Environmentalism: No Capitalist Left Behind
| By Dave Gardner - May 6th, 2007 at 10:18 am EDT |
I got a laugh out of "Environmentalism is a danger to all human beings," published in the C. Springs Business Journal 4/27/07. The Ayn Rand Institute's Michael Berliner made assertions so absurd I wondered if the author was pulling our legs. A Google search indicates the Business Journal was about the only publication that felt Berliner's essay was worth printing (after all, it wasn't April Fool's Day). Still, if even one reader fell for his fictions, a reality check is in order. So I sent this response to the journal and it ran in this week's edition.
Berliner writes "acid rain, global warming, smog or the logging of rain forests" are of no concern. "Housing, commerce and jobs" are much more important. He chooses to ignore the environment's essential roles in our activity here on Earth - both as life support and as the source of raw materials necessary for the commerce he worships.
He deplores environmentalists' vilification of "development." What environmentalists wisely try to rein in is actually over-development. Berliner is an avowed fan of "progress," but doesn't seem to consider it progress for our species to find ways to live off the interest of our natural capital (sustainability) rather than liquidating the principal.
There isn't space here for a complete inventory of the preposterous positions he falsely attributes to the environmental movement. I've yet to meet an environmentalist who, as Berliner would have us believe, advocates humans should return to living in caves and gathering nuts and berries. But we must admit a few million cave-dwelling nut-gatherers wouldn't have the daunting challenges we face today to moderate the destructive impact of nearly 7 billion human beings seeking comfort, luxury and profit.
I'm optimistic Berliner speaks for a tiny minority when he takes offense at those who respect the rights of non-human life to coexist with us on Earth. When he derides environmentalists for having "self-sacrifice" as a guiding principle, is he expressing a preference for "me-first" as a moral compass? If environmentalists are the only group practicing the Golden Rule, that's a compelling reason to hope environmentalists are a growing majority!
Economist Kenneth Boulding coined the term "Spaceship Earth" to illustrate our planet is a closed system that must perpetually meet our needs for food, air, water and waste management. A space shuttle crew that exhausts its supply of food, oxygen or water wouldn't be considered very bright (nor would they be alive). Even if we were to be so callous as to care nothing about the thousands of species of flora and fauna that make our planet so wondrous, would we be so foolish as to destroy our own life-support system? Mr. Berliner would seem to propose just that. He is not even satisfied with a "balance between the needs of man and the needs of the environment."
Berliner claims environmentalism is anti-man. I submit that failing to protect the environment is anti-man. We can't survive without a healthy, sustainable environment. While environmentalists do have respect for other life, even self-centered nature-haters would be wise to care for the environment. Not doing so would be like launching a mission to Mars on a spaceship with leaking oxygen and fuel tanks.
I'll tell you this: I wouldn't set foot on a spaceship commanded by Mr. Berliner!
We'd do well to remember the words of famed environmentalist David Brower: "There is no business to be done on a dead planet."
Dave Gardner is chair of SaveTheSprings (www.savethesprings.org) and is currently producing the documentary, Choking on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity (www.growthbusters.com).
Berliner writes "acid rain, global warming, smog or the logging of rain forests" are of no concern. "Housing, commerce and jobs" are much more important. He chooses to ignore the environment's essential roles in our activity here on Earth - both as life support and as the source of raw materials necessary for the commerce he worships.
He deplores environmentalists' vilification of "development." What environmentalists wisely try to rein in is actually over-development. Berliner is an avowed fan of "progress," but doesn't seem to consider it progress for our species to find ways to live off the interest of our natural capital (sustainability) rather than liquidating the principal.
There isn't space here for a complete inventory of the preposterous positions he falsely attributes to the environmental movement. I've yet to meet an environmentalist who, as Berliner would have us believe, advocates humans should return to living in caves and gathering nuts and berries. But we must admit a few million cave-dwelling nut-gatherers wouldn't have the daunting challenges we face today to moderate the destructive impact of nearly 7 billion human beings seeking comfort, luxury and profit.
I'm optimistic Berliner speaks for a tiny minority when he takes offense at those who respect the rights of non-human life to coexist with us on Earth. When he derides environmentalists for having "self-sacrifice" as a guiding principle, is he expressing a preference for "me-first" as a moral compass? If environmentalists are the only group practicing the Golden Rule, that's a compelling reason to hope environmentalists are a growing majority!
Economist Kenneth Boulding coined the term "Spaceship Earth" to illustrate our planet is a closed system that must perpetually meet our needs for food, air, water and waste management. A space shuttle crew that exhausts its supply of food, oxygen or water wouldn't be considered very bright (nor would they be alive). Even if we were to be so callous as to care nothing about the thousands of species of flora and fauna that make our planet so wondrous, would we be so foolish as to destroy our own life-support system? Mr. Berliner would seem to propose just that. He is not even satisfied with a "balance between the needs of man and the needs of the environment."
Berliner claims environmentalism is anti-man. I submit that failing to protect the environment is anti-man. We can't survive without a healthy, sustainable environment. While environmentalists do have respect for other life, even self-centered nature-haters would be wise to care for the environment. Not doing so would be like launching a mission to Mars on a spaceship with leaking oxygen and fuel tanks.
I'll tell you this: I wouldn't set foot on a spaceship commanded by Mr. Berliner!
We'd do well to remember the words of famed environmentalist David Brower: "There is no business to be done on a dead planet."
Dave Gardner is chair of SaveTheSprings (www.savethesprings.org) and is currently producing the documentary, Choking on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity (www.growthbusters.com).
Comments are closed for this post.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God......................."
My liberty does not absolve me of social responsibility. It simply provides me with an opportunity to be free of oppression. If sharing the responsibility of the human condition is oppressive to you, then freedom must only be found in isolation.
Oversimplification is a tool of radicalism. So is moral certitude. For that matter, so is arrogance.
And yes, your liberty DOES absolve you of social responsibility because social responsiblity (despite its noble connotations) IS a form of oppression.
"Sharing the responsibility of the human condition"? I love these statements that actually have no meaning (and hence mean whatever you want it to mean).
And no, there is nothing wrong with moral certitude - only the lack of it.
As far as responsibility is concerned - I think we have a responsibility to be conscious human beings, applying reason to the way we live our lives. We have a responsibility to be true to our nature - as rational beings. We have a responsiblity to allow others to live in the same way, reasonably, and without the threat of force.
What I'm suggesting is the simplest thing in the world: the protection of individual rights (and that rules out anarchy already), and protection of the country as being the only moral functions of government.
Every notion of group rights (i.e. likely, what you refer to as 'civilized principles') that you can come up with comes at the expense of individual rights.