The radical misanthropy of the environmental movement January 25, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, secularism, sickness, silliness, Society, unadulterated evil.
It seems among the environmental movement, there are twin unassailable characteristics: first, watermelons abound, which is to say, communists/extreme socialists who have found in the environmental movement a potential way to inflict their mass, forced reorganizations of society and the economy on their fellow man, and, second, a profound misanthropy which seems to suffuse the entire movement. That is not to say that there are not individuals concerned about the environment who have a great love for their fellow man and in fact pursue their environmentalism on that basis, but among the leadership of the environmental movement, and among definitely among the more radical side, there is a prevalent and I am afraid growing hatred of mankind in general. In fact, the radical side of the environmental movement – also growing, I’m afraid – sees their cause as so just and noble as to justify any means in its pursuit. Coupled with their cozy view of state power via communism/extreme socialism, this has all the makings of a nightmare of human misery, suffering, and death.
A recent example was provided by David Attenborough, host of various British TV nature programs (the British seem to loooove them some nature programs), who derided humanity as a “plague” and a “scourge,” and seeming to indicate it would be better if most of us would just die. Not him, of course. Nor would the environmental elites be denied their once-a-quarter high-power meetings in 5 star resorts in such welcoming places as Bali, Cancun, Copenhagen, and Rio. They get to continue jetting around the world, living lavishly, while the rest of us freeze and starve to death in the dark. But the problem extends far beyond Attenborough, as Wesley Smith at First Things notes:
David Attenborough—famous for hosting BBC’s The Living Planet and other nature documentaries—has recently drawn headlines for lambasting humans as a “plague on the Earth.”
That someone of Attenborough’s stature (he has been knighted, among other official honors, and is so popular in the U.K. that he was named one the One-Hundred Greatest Britons in a 2002 BBC poll) would compare us to cholera evidences how mainstream anti-humanism has become within the environmental movement. Indeed, in the wake of the media firestorm about Attenborough’s remark, Population Matters—the U.K.’s largest population control trust, for which Attenborough serves as a patron—affirmed the analogy as “apt,” stating that we are indeed “like a plague of locusts, which consumes all it sees and then dies off.”
…….Deep misanthropy has helped renew the Malthusian drive to radically depopulate the planet of people as a remedy for environmental ills and human deprivation. Population Matters, for example, would have us voluntarily reduce our current population of seven billion by about half to save the planet. Another Population Matters patron, Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, says the optimal human count would be much lower, around 1.5 billion……
…..But actual population reduction to the extent for which the Malthusians yearn can’t be accomplished voluntarily. Consider China’s infamous “one child” policy. Despite more than forty years of forced abortion, ubiquitous female infanticide, eugenics, and other draconian population control policies, the population in China continues to grow. Indeed, while China’s tyrannical policies have succeeded in slowing of the rate of growth, today the country has a larger population than any time in its history.
Massive depopulation would also require mass euthanasia of the aging and infirm—in part in order to balance the population pyramid. In this regard, the Japanese Finance Minister recently opined that his country’s elderly should “hurry up and die,” and yet, he retains his position.
Smith goes on to note that another fundamental aspect of the environmental movement is “wealth redistribution”……radical wealth transfer schemes which would leave people in countries like the US much, much poorer, while ostensibly raising the standard of living of the world’s poor. In truth, what will occur is that the entire world will be made poor and denied access to wealth and technology, including medical technology.
That’s the way to radically reduce population. And to get people to agree to suffer immensely, you have to frighten them out of their wits. To do that, you need some super-scary world-destroying myth. Thus, the environmental religion has cooked up
global cooling warming climate change, telling anyone who will listen that if they don’t go back to an 18th century level of existence, the earth will rise up in terrible wrath and smite us all. I note in passing that the population sizes mentioned above, correspond to the world’s population in the early 19th century. That is about the level of technology the environmentalist zealouts are prepared to allow us to have…..all except them, of course. They’ll still enjoy what advanced technology remains, because they are there to “lead us” and deserve such comforts. Just like the “world leader” in Huxley’s Brave New World. Only he had books, and didn’t have to take the drugs.
Of course, none of its true. More and more evidence shows climate change, to the extent that it is occurring, to be a natural phenomenon entirely outside mankind’s reach. I also note the correlation between lack of faith in God, and the more environmental extremists. As Chesterton said, when one doesn’t believe in God, it’s not that you don’t believe in something, it’s that you’ll believe anything. Except God.
To the extent these people have gained power and influenced policy, they have only spread misery. California’s electric rates are projected to increase by 1/3 over the next few years due to the mandated use of “renewable energy.” And entire species of bats and birds are being wiped out in Britain from the windmill farms. Which break much faster than forecast, produce usable power rarely, and are entirely uneconomic without massive subsidies. But it’s all for the good!