have to dodge them every second. They would eat every green thing in sight, and be like locust in their effect upon the land. Yet if we romanticized their beauty to the point that shooting them would be a sin, you'd see the effect of that folly pretty quick. Policies have to be governed by cause-and-effect reason; rather than emotional appeals and "good intentions."
You Know What They Say About "Good Intentions"
The reverence given to "good intention" is a theme that runs through the Left, and the Environmentalists are no exception. What most people miss, however, is that results and wise policies matter more than intentions.
We have to look more closely at the logical foundation of any new policy before we act. We have to study the needs and effects of environmental policies without preconceived notions. We have to be more critical of such policies, and try to avoid adding our agenda to how we view their implementation. We have to because the effects are far-reaching and can be destructive.
Blind Faith in Global Warming
Don't believe that Global Warming is based on faith? Then try sometime to question the "science" behind Global Warming in front of an environmentalist. Doing so inspires a "hot-under-the-collar" reaction that's akin to having questioned their faith or disrespected their mother. A lot of people reading this are feeling that right now. If you ever do choose to challenge an environmentalist on Global Warming, please be sure to ask them to cite the research behind it. Most don't know any. They accept the theories out there "on faith" because the theories fit their agenda, and because they hear them a lot in the media. You will nearly always hear them cite that "a lot of people believe in it," as if that could make it more true.
But try this: Do a Google search on "Global Warming." You will get as many articles that say things like "hoax," "hysteria," "myth" as you do anything else. It is far from universally accepted, as the pop media would have us believe. That's the beauty of the modern news era - we are not dependent on network news anymore. Whenever you hear anyone use the sage argument that "most people believe in it," keep in mind that the well-informed, wise, and intelligent people in any society will - by definition - always be in the minority.
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."
-- Mark Twain
For more details, go to: Global Warming
Related Articles
Re: Chicken Little's Big Car Guilt Trip: 1). Prius vs. Hummer: Rethinking "Eco-Cars." 2). My letter in response to Rock and Ice Magazine's anti SUV article Re: Global Warming and High Mileage Cars: by Marc Heileman
"GREEN WITH ENVY: Exposing radical environmentalists' assault on Western civilization"
Czech President Klaus: "The Environmentalist Movement is the Modern Equivalent of Communism."
For a great - and exhaustively documented - read on this subject, pick up Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Or Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist . Buy both below....
Russia Invades Georgia:
The more things change, the more they look the same. As I
watch this unfold, I can't help but
think of all the people who naively think the world has evolved beyond this kind
of thing - countries invading their neighbors for profit and power. I can name
off the top of my head thirty or better dictators in the last ten years who do
such things - just like in the old days - which necessitates our own continued
military might. Furthermore, we have to wake up to the fact that this power grab
by former KGB chieftain - and murderous career thug - Putin is meant to set
himself up as an oil baron and restore some of the former glory of the Soviet
Union...all at the same time that we are crippling our own oil power and thus
our whole economy by pandering to environmentalist hysteria. Our security -
economic or military - is not a given. Russia's economy is growing rapidly, and
our declining one is - like it or not - energy based. There is no better
illustration than this situation that we need oil independence by drilling and
producing here at home. Mr. Obama, "inflating our tires" and "getting tune-ups"
is an absurd solution to the energy crisis that is just about to get even worse
with this new situation. Tell me that's not the extent of your
as-yet-unspecified "changes" we can believe in.