Do Environmentalists Hate Us?

Written by Daniel Caza. Posted in America, Canada, Commentary, Featured, Philosophy, Religion, Science, Society & Culture

Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

Published on August 17, 2011 with 6 Comments

Going Green, Global Warming, save the whales, save the seals – I’ve always heard these things and I’ve always thought they were just extreme movements by very passionate people, possibly misleading or practically false. I’ve always thought preservation is a good thing; protected parks and areas and even some species is a necessary idea. But I’ve never thought about how Green folk, environmentalists and activists feel about me. And it is only recently that I have begun to realize, through some reading and research, that they really don’t like me and sadly they don’t care for you much either.

The Natural State of Things

While Green folk laud the natural state, the beauty, innocence and grace that naturally exists between plants and animals – and they are very zealous to return to it and maintain it – they don’t seem to appreciate our (humans) place within the natural state of things. There is a religious undercurrent to all of this: Nature in its original, pure state has been ravaged and tainted by greedy, needy people. The innocence and grace has been lost; it needs to be reclaimed. Justice needs to be served. Wrongs need to be rights. Amends need to be made. There is wrong and there is right. It all sounds very religious but it is a religion that loathes people and the loathing is tangible and it’s scary. And perhaps it may be violent one day. Read on.

We’re Maggots?

David Suzuki once famously remarked that humans are all maggots defecating everywhere. I am as flattered as you are by that statement. But what does a statement like that tell us about environmentalist’s feelings and attitudes towards people? Frankly, it says humans are no better than plants and animals in their minds. Plants and animals may not pollute their environment and they usually live in harmony with their surroundings, but humans have far different basic needs than plants and animals that cannot be compared.  We also need the resources that the earth provides but quite often we cannot use them in their natural state. And it is truly an absurd idea to compare humans with anything other than humans. Plants and animals are simple creatures that follow instinct; there is no reasoning, creativity, desire or ability to excel, create or improve their status. They live as they were created and they can’t do any better so why blame people?

What Do They Propose?

There is a large school of thought (with plenty of evidence and subscribers) claiming that environmentalists are racist against people, that they desire people’s destruction, and that they are as fanatically devoted to their beliefs as fundamentalists in a violent religion. Here are a collection of stunning and disconcerting statements made by some of the leaders of extreme environmentalists:

  • Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”
  • John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: “I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
  • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: “We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal.”
  • David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
  • David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: “It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
  • Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
  • Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: “The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.”
  • Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
  • Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
  • Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: “A total population of 250—300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
  • Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”

The Value of Human Life

Basically what nearly half of the people above are advocating is population control on a mass scale similar to the atrocities of Nazism. Bottom line – people need to die. That is scary and it is scary that the people above are high ranking, well known figures in the world. These types of beliefs lead to things like eugenics – breeding the best, and the holocaust – killing off the perceived worst. Both of which have happened in the last century and nothing good came of either. Nothing. And there is something very disturbing and twisted in the belief that the “ideal” living conditions for some require the death of others.

Going Green seems a little like gangrene now – reeks of death. Sure there are valid points and some things should change for the better and not everyone in the Green Movement despises human life but when human lives are discussed so flippantly and assigned so little value in an ever-growing and ever-popular movement, that is a problem. So tell me whose more important: you or the ground beneath your feet?

Advertisement

What do you think?

Leave us a comment below. You can sign in with Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, Disqus, Open Id or as a Guest.

  • Tom Gergos

    If we dont care for what we are given, we as humans being the selfish and greedy people will lose it all. We need to care for our environment and not be so one track minded. The problem with the right wing mindset (no doubt you are from previous articles) is that they tend to live in the now not caring about the future. Decide what you can do for future generations and not just yourself in the present moment.

    • Daniel Caza

      I don’t think “living in the now” can be dumped on any one side – that describes most people at any time. In fact I would be tempted to argue the opposite. Let’s pick an easy one – abortion – is that caring for the future or caring for ourselves in the present? It’s an easy out isn’t it? Get rid of the present problem? But children are the future right? Most right wingers don’t agree with abortion at all. It finds the majority of it’s support on the left.

      I totally support caring for the environment but never at the expense of human lives which is what the article was about.

      • Tom Gergos

        Bringing up abortion is a touch extreme. There is no murdering due to the environment. People are not killing for trees, air and water. We are just visitors on the earth we should try and treat it with respect.

        • Daniel Caza

          Yes it’s extreme but so is an element of the environmentalist movement. Some activists believe we are, in a sense, murdering and destroying the environment. They are worried about plants and animals, not people.

          50 years from now, green policies could be a great deal more strict and harsh. Who knows. Life has a way of getting crazy. Extremes don’t necessarily fade away; sometimes they grow and become the norm.

  • Dan Langis

    I think the right wing looks to the future and supports a healthy future for the generations to come. One example would be dept. The left wants to spend now and don`t worry about the headache is going to cause later and the right wants hard cuts and fiscal responsibility for our children s children s to benefit. In the here and now that may seem hard but something that is much needed and I think the right are on the right track personally.

    Global warming is such a crock and waste money. Tons of secular scientist are now coming out against it. It has become a religion in my opinion.

  • Pingback: The ethical question no climate denier will answer - Page 37 (politics)

  • Izuna Uchiha

    I don’t understand how environmentalists hate all humans, because they don’t even know 99% or more of humans. They’re insulting everyone alive, everyone who has ever lived, and everyone who ever will live, and every human fictional character in the history of fiction!That’s just…that’s extremism…

  • Pingback: cascading failure