Necessary Rerun: Hating Ourselves To Death:The Environmentalist Demands
December 28, 2006
As the climate change mujahadeen and jihadis are increasingly under fire (”We tried for years – decades – to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric…), we thought we would revisit our analysis of how the climate change ideologues come into conflict with societal and cultural realities.
How deeply can one hate oneself? Can we hate ourselves to death?
If you look around the liberal blogosphere and what passes for liberal thought today, we are all going to die soon. Global warming, use of fossil fuels, and depletion of fresh water by humans, are but a few examples of how we are ruining everything, forever. James Howard Kunstler solemnly states that ‘this is a much darker time than 1938, the eve of World War II.‘ Jared Diamond (we wrote about his book, Guns, Germs and Steel) has a new book out, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, in which he places us on the precipice of a total societal collapse. These writers and the media are bombarding us with doomsday scenarios. Oil depletion, global warming, bird flu, are the result of human selfishness, cruelty and moral depravity.
The extreme liberal version of The Book of Revelations and the Apocalypse contains no possibility of redemption. There will be no future. We greedily gambled away our future, they tell us. We consume too, much, we have too much technology and worst of all, we are ‘playing God.’ Sin will not lead to the fall of man (morality is after all, ‘relative’) , but rather, our fall will be attributed to our own shortcomings.
They have spoken, and so shall it be- or so they would have you believe.
Of course, the media is never far from wanting to be the center of attention. To that end, media scare stories about the scope and scale of human destruction appear with the regularity of Big Ben. Every high school dropout nitwit and prior life High Priestess or Egyptian princess with a computer can head up an advocacy group or political action committees- and demand to be listened to. The media are only too happy to oblige.
Every time a fish or bug goes extinct (evolution notwithstanding), human activity we are told, is to blame. It doesn’t matter one bit if the charge is true or not. We are guilty of ‘ecocide’- a crime that exceeds the Holocaust and nuclear war. Man is nothing more than a predatory species to be hated.
The proud and spectacular monument to mediocrity, Al Gore, has found a cause he can appropriate. In an attempt to (’blame the people’ and) reinvent himself, Al Gore rails on about the evil ‘human impact’ on the environment. He envisions ‘a violent destructive collision between our civilization and earth.’ The reality that man has developed a civilized society- music, literature, science, medicine and everything else that contributes to great societies, seemingly escapes those who want to see man destroyed. Today, building a better mousetrap is suspected as being evil. Using animals to test for a cure for cancer is unacceptable (though we suspect that might be looked over in the search for the HIV or AIDS cure).
In fact, man has been exploiting the earth since the dawn of time. Vegans have the luxury of being vegans because our ancestors killed animals, ate meat and engaged in wars. Grandma can get the best medical care possible because we used our will, talent and drive to build a society that made hospitals and medical care a priority. Notwithstanding all that shared DNA, we are not chimps. In fact, given the opportunity, those cute chimps would just as soon eat us.
That’s called nature.
Humans are a part of nature- a most important part. We meant to use all those those things in nature that are available to us. Do we hate ourselves much- and do we have so much hubris- to believe that we are not a part of nature?
Are there ecological issues that must be addressed? Of course there are. That said, too many are perfectly happy to see mankind as the problem and focus on bestowing the scarlet letter. Whatever problems we must address, we are in fact, the source of the solution- and it is for that we need to be recognized and not as the ‘cancer’ on nature. The solution will not be realized by reducing populations and redefining human values (To be sure, those slated for ‘elimination’ do not include those who support the idea. Surprise).
In fact, from a historical perspective, man’s greatest achievements have come about as the result of dealing with the situation at hand and not by ‘killing off’ the problem. Those who hate mankind have no faith in imagination, possibilities and the human capacity to achieve, progress and reach an ever greater potential. Greatness is never arrived at from despair or self hatred. In fact, the proponents of man as the ‘cancer’ of nature are no different than racists. It is they who decide what and who are of value and it is they who wish to decide the future of others. If your grandmother is ill, she too, becomes disposable. If your child has chronic asthma, well, he or she is less than perfect. If the rest of us who are healthy are a ‘cancer,’ one can only imagine how much value is placed on those less than perfect, or those who might be different. We know about that, firsthand.
Peter Singer notwithstanding, mankind is not the equivalent of other species, anymore than other species are equal to each other. Those notions came about as the result of moral relativism making no headway in the real world. Unable to declare all humans and all human behavior equal all the time, we are now asked to believe we are equal to other species.
Here’s another secret: We are perfectly capable of feeding ourselves and then some. The real problem lies in distribution and corruption. There are those who hate mankind so much they would rather see populations die than solve political divides and corruption.
It’s one thing to have no faith in God. It’s another thing entirely to have no faith in the potential of man. We are being asked to believe that we, as a species, are capable of great achievements in every field, except when it comes to addressing environmental concerns. We are incapable of solving our problems and so, we are subject to elimination. We have to hate ourselves- in reality, because those who demand that we do, hate themselves.