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..."