💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › law › envhook.txt captured on 2022-04-28 at 22:16:25.
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The Environmental Movement and the Value of "Moderation"
by Brian K. Yoder
[Presented at a 1992 commencement address in California. An excellent
analysis of the totalitarian threat posed by environmentalism. The historical
examples discussed here bring to mind Santayana's maxim, "Those who do
not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it." Note that asterisks are
used to represent italics in this transcript.]
--------------------------------
If you could give some advice to a fish about how not to end up on a
fisherman's stringer, you might recommend that he closely examine each juicy
tidbit he encounters to see if it contains a hook. I would like to make that
same recommendation to you this evening with regard to political ideologies.
If you consider swallowing an ideology containing some true and good
components, you should scrutinize its structure in order to determine whether
it contains a false and evil hook.
A look at history will show us many instances of large numbers of people
adopting tyrannical ideologies which killed and enslaved them. What caused
this? Were these people less intelligent than we are? Weimar Germany had
one of the best educated populations in the world before the Nazis came to
power. Certainly they weren't grossly stupid or uneducated. Even today,
many of the most vocal proponents of Marxism on American campuses are
otherwise intelligent people.
Were they more subject to evil intent? There is certainly no evidence of this.
Nobody promotes ideas he considers to be evil. Do you have ideas you
consider to be evil? Of course not. Neither did the citizens of Russia and
Germany. It must be something else.
How could the proponents of tyranny have been so effective and the oppo-
nents so ineffective? If the common people wouldn't stand up for themselves,
didn't business and religious leaders stand up to the tyrants? No, for the most
part, they supported them. How can it be that intelligent, well-meaning people
can allow and even support the development of tyrannical political move-
ments? The answer is that the majority swallowed some juicy bait uncritically,
without looking for an ideological hook, and that's how they ended up on the
stringer.
So, how does one identify a "hook" of this kind? Answering this question is
vitally important today because we are being presented with an ideology
similar in many respects to those of the worst tyrannies of the 20th century. It
is necessary to be able to recognize such ideologies in order to fight against
them.
The ideology I would like to discuss this evening is environmentalism as a
philosophical and political movement. We will examine the philosophy of
environmentalism, and determine whether or not it is safe to swallow.
I could speak about the scientific case (or lack of it) behind such issues as
ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, and the solid waste "crisis", but I
won't, because these issues have been dealt with by many others already, and
because I do not believe that science is what makes environmentalism "work"
as a political movement. Let's begin by looking at several environmental
issues and trying to see what they have in common and how they differ.
Remember Acid Rain? Asbestos? Mercury in fish? Ozone Depletion from
Supersonic Transports? Alar in apples? Rachel Carson's Silent Spring of the
1960s? The Coming Ice Age of the 1970s? Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb of
the 1980s? What all of these have in common is that they are based on
dubious scientific theories, and that they predicted disaster unless the environ-
mentalists were given the power to violate the rights of individual citizens.
Also, ultimately all of the apocalyptic claims were proven to be false, if for
no other reason than that the massive disease and death these theories predict-
ed never materialized.
What about today's predictions such as ozone depletion from CFCs, the
greenhouse effect, deforestation, and the solid waste crisis? What do they all
have in common?
They are being trumpeted by the same people, they have the same dubious
scientific foundations, and they are accompanied by the same demands for
power to violate individual rights as the previous list. The only difference is
that this last list is newer and therefore has not yet fallen to scientific dis-
proof. Actually, global warming is already on its way out as more and more
scientists stand up and point out the theory's faults. Don't worry though, there
will be more sources of doomsday predictions next year. Perhaps the next big
crisis will be the evil of road kills, paint fumes, neon lights, navigation
beacons, or something else I can't even imagine. Probably that.
If these predictions of doomsday are again and again shown to be false, why
do new ones rise to take the place of each one that falls? This propensity can
only be understood in a philosophical and political context rather than a
scientific one. That is because environmentalism is a philosophical and
political movement rather than a scientific one. It is no more scientific than
communism (with its pseudo-science of history) or Naziism (with its pseudo-
science of race).
The communists claimed that scientific socialism would put an end to poverty
and alienation. The Nazis claimed that the science of genetics proved that the
Aryan race was blessed by nature with superior abilities. No matter how many
times these theories were disproved, the adherents remained loyal to the
ideology. Even today one can find many proponents of Marxist or racial
ideologies plying their wares. Is environmentalism an ideology of the same
kind?
If we are to understand the nature of tyrannical political ideologies and
determine whether environmentalism fits into that mold, we should examine
some historical examples, and identify what makes them tick politically.
We'll start with the communists. The essence of what they said to the public
was, "Poverty is bad. We are the people opposed to poverty. In order for
poverty to be eliminated, the people opposed to it must be given the power to
violate individual rights. After all, helping others is the moral ideal and that's
all we are doing. Trust us, we'll do it right this time.".
The Nazis had a slightly different message for the common man. They said,
"The destruction of Germany is bad. We are the people opposed to the
destruction of Germany. In order for Germany to be defended, the people who
defend Germany must be given the power to violate individual rights. After
all, helping others is the moral ideal and that's all we are doing. Trust us,
we'll do it right this time."
The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia said, "Corruption is bad. We are the people
opposed to corruption. In order for corruption to be eliminated, the people
opposed to it must be given the power to violate individual rights. After all,
helping others is the moral ideal and that's all we are doing. Trust us, we'll
do it right this time." Each of these ideologies has a common set of attributes.
1. Each defends an utterly uncontroversial position about which most
people are likely to be concerned. (In these examples, that poverty
is bad, that national destruction is bad, or that corruption is bad).
2. Each offers to solve the uncontroversial problem, if only the public
will grant the group the power to violate the rights of individuals.
3. Each justifies that violation on the basis of the morality of altruism,
that is, the moral theory that the standard of goodness is doing what
is beneficial for others.
4. Each resulted in millions of deaths, and slavery for millions more.
Ideologies of this kind work by establishing a "package deal" in which a true
and good idea is attached to a false and evil one which is swallowed whole by
the unwitting citizen. This works the same way as a worm on a fisherman's
hook and has similar results for those who swallow the combination.
The simplest way of understanding how people can be tricked into swallowing
a package deal of this kind is to notice that the first claim of each of these
ideologies (that poverty, national destruction, and corruption are evil) are
things everyone already agrees with. So ask yourself, what does taking such a
position accomplish in a political context? Does it mobilize the public to
change its opinions on the issue? Of course not, everyone already agrees.
Does it differentiate the movement from the massive pro-poverty, pro-national
destruction, or pro-corruption forces afoot in the population? Certainly not,
there are no such wide-scale movements. It merely serves as the "worm" for
the hook that follows.
Once one has swallowed the worm and believes that "The Communists are the
opponents of poverty," "The Nazis are the defenders of Germany," or "The
Khmer Rouge are the opponents of corruption," there is only one step left for
the advocates of tyranny. They must establish their goal as a moral primary.
This is necessary because otherwise people could object to the tyranny on the
basis of some higher moral principle such as individual rights.
What I mean by "Moral Primary" is a moral concept which need not be
justified on the basis of any other *moral* premise. For example, if I said, "It
is good to eat your vegetables." you might ask why, to which I would answer,
"A diet containing vegetables promotes health." That means my vegetable-
eating principle was not moral primary. It was based on a more fundamental
moral principle...the goodness of health. After hearing this, you might ask,
"But why is being healthy good?" to which I would answer (depending on my
moral philosophy), "Because having a healthy body is important to my life,"
or "Because God commands it," or "Because society needs strong citizens to
survive," or "Because health brings pleasure." In each case, one is expressing
a moral primary, that one's life, the will of God, the good of society, or
pleasure is the foundation of moral evaluation. Each of these is moral prima-
ry. An egoist has no *moral* principle that underlies his evaluation of his life
as his standard of value. What underlies it is an *epistemological* principle.
A theist cannot explain what *moral* issue underlies the goodness of God. A
collectivist cannot explain what moral issue underlies the goodness of society,
and a hedonist cannot explain what moral issue underlies the goodness of
pleasure. In each case, the explanation of the standard of good is
epistemological, not moral. The theist, the collectivist, and the hedonist, will
typically explain why their standard is correct with some version of "My
standard is good because I feel it is." We'll get back to this issue later when
we discuss the relationship between theories of knowledge and ethical systems.
We will see why egoism can be defended on the basis of more than arbitrary
feelings, while the others cannot.
The moral foundation that the creators of tyrannical package deals count on,
and the moral system already accepted by most people, is altruism. Altruism
is the ethical theory which says that the moral ideal is to do what benefits
others. Broadly speaking, "others" could include other people, supernatural
beings, or even inanimate objects; the important issue is that altruism demands
that one abandon one's own concerns and do things which are contrary to
one's rational self-interest in order to lead a morally acceptable life. This is
the perfect basis for a tyrannical ideology since anyone who claims that he is
being personally harmed by Communism, Naziism, or the Khmer Rouge, is
merely being selfish and is thus an agent of poverty, national destruction, or
corruption. (Do you see how the package deal works here? To oppose the
movement is taken as opposition to the uncontroversial idea, and since that
idea has been elevated to a moral primary, such opposition must be considered
the worst possible sin.) So, how can anyone oppose the tyranny?
Once one has swallowed the hook, the chance for the citizen to oppose the
violation of his rights in a consistent way is *gone*. Accepting the premises
that the tyrants are the advocates of the good, and that the good supersedes the
rights of any individual leads inexorably to the conclusions of the ty-
rants...that they should rule outside of considerations of individual rights.
In our examples, anyone opposed to communism was considered to be in
favor of poverty, and therefore could be treated without regard to individual
rights, since communism was considered to be equivalent to the opposition to
poverty, which was considered to be a moral primary. Anyone opposed to
Naziism was considered to be in favor of the destruction of Germany, and
therefore could be treated without regard to his rights. Anyone opposed to the
Khmer Rouge was considered to be in favor of corruption, and therefore
could be treated without regard to his rights. By grafting the movement to an
uncontroversial idea which is a moral primary, tyrants can dismiss any
objections to their movement as opposition to that moral idea. Opposition to
the actions of the movement therefore becomes an unforgivable sin, subject to
any retaliation the movement chooses.
I should point out that the worst of such retaliation historically has not become
a reality until *after* the tyrants took power. Obviously they can't build death
camps before they take over, so you should not assume that any movement
that hasn't imposed press censorship or started mass purges yet is not tyranni-
cal. Mass killings and censorship are not the hallmarks of tyranny on the rise,
they are the hallmarks of tyrannies in power.
OK. Enough for history. Let's look at current affairs.
Consider the reaction to those who speak out against environmentalism here in
1992. Anyone opposed to the environmentalists is considered to be in favor of
pollution, and can be treated without regard to his rights (at least if the
environmentalists have their way).
The essential message of the environmental movement is, "Pollution is bad.
We are the people opposed to pollution. In order for pollution to be eliminat-
ed, the people opposed to it must be given the power to violate individual
rights. After all, helping others is the moral ideal and that's all we are doing.
Trust us. we'll do it right this time." One can expect that the results of this
package deal will be the same as those generated by its ideological counter-
parts if the environmentalists have their way.
--------------------------------
Let's look at what several prominent environmentalists have to say in their
own words . . .
Christopher Manes, the editor of the Earth First! Journal writes "[T]he
biological meltdown is most directly the result of values fundamental to what
we have come to recognize as culture under the regime of technological
society: economic growth, "progress", property rights, consumerism, religious
doctrines about humanity's dominion over nature, [and] technocratic notions
about achieving an optimum human existence at the expense of all other life-
forms."
Lynn White, a professor of history at UCLA wrote: "men must not crowd
coyotes [or] try to exterminate locusts," because, he says: "we can sense our
comradeship with a glacier, a subatomic particle, or a spiral nebula," and
therefore, "We must extend compassion to rattlesnakes, and not just to koala
bears."
Paul Ehrlich, a prominent writer on population control in the Population
Bomb writes: "We must have population control...by compulsion if voluntary
methods fail."
Dave Foreman, a founder of the Earth First! movement and a former repre-
sentative for The Wilderness Society writes: "An individual human life has no
more intrinsic value than does an individual Grizzly Bear life. Human suffer-
ing resulting from drought in Ethiopia is tragic, yes, but the destruction there
of other creatures and habitat is even more tragic."
Kirkpatrick Sale, an "ecological historian" was quoted in the Washington Post
as saying Western civilization is "founded on a set of ideas that are fundamen-
tally pernicious, and they have to do with rationalism, humanism, materialism,
science, progress. These are to my mind just pernicious concepts."
David Graber is a research biologist with the National Park Service. In
Graber's Los Angeles Times review of Bill McKibben's book, "The End of
Nature" he wrote:
"Somewhere along the line -- at about a billion [sic] years ago, maybe half
that -- we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague
upon ourselves and upon the Earth . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens
should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to
come along."
--------------------------------
When I present this evidence and reasoning to friends and debating opponents,
a common reaction is "Oh sure, those guys are bad, but they are just on the
lunatic fringe. I'm no misanthrope, I just want clean air and clean water.
That's why I'm an environmentalist, not because I believe in all those radical
ideas." But aren't these "radicals" the ones who are leading influential envi-
ronmentalist groups? Writing books? Making speeches? Raising and spending
millions of dollars for environmentalist causes? Writing educational materials
for our children? Even so, the everyday environmentalists say "That's not
what *I* mean when I talk about environmentalism. I'm a moderate *and*
I'm an environmentalist. Why don't you talk about what moderate environ-
mentalists have to say?" Well, that's exactly what I would like to do this
evening. Let's look at what Senator Al Gore, someone moderate enough to be
elected vice-president of the United States, thinks is a proper response to the
environmental "crisis".
First, let's turn to the explanation Gore gives in his book "Earth In the
Balance: Ecology & the Human Spirit" of why we are in such a terrible
position in the first place. He essentially gives two reasons. First, that we
human beings and Western civilization are mentally ill.
On the one hand, we are individually "addicted" to civilization...
[p. 222] "Industrial civilization's great engines of distraction still seduce us
with a promise of fulfillment. Our new power to work our will
upon the world can bring with it a sudden rush of exhilaration, not
unlike the momentary "rush" experienced by drug addicts when a
drug injected into their bloodstream triggers changes in the chemis-
try of the brain."
That is because we are more interested in technology than in nature:
[p. 207] "[F]ar too often, our fascination with technology displaces what
used to be a fascination with the wonder of nature."
On the other hand Western civilization itself is "addicted" to technology...
[p. 220] "I believe that our civilization is, in effect, addicted to the consump-
tion of the Earth itself. This addictive relationship distracts us from
the pain of what we have lost: a direct experience of our connection
to the vividness, vibrancy, and aliveness of the rest of the natural
world. The froth and frenzy of industrial civilization masks our
deep loneliness for that communion with the world that can lift our
spirits..."
How can addicts of civilization solve this problem?
[p. 225] "Rather than distracting their inner awareness through behavior,
addicts must learn to face the real pain they have sought to avoid.
Rather than distracting their inner awareness through behavior,
addicts must learn to face their pain -- feel it, think it, absorb it,
own it. Only then can they begin to honestly deal with it instead of
running away."
Notice that according to Gore, in order to even recognize that one is addicted,
one needs to accept the idea that one is making choices because of addiction,
rather than because of reason. Anyone who claims to make rational choices in
favor of technological civilization, must be mentally ill and therefore blind to
his illness. In fact, the only "solution" to this illness is for people to accept
that it is real despite the fact that there is no evidence of this technologically-
induced mental illness:
[p. 236] "[Experts have shown] than the act of mourning the original loss
while fully and consciously feeling the pain it has caused can heal
the wound and free the victim from further enslavement."
So, anyone who claims not to feel this "psychic pain", is a wounded, enslaved
victim who can only be cured of this disease, which he doesn't know he has,
by adopting an environmentalist view of civilization, by mourning, and by
experiencing pain. Those who don't agree are mentally ill and are in need of
re-education and psychological help. This is reminiscent of the attitude of the
Soviet Union toward dissidents.
Gore's second explanation is that the prime mover of history is not philoso-
phy, necessity, money, religion, or great men, but the weather. He equivo-
cates about this considerably explaining that he really isn't saying that climate
is necessarily the most important factor in the course of civilization, but you
can decide what he really thinks. He attributes more historic events to weather
than I have time to recite, but I'll read you a few just to give you an idea of
where Gore is coming from. He says weather caused:
Human evolution, p. 63
Vanishing of the Minoan civilization, p. 58
Mass disappearance of population in Scotland in 1150 BC, p. 58
Cannibalism & failed harvests in China in 209 B.C. p. 59
Migration of Indians to America, p. 61
The rise of Mesopotamia and Jericho, p. 62, p. 103
The rise of Egypt, p. 62
End of northern bronze age, p. 64
The invasion of Europe by germanics, p. 64
Macedonian conquest of Greece, p. 64
Alexander the Great's conquest, p. 64
Expansion of Chinese civilization, p. 64
Decline of the Mali civilization in West Africa, p. 65
Disappearance of the Mycenaean civilization, p. 65
Migration of bronze age people from Balkans, p. 65
The collapse of Hittite civilization, p. 65
The rise of Rome, p. 65
The imperial nature of Roman civilization, p. 64
The fall of Rome & Barbarian invasions, p. 64
The fall of the Mayan civilization, p. 66,67,379
The voyages of Leif Erikson & Eric the Red, p. 66
French revolution, p. 59
Napoleonic wars, p. 57
Anti-semitic riots in Wurzburg, p. 57
The European emigration to the United States, p. 71
The rise of the modem bureaucratic state (including the New Deal), p. 73
The renaissance and enlightenment, & individualism in politics, p. 68
If you still don't think that Gore considers weather to be the prime mover of
history, I suggest you read his book and look at the rest of the list I didn't
have time to recite.
Third, he explains that we as a civilization are a "dysfunctional family"
because we can't seem to give up on science and reason, a dreadful hang-up
according to Gore.
[p. 230] "Like the rules of a dysfunctional family, the unwritten rules that
govern our relationship to the environment have been passed down
from one generation to the next since the time of Descartes, Bacon,
and the pioneers of the scientific revolution some 375 years ago.
We have absorbed these rules and lived by them for centuries
without seriously questioning them. As in a dysfunctional family,
one of the rules in a dysfunctional civilization is that you don't
question the rules."
All of this addiction and dysfunctional interaction ultimately arises, according
to Gore from "psychic pain" [p. 219] which we experience because we are
separated from nature. This separation began with the invention of agriculture,
and is directly related to the use of knowledge in the creation of civilization.
Civilization keeps us "out of touch" with nature by creating artificial environ-
ments like homes and fields. Being "in touch with nature" apparently requires
the most primitive animal state of existence.
Another problem Gore cites is that we have too much information available to
us:
[p. 197] "... rarely do we examine the negative impact of information on our
lives..."
[p. 200] "We have...automated the process of generating data -- with inven-
tions like the printing press and computer -- without taking into
account our limited ability to absorb the new knowledge thus creat-
ed."
[p. 201] "Vast amounts of information ultimately become a kind of pollu-
tion."
So, we westerners and our civilization have been driven to insanity by too
much civilization, technology and information. What method does Gore
suggest we should use to understand our problem? He gives a long list of
methods: the Hindu method, the American Indian method, the Buddhist
method, the Christian method, the Baha'i method and others. All of these
methods, Gore tells us, will lead to the same conclusion...that civilization is a
failure, that technology doesn't work, and that we should give it all up for
some higher purpose. This theme is repeated in his book again and again in
regard to pesticides, fertilizers, mechanical trucks and plows, mass-produc-
tion, decorations, electronic communication, transportation, and the mass-
production of artwork. Gore bases this on some interesting and very scientific
premises:
[p. 244] "Whatever is done to the Earth must be done with an awareness that
it belongs to God."
[p. 243] "From the biblical point of view, nature is only safe from pollution
and brought into a secure moral relationship when it is united with
people who love it and care for it."
His scientific analysis continues on:
[p. 244] "...whatever verses are selected in an effort to lend precision to the
Judeo-Christian definition of life's purpose, that purpose is clearly
inconsistent with the reckless destruction of that which belongs to
God and which God has seen as 'good'."
Now we arrive at the real enemy...human efficacy and achievement. The idea
that we can have what we want out of life is wrong according to Gore.
[p. 206] "Technological hubris tempts us to lose sight of our place in the
natural order and believe that we can achieve whatever we want."
To be more specific...
[p. 240] "We have been so seduced by industrial civilization's promise to
make our lives comfortable that we allow the synthetic routines of
modern life to soothe us in an inauthentic world of our own mak-
ing. Life can be easy, we assure ourselves. We need not suffer heat
or cold; we need not sow or reap or hunt and gather. We can heal
the sick, fly through the air, light up the darkness, and be enter-
tained in our living rooms by orchestras and clowns whenever we
like."
Apparently, Gore thinks that medicine, aircraft, heating, light bulbs and
agriculture are intrusions against God's creation. If God had meant us to be
mobile, healthy, well-fed, warm in the winter, and able to read at night, he
would have provided us with wings, disease-free bodies, heated caves, and
nite-lights. Since he didn't, it is wrong for us to provide them for ourselves.
That wasn't what God created and saw to be "good" .
But isn't environmentalism supposed to be a scientific ideology? If so, why
bother with the religious arguments? According to Gore, we can reconcile
science with religion in such a way as to allow religious revelation to inform
scientific opinion.
[p. 253] "...science offers a new way to understand -- and perhaps begin
healing -- the long schism between science and religion." ...and he
goes on to explain that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle opens
the way to allowing religion and science to coexist without contra-
diction. Exactly how he proposes that this might be done, is not
clear, but Gore really does think that religion can be used in place
of science, and therefore that religion is a proper method for dis-
covering the truth.
In a C-Span interview just after his book was published, Gore explained that
the source of the idea that civilization must be restrained is irrelevant. One
can justify that idea using science, religion, social solidarity, whatever you
like, as long as the conclusion is that we should renounce our civilization,
technology, and power over nature. Any method that does not create that
conclusion should be discarded.
The moral goal toward which that renunciation is to be directed is also
optional according to Gore. You can give up your comforts for the benefit of
the state, for your children, for your class, for the biosphere, for cute little
animals, or for God. What matters is that we use *some* method to arrive at
the conclusion that we should perform *some* acts of renunciation toward