Disinfecting Eco-Logic

What is up with all this environmentalism? Who are these people? I mean, really!

In the present age, we humans have been increasingly bombarded with messages and pleas from university professors, politicians, pop philosophers and other members of the cultural elite to renounce the benefits of technological progress and economic growth. It is looked upon as a great sin by these self-appointed guardians of civilization that we humans enjoy a greater level of material possession, physical comfort, technological efficiency and overall greater convenience than ever before. Raising the standard of living is no longer a good thing, they say. According to these all-knowing sages, it is time for us to abandon our "greedy," "selfish," and "materialistic" lifestyle that we so "arrogantly" prefer. Prefer to what? The "enlightened" way of life, it is said, involves restricting our levels of material production and consumption so as to promptly cease the destruction of that which is "greater" than us. One might have the audacity to ask, what could possibly be greater than human experience? The answer: Nature. We must start acting in accordance with Nature--and don't forget the capital "N"!

Rarely does one stop and ask precisely what is meant by "Nature." Often, people use the term "natural" to distinguish the mundane from the supernatural. Similarly, people often use the term to refer to the causal forces that determine the outcomes of the world. When using the term "nature" to convey this basic meaning, the statement that "We must act with nature" makes very little sense. What precisely would constitute action that is not "in accordance with nature?" If "natural" refers to that which is possible in nature, then human organisms and all their activities are by definition completely natural. We are organic entities who are composed of physical, chemical and biological components, and we come into being through a natural process of events. Our choice of possible behavior and action is also determined by our natural capacities and abilities. Furthermore, each of our activities involves the manipulation and rearrangement of material elements which are obviously also natural--in accordance with the causal forces which determine their behavior. Prima facie, it would appear that there is nothing "unnatural" about any of the things that we do.

Environmentalists disagree. They have a different definition of "nature"--one that is much more limited in scope than the one we have used. Humans have the capacity to be natural entities, it is said, and they were originally natural entities, but as of today, there is nothing "truly natural" about human behavior.

You see, humans continually "destroy nature" by drilling massive holes into the ground to construct quarries and mines; by ripping trees away from the earth and sending them to pulp mills; by covering the planet with giant slabs of concrete; by pouring refuse into the oceans, lakes, and rivers; and by pumping smoke and "unnatural" gas into the air.

Humans also behave "unnaturally" by wearing make-up, by eating processed foods, by driving automobiles, by using pharmaceutical drugs, by watching television and playing video games, by surfing the Internet and by using electricity. There is no human action or product of human action that environmentalists consider "natural." Even public parks, planted trees, gardens, and landscaped yards aren't "truly natural" because of the fact that they are human creations.

For the ecologists, the term "natural" functions as a synonym for "non-human." Environmentalists are not motivated by a desire to preserve "nature" in any scientific sense of the term, considering that it's not even possible to destroy that kind of "nature." Rather, their goal is to preserve "nature" that is not produced by human beings. That in itself is not an objectionable goal, but once we consider that they wish to further it at the expense of human beings, we see how pernicious the goal really is.

Environmentalism is not just about preserving forests (which is something that even anti-environmentalists such as myself would like to see, though not by the same methods), it's about sacrificing human lives and human freedom to barren deserts, undeveloped streams, "untouched wilderness," and endangered species of kangaroo rat. Currently, the EPA has a law which states that any private parcel of land that contains water can be arbitrarily declared a "wetland," and the owner will be subsequently be forced to refrain from making any alterations to it. People invest their time, labor and money into securing access to certain resources and into making economic improvements which may benefit themselves and others--and only for it to be promptly seized by the Green Gestapo who have taken it upon themselves to "save the planet." In reality, environmentalists do not advocate such violations of personal autonomy for the purpose of "saving the planet," but for the purpose of keeping it from being utilized to serve human ends. Apparently, the earth is just to sacred to be "exploited" for such "vulgar" ends as profit and improvement in the standard of living.

It is unfair to lump all environmentalists into one category. Some people favor environmental regulation because they sincerely believe the myth that overpopulation, global warming, and pesticide use will eventually lead to the demise of the human race. The primary difference between these "moderate" environmentalists (who are unenlightened anthropocentrists in the eyes of "extreme" environmentalists) and supporters of the free market lies not so much in terms of the values that the two parties hold, but in factual understanding. While they believe that regulation is necessary to prevent ecological disaster, libertarians hold that problems of scarcity and "dwindling resources" are best solved through enforcement of property rights, economic deregulation and technological improvement.

Private ownership of resources increases one's incentive to maintain them, as destroying them leads to diminishing property values. Also, people who own land and water have the option of disallowing other people from polluting it, as hazardous toxins lead to the endangerment of human life or a destruction of property.

Economic deregulation does away with the legal privileges that disallow certain companies to forcibly prevent other more technologically innovative companies from entering the market (such as the privileges that automobile companies use to ban newer companies from marketing electric and solar powered cars).

Technological advancement enables people to produce more without using as many resources. For example, advancement in agricultural technology allows companies to increase the per acre yield of crop.

Most environmentalists are not the anthropocentrists that libertarians are, and take no interest in our approach, despite its potential. The goal of ecologists is not to "save humanity from its own destruction," but to create a world in which humans must sacrifice their own ends and goals for the preservation of large tracts of land and water that people won't even be allowed to use or occupy. The opinion is that "untouched wilderness" is superior to anything created by humans. In my not-so-humble opinion, this attitude reveals not a love of nature, but a fundamental disapproval for human beings as intelligent and creative animals.

To confirm this opinion, one need only witness the ecologists' constant glorification and romanticization of hunter-gatherer societies, in which people's livelihood is completely dependent upon the random forces of nature, as they have no feasible means of exercising control over their surroundings. To them, living "in accordance with nature" involves sleeping in the mud, eating nothing but roots and herbs for three meals a day, walking around barefoot, never taking a bath, ingesting hallucinogenic drugs while performing mindless rituals, and not having access to such "technological superfluities" as computers and air conditioners. If this is what "living in accordance with nature" requires, then may "nature" and its totalitarian defenders be damned!

Chris Wilson, a junior majoring in Philosophy, is a staff writer for the Oregon Commentator