💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › yob92env.txt captured on 2023-11-14 at 11:46:37.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-16)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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."] 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 movements? 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 environmentalists 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 predicted 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 disproof. 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 primary. 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 corrup tion. (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 tyrants . . . 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 tyrannical. 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 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." One can expect that the results of this package deal will be the same as those generated by its ideological counterparts 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 suffering 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 fundamentally 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 environmentalist groups? Writing books? Making speeches? Raising and spending millions of dollars for environmen talist 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 environmentalists 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 chemistry 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 consumption 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 philosophy, necessity, money, religion, or great men, but the weather. He equivocates 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 environments 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 inventions like the printing press and computer_without taking into account our limited ability to absorb the new knowledge thus created." [p. 201] "Vast amounts of information ultimately become a kind of pollution." 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-production, 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 making. 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 entertained 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." Aand he goes on to explain that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle opens the way to allowing religion and science to coexist without contradiction. 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 discovering 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 some end other than ourselves. This is simple unadorned altruism. The method of thought doesn't matter to Gore. The recipient of the sacrifices doesn't matter either. What matters, and he said this literally over and over again, is that we must sacrifice something, to anyone or anything, for any reason. As Ayn Rand said in For the New Intellectual, p. 73, "It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there is service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters. And he intends to be the master." To sum it up, the environment reigns supreme as a force in history. People and civilization are insane, and we should rely on religious insights in order to see this. We should choose some person, thing, or superstitious entity to sacrifice ourselves for, and give up everything we can to accomplish this. Anyone who selfishly refuses to do this is acting immorally because of his mental illness. OK, that's the theory . . . lets look at the practice that follows from it. Gore outlines two political programs in his book. The first is a "Global Marshall Plan" by which the United States transfers billions of dollars to the rest of the world to get them to adopt environmentally benign lifestyles. The second is the SEI (Strategic Environment Initiative), the domestic counterpart which will completely transform the domestic economy according to a plan of environmentalist control. This pair of initiatives are, according to Gore, designed to transfer the entire foundation of civilization from its current focus on fulfilling individual human needs and desires toward one based on the preservation of the world in its natural state. [p. 269] "I have come to believe that we must take bold and unequivocal action; we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle of civilization." [p. 270] "Although it has never yet been accomplished on a global scale, the establishment of a single shared goal as the central organizing principle for every institution of society has been realized by free nations several times in modern history." In other words, rather than being in the business of promoting the lives of human beings, as it does now, civilization ought to primarily be in the business of making it more difficult for human beings to extract values from nature. According to Gore, existing civilization is based on the fulfillment of human wants and desires: [p. 243] "[O]ur civilization is built on the premise that we can use nature for our own ends." and goes on to explain that this is contrary to religious dictates. Civilization, Gore says, is wrong because it tries to do good things for people, when it should be trying to do good things for Bambi instead and he knows this because God told him so. He explicitly calls for a change in the central organizing principle of civilization to one which has as its goal the maintenance of the world in a wild state, and he claims that the only way to accomplish this is by the establishment of a world-wide pseudo-government which will control all of the human activities which have any impact on the environment. [p. 204] "the people of all nations have begun to feel that they are part of a truly global civilization, united by common interests and concerns_among the most important of which is the rescue of our environment. " [p. 295] "what's required now is a plan that combines large-scale, long-term, carefully targeted financial aid to developing nations, massive efforts to design and then transfer to poor nations the new technologies needed for sustained economic progress, a worldwide program to stabilize world population, and binding commitments by the industrial nations to accelerate their own transition to an environmentally responsible pattern of life." [p. 302] "We must negotiate international agreements that establish global constraints on acceptable behavior but that are entered into voluntarily_albeit with the understanding that there will be both incentives and legally valid penalties for non-compliance." This [p. 301] "framework of global agreements" Gore insists is not a government despite its binding nature and enforcement mechanisms and Gore assures us that our fear of such a delegation of sovereignty to a global government is a guarantee that it couldn't possibly develop. Clearly he wants it both ways . . . to have a global government to manage the economies of the world but without it having any power. For what it is worth, the index of the book says that this page contains a discussion of "Post-nationalism" even though that word is never actually used . . . it is pretty obvious that is really what he is proposing here, a global environmentalist state. As you might guess, this switch from the idea of the individual good to the collective good involves a switch away from the idea of individual rights, and toward the power of a universal government just like the ones proposed by the other tyrannical ideologies. [p. 278] "we have tilted so far toward individual rights and so far away from any sense of obligation that it is now difficult to muster an adequate defense of any rights vested in the community at large or in the nation_much less rights properly vested in all humankind or posterity." With this anti-individual rights paradigm in hand, Gore can plan his domestic policy. He can argue for it on the basis that his opponents are insane and therefore need not be answered rationally. He can argue that religious determination is more important than individual rights. He can argue that people ought to be prevented from using the Earth to improve their lives, and that all of this follows from the desire for clean water and air. He can base it on that same old kind of package deal: "Pollution is bad. We are the people opposed to pollution. In order for pollution 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." Let's look at the Strategic Environment Initiative. Here is an outline of the parts of the plan: [p. 319-320] 1. Tax incentives for government-approved technologies and disincentives for those the government doesn't approve of. 2. Research and development funding for government-approved technologies and bans for all those the government doesn't approve of. 3. Government purchasing programs for the new technologies. 4. Government promises of large profits in a market certain to emerge as older technologies are phased out. 5. The establishment of rigorous technology assessment centers which evaluate new technologies and determine whether they are "appropriate". 6. The establishment of a network of training centers to create a core of environmentalist planners and technicians to control third world economies. 7. The imposition of export controls in developed countries to assess a technology's ecological effect and prevent all trade the government doesn't approve of. 8. The expansion of intellectual property rights to include genetic materials which will be the property of the governments where various species emerged. This amounts to complete domination of the domestic economy by environ mentalist government agencies. It is quite consistent with Gore's proposal to change the central organizing principle of civilization to be the preservation of the world in a natural state. That being the case, individual rights, economic efficiency, and human advancement must all be made subservient to environmentalist dictates. Gore doesn't believe that just dominating the lives of Americans is good enough. He insists that the only way he can achieve his goals is through coordinated global actions, through a global state with powers of economic planning, technology approval, redistribution of income, and enforcement of its demands. Of course, everyone will voluntarily cooperate with this, so no violence will be necessary. "After all, helping others is the moral ideal, and that is all we are doing." Here are a few of his "strategic goals": 1. A comprehensive population control program, p. 311-314 2. A blur in what Gore calls the artificial distinction between hard and soft currencies in international trade, p. 344 3. The establishment of debt-for-nature swaps whereby poor countries have their debts forgiven in return for their promise to leave their resources untouched, p. 345 4. The establishment of a CO2 trading credit system with fewer and fewer credits being issued each year, p. 345 5. A change in the way GNP and productivity are calculated to include the use of natural resources to counteract the apparent creation of wealth when a resource is used to create goods, p. 346 6. A shift in the legal burden of proof from those who want to prove environmental harm to those who want to prove they are innocent, p. 341 This last is particularly ominous since it assumes that everyone is guilty of crimes without proof, and with counterproof an impossibility because it is impossible to prove a negative. We are to be considered guilty until proven innocent of crimes which violate the central organizing principle of civilization. What could be worse? There are some additional ominous items in the joint Clinton-Gore campaign book, Putting People First which are not in Earth in the Balance. For example: 1. A national identification card with a magnetic strip which will be required to gain access to government services such as medical care. 2. A national service corps where young people will serve the state in order to gain access to government services. 3. The establishment of a government-controlled national computer network linking every home, library, and classroom in the country. 4. A change in the corporate average fuel economy regulations from current 27.5 MPG to 40 MPG by the year 2000 and to 45 MPG by 2015. 5. Massive spending on public transportation. 6. Opposition to use of nuclear power. 7. A national program to re-educate citizens to produce environmentally correct behavior. Elsewhere in Putting People First, we see proposals for government control of other areas as well, including doctors, insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, labor, transportation, education, energy production, civilian R&D, the arts, political elections, day care, space exploration, computer telecommunication, the housing market . . . have I left anything out? The principle is clear. If the citizens are not doing what the wise managers of the environment desire, there is no reason why the individual rights of the people involved should get in the way. "In order for pollution to be eliminated, those opposed to pollution must be given the power to violate individual rights. Trust us, we'll do it right this time." What's that you say? You don't want government control of everything? You don't want a global state whose central organizing principle is to thwart your use of the earth to make your life better? You want the government to respect your rights? Why, if that's what you want, you must want to drink polluted water and breathe poisonous air! Remember, "Pollution is bad. Environmentalists are the people opposed to pollution. In order for pollution to be eliminated, environmentalists 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 them, they'll do it right this time." The unstated argument here is that individual rights are incompatible with life, and that respecting them will lead to death and suffering. Of course, if that argument were to be addressed in this head-on way by the environmentalists, they would have to make admissions they would prefer to avoid. Among them, what individual rights actually are, that environmentalists are opposed to individual rights, and that this is on the grounds that citizens are incompetent to arrange their own affairs, and must turn to government bureaucrats for orders. Free thought and free action are what individual rights exist to defend. If they are forced to address the question, environmentalists have to admit that they are opposed to free thought and free action and in favor of government control of individual lives and property. As we look at the history of the 20th century, we observe that the most "toxic" thing present is not plutonium, dioxin, pesticide residues, or mercury. These have at worst killed a few thousand people. Far more dangerous than these are the things they combat: spoiled food, the winter cold, starvation, and disease. Before the 20th century these were very wide-scale killers and cripplers of human beings, and they have been in the 20th century where modern technology was not available. But both of these hazards pale in comparison to the hazards of political tyranny. Governments using ideological package deals of the kind environmentalists present have killed hundreds of millions and enslaved billions more. Even if there really are dangerous environmental catastrophes looming on the horizon, abandoning technological civilization, and granting the government (a world-wide one at that) the power to violate individual rights is FAR more dangerous. If anything, the environmentalists are worse than the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, and the Communists. At least the Nazis, Communists, and Khmer Rouge were claiming some kind of human goal as the reason for their activities. The environmentalists are explicitly promoting the idea that having human needs and desires met is a bad thing. I hope you can see by now that there can be no such thing as a "moderate environmentalist" any more than there can be a "moderate Nazi", "moderate communist" or a "moderate axe murderer". Anyone who grants moral support to an ideology of this kind is helping to bring it into reality . . . not just the "clean air part" or the "anti-poverty part" but the whole package deal, worm, hook, and all. So, what is the position of the leader of the Republican Party, George Bush, on this? He says "I'm an environmentalist too . . . just a moderate one." Unfortunately, Bush and many other conservatives think that the way to win battles against those who want to violate individual rights is to leap out ahead of the pack and show that they agree with every premise of the environmentalists, and to claim that their policies are every bit as severe as those of the radicals. Witness George Bush's recent performance at the Rio Earth Summit [June 1992]. Rather than pointing out the scientific faults of the environmentalist cause, or pointing out the moral flaws in the idea that governments should violate the rights of individuals, or pointing out the counterproductivity of various environmental proposals, or simply staying away from the Earth Summit entirely, he conceded every point immediately. He begged the audience to believe that the Clean Air Act, the policies of the EPA, and a myriad of other laws he has supported are as strong as the restrictions the radical environmentalists wish to impose. This is obviously false. Worse yet, by arguing this way, opponents of the environmentalists, such as Bush is supposed to be, cannot hope to win. They concede every important point before they even begin. They have swallowed the environmental package deal hook, line and sinker. In political life today, there are no anti-environmentalists. There are only "pretend environmentalists" like Bush who pretend to be both pro-and anti-environmentalist, and there are "moderate environmen talists" like Gore who offer the public a dangerous package deal. This situation is not a good one. We are not given a choice between environmentalism and anti-environmentalism, but between enthusiastic genuine environmentalism and weak-kneed "me-too" environmentalism. It is heads-environmentalism and tails-environmentalism. What conservatives like Bush lack is a rational philosophy to counter the irrational philosophy of the environmentalists. At best, they simply offer no philosophical alternative, and at worst, they offer a religious or emotional one which (fortunately) they are shy about expressing. To combat a philosophy one cannot use emotion or raw conviction as intellectual weapons. The opponents of environmentalism are in desperate need of philosophical ideas. What they need is a philosophical answer to the people like Al Gore who deny free will in favor of climatological determinism. What they need is an answer to those who deny reason in favor of religion, emotion, or social consensus as a method of thought. What they need is an answer to those who deny the objectivity of values in favor of intrinsic values based on some irrational revelation. What they need is an answer to those who deny individual rights in favor of collectivistic tyranny. In short, what they need is an intellectual defense of their opposition of tyranny. Without one, they will ultimately fail in their fight. What they need is Objectivist philosophy. For those of you who may not be familiar with Objectivism, I would like to present to you the outlines of the Ojectivist point of view to help you understand why such an intellectual foundation is necessary for an intellectual defense of any ideas whether they are scientific, moral or political. Obviously, I cannot in the few minutes remaining give a thorough exposition of objectivist philosophy. What I can do is recommend that you read Ayn Rand's books: Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. I also recommend Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff. I also recommend Ayn Rand's novella Anthem, it you want to have a look at the kind of "in touch with nature" society these "moderate" environmentalists propose. Although I cannot give a complete exposition of Objectivism in the remaining time, I will offer a brief outline: There are 5 branches of philosophy, four of which are important in the context we are examining: Metaphysics-Which answers questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Epistemology-Which deals with the nature of knowledge and the means by which it can be acquired. Ethics-Which deals with questions regarding what choices one ought to make with that knowledge. Politics-Which deals with issues of ethics in a social context. Let's look briefly at each of these: In metaphysics, some believe that the ultimate foundation of existence is one's own mind and that there is no external reality. Others believe that it is the collective mind of society which is the source of existence. For others, it is the mind of God, and for others, there is simply no reality and no way to know anything about it if it did exist. The objectivist view is that reality is the foundation of existence. Objectivism says that External reality exists independent of the mind. In epistemology, there are many who believe intuition, religious revelation, social consensus, or word games are the means by which knowledge can be acquired. Others deny that knowledge of the real world is possible by any means. The objectivist position is that human beings possess free will and can choose to use a process of reason and science on information presented by the senses in order to achieve knowledge of reality. Objectivism says that reason allows knowledge of existence. In ethics, many believe that people should make their choices of action based on what would benefit the race, the class, the nation, one's neighbor, God, or the ecosystem. Others claim that any kind of ethical principle is naive and that one ought to act on the expediency of the moment. The objectivist position is that one ought to make choices which are to one's rational self-interest. Objectivism says that rational choices of action are those which are consistent with one's self-interest. In politics, many people believe that the proper role of government is to plan the lives of individuals, to do the will of the majority, to serve the will of God, to serve the interests of the powerful, to serve the interests of the weak, to maximize the common good, or to preserve nature against human intrusions. The objectivist position is that the proper purpose of the government is to protect the rights of individuals by outlawing the initiation of force and fraud from human affairs. Objectivism says that the rational way to live in a social context is by the principle of individual rights. To review: External reality exists independent of the mind. Reason allows knowledge of existence. Rational choices of action are those which are consistent with one's self-interest. The rational way to live in a social context is by the principle of individual rights. The objectivist political message is this: "The initiation of force is bad. In order for the initiation of force to be eliminated, the government must protect the individual rights of every citizen and never violate these rights itself. After all, rational self-interest is the moral ideal, and that is the source of the idea that individuals have rights." This is different from the tyrannical ideologies in that it doesn't demand that people renounce the control of their lives to the government. It demands that the government renounce the violation of rights and prevent others from doing so as well. This provides the kind of environment where individuals are free to solve their problems, economic, personal, environmental, and otherwise. You cannot mix and match these positions. It you believe that the foundation of reality is social consensus, how could you conclude that individuals have inalienable rights? Maybe next week there will be a poll in which most people deny individual rights. If you believe that reality cannot be known, how can you conclude that one course of action is actually better than any other? If you conclude that serving God is the ethical ideal, how can you consistently defend a secular government? What if God demands theocracy? What if God changes his mind? Just as the objectivist ideas of reality, reason, egoism, and individual rights are consistent with one another, so are theism, skepticism, irrationalism, altruism, and tyranny. If you are consistent (and most people are not) you will ultimately have to choose between these incompatible systems of ideas. At any point in the philosophical hierarchy, objectivism answers the arguments of environmentalists that the "me-tooism" of the kind Bush exemplifies cannot. In metaphysics, the environmentalists claim that the ground of existence is anything but reality, and that allows them to turn away from the facts when it suits them. Objectivism claims that reality is a primary which cannot be ignored or wished away. In epistemology, environmentalists claim that religion, intuition, and tradition just are as valid as reason and science. Objectivism counters this with an insistence on observation and reason. Each position flows from the previous metaphysical premises. A conservative who agrees that reality is not a primary, but a matter of social consensus, religion, or intuition, cannot consistently adopt a pro-scientific position and will have to slug it out in the epistemological free-for-all that results when one's ideas have no firm ground to stand on. In ethics, environmentalists claim that trees and animals have "intrinsic value." How do they know? They "feel it", or God has told them so. Without a rational epistemology, how can such claims be discredited? A conservative who agrees that non-rational methods of thought are valid cannot consistently accuse environmentalists of flaws in the way they determine what has value and why. He has thrown away every tool that could have disproven the ethical claims of the environmentalists. In politics, environmentalists claim that the government knows best how to organize society and that individuals ought to be forced to conform to the demands of the government as long as the world is being maintained in a natural state. They claim that people have no rights if the government considers itself to have a good reason to violate them. A conservative who simply asserts the existence of rights (using some equally flawed epistemology based on emotion, intuition, tradition, or revelation) can't even explain what rights are. His arguments are just as weak as those of the environmentalists. They typically amount to nothing more than appeals to emotion. Such arguments are only empty shells. Their foundation has been undercut by a lack of any intellectual foundation in ethics. Finally, when the environmentalists claim that this or that law ought to be passed or that this or that industry ought to be attacked and destroyed, the conservatives show their bankruptcy. They have no intellectual arguments with which to combat such laws. They are reduced to pathetic me-tooism rather than a principled opposition. They have no principles and nothing to build them out of. How have large business concerns reacted to this onslaught? No better than the politicians, I am afraid. They have pumped millions of dollars into environmentalist groups, and into their own ad campaigns that promote their products as being ecologically beneficial. They hope that by doing this, they will get the environmentalists to leave them alone. They are just as wrong as the supposed opponents of environmentalism in government. They too need an intellectual defense of their existence and of their freedom, and without one, they will continue answering attacks with bribes rather than with moral condemnation. So, how can one fight against this ideology once one concludes that it is tyrannical? If you are a part of the political process as either an intellectual, a politician, or a voter, you need to take sides. A "moderate" position is no more acceptable against environmentalist tyranny than against Nazi or Communist tyranny. It you are a businessman, you must stop sanctioning your destroyers. Stop supporting environmentalist groups with donations. Stop advertising your products as "recyclable". Stop any support of the environmental movement that may encroach on your work. Lastly, if you are a student, parent, or a teacher, work to restore a sound science curriculum to your school. If there are environmentalist materials in your curriculum, complain about them. Learning about science is important, learning environmentalist pseudo-science is not, and every hour wasted discussing the apocalypse of the month is time that could have been spent studying important things like literature, science, history, and math. Youth is too important to waste on pseudo-scientific propaganda. When citizens are presented with a tyrannical ideology, they can either accept the package deal and suffer the consequences or recognize it for the trap it is and reject it. Germany, Russia, and Cambodia failed to do so, and suffered the horrible consequences we have all seen. It you were a fisherman, you might offer advice to nearby fish along the following lines: "Worms taste good. This tidbit contains a worm. In order for you to benefit from the worm, you have to swallow it all the way down. After all, eating is the most important thing fish do, and that's all I'm suggesting. Don't look too closely, it'll be tasty this time." I hope I have helped to cleared the way for you to see that environmentalism is a worm on a hook. I urge you not to take the bait. Thank you. [The following is not part of the original speech.] Remarks by Mike Sivertsen On page 16 Mr. Yoder states: "It you conclude that serving God is the ethical ideal, how can you consistently defend a secular government?" A secular government which departs from the principles of our U.S. Constitution and the first ten Amendments does not warrant a consistent defense; rather effort should be directed to changing it or replacing it with one that does. This is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence: "... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness..." If one equates serving God with defending any and all secular governments then Marxism is on an equal footing with our original republic. Our Constitution has been subverted by elected representatives and by court decisions which make law rather than passing upon the constitutionality of it. The Constitution demands strict adherence in order to preserve the most successful form of government in history. Our Constitution does not need to be changed, rather it is those who have run it into the ground who must be replaced. Evil prospers when good men do nothing. On page 16 Mr. Yoder states: "What if God demands theocracy? What if God changes his mind?" God does NOT change His mind. Malachi 3:6a in the Old Testament states "For I [am] the Lord, I change not..."