Pro-Environmentalism/Anti-Environmentalist
When you get called conservative for the first time in your life after a relatively unmarked left-leaning stance, it makes your gears turn and then sort of grind a bit at the unusualness of it all. So, for those who may be concerned with my changing political ideologies, I offer you this. Make of it what you will.
It’s easy to take on a holier than thou attitude when it comes to human rights or other philanthropic endeavors. It often manifests itself in the form of environmentalists who are so willing to point out the negative effects of human accomplishment at the cost of a livable planet Earth. I understand all that. It is difficult (although entirely possible) to ignore the results of many of our industrious activities. I don’t ignore them, and am in fact, a pretty firm subscriber to the idea that as there are more of us and we desire to consume more shit, that you can’t really accomplish that without leveling some mountain tops or polluting entire water systems. It’s unfortunate, for sure. However, instead of rallying against rampant industrialization in developing nations that are exempt from international emissions standards, I instead want to focus on one very important element missing from many of the go green rhetoric-repeatists.
What’s so great about human beings that we need to make sure we survive into the future? This is an antagonistic statement, I realize, so I will revise: Is environmentalism really about philanthropy or is it a convoluted attempt at self-preservation? We’ll go with the latter, for now. I think what’s interesting about complaining about the hedonistic American lifestyle or the American policy of bending public policy to meet the needs of various industries is that the groups opposed to leniency in pollutants seem to think that human life, and maybe life, in general, is worth preserving, as if the Earth didn’t exist for such a long, long time before life ever materialized. Life is great, but does the universe really care about such a tiny ecosystem in one of it’s countless star systems? It’s just a little bit conceited, is it not?
Instead of facing the reality of just being scared shitless that we will one day die and that somehow we can perhaps prevent this by polluting less is idiotic. At the heart of the matter is the fact that embedded deep within all of us is a desire to survive at all costs, no matter how horrible the life we preserve may be. It stands to reason that there will be no permanent solution to pollution. So long as there are people on this earth, they will pollute it. Human beings are one of the most successful viral species considering how complicated an organism we are and how hilariously long it takes a human being to reach reproductive maturity. It’s baffling, if you really think about it. Given that, life on Earth will continue to become more and more horrible. Our air will slowly become unbreathable, our water undrinkable and our opposite, or same genders, undoable. Why exactly, are we trying so hard to slow down the inevitable?
In this case, I think biology trumps our more rational thought processes. Why do couples who don’t want kids fight about how they don’t want kids? Why do homosexual couples want to adopt or have kids using artificial insemination? Our genetic predisposition for care-giving and passing on our DNA is remarkably resilient. I, personally, think that those who are able to ignore those impulses have evolved to the next level of humanity, while the rest of us just remain hungry, horny beasts who use the excuse of polluting as a way to placate responsibility from ourselves to some outside force.
But I understand that, as well. If we are going to keep on living as a species despite nature trying so desperately to kill us, then it doesn’t make sense to just trash the Earth as if there were no tomorrow. With a little effort and planning, I do think that we can at least have a few more tomorrows than we would if we just dumped with reckless abandon. All I want is for the environmental radicals to stop for a second, think about whether or not it’s the most important thing in their lives to pass judgement on the rest of humanity, and hopefully come to terms that the real reason they “care so much about the Earth” is because what they really really want is to reproduce with the guarantee that there will be an Earth for their offspring to reproduce on. You sick bastards.
It’s easy to take on a holier than thou attitude when it comes to human rights or other philanthropic endeavors. It often manifests itself in the form of environmentalists who are so willing to point out the negative effects of human accomplishment at the cost of a livable planet Earth. I understand all that. It is difficult (although entirely possible) to ignore the results of many of our industrious activities. I don’t ignore them, and am in fact, a pretty firm subscriber to the idea that as there are more of us and we desire to consume more shit, that you can’t really accomplish that without leveling some mountain tops or polluting entire water systems. It’s unfortunate, for sure. However, instead of rallying against rampant industrialization in developing nations that are exempt from international emissions standards, I instead want to focus on one very important element missing from many of the go green rhetoric-repeatists.
What’s so great about human beings that we need to make sure we survive into the future? This is an antagonistic statement, I realize, so I will revise: Is environmentalism really about philanthropy or is it a convoluted attempt at self-preservation? We’ll go with the latter, for now. I think what’s interesting about complaining about the hedonistic American lifestyle or the American policy of bending public policy to meet the needs of various industries is that the groups opposed to leniency in pollutants seem to think that human life, and maybe life, in general, is worth preserving, as if the Earth didn’t exist for such a long, long time before life ever materialized. Life is great, but does the universe really care about such a tiny ecosystem in one of it’s countless star systems? It’s just a little bit conceited, is it not?
Instead of facing the reality of just being scared shitless that we will one day die and that somehow we can perhaps prevent this by polluting less is idiotic. At the heart of the matter is the fact that embedded deep within all of us is a desire to survive at all costs, no matter how horrible the life we preserve may be. It stands to reason that there will be no permanent solution to pollution. So long as there are people on this earth, they will pollute it. Human beings are one of the most successful viral species considering how complicated an organism we are and how hilariously long it takes a human being to reach reproductive maturity. It’s baffling, if you really think about it. Given that, life on Earth will continue to become more and more horrible. Our air will slowly become unbreathable, our water undrinkable and our opposite, or same genders, undoable. Why exactly, are we trying so hard to slow down the inevitable?
In this case, I think biology trumps our more rational thought processes. Why do couples who don’t want kids fight about how they don’t want kids? Why do homosexual couples want to adopt or have kids using artificial insemination? Our genetic predisposition for care-giving and passing on our DNA is remarkably resilient. I, personally, think that those who are able to ignore those impulses have evolved to the next level of humanity, while the rest of us just remain hungry, horny beasts who use the excuse of polluting as a way to placate responsibility from ourselves to some outside force.
But I understand that, as well. If we are going to keep on living as a species despite nature trying so desperately to kill us, then it doesn’t make sense to just trash the Earth as if there were no tomorrow. With a little effort and planning, I do think that we can at least have a few more tomorrows than we would if we just dumped with reckless abandon. All I want is for the environmental radicals to stop for a second, think about whether or not it’s the most important thing in their lives to pass judgement on the rest of humanity, and hopefully come to terms that the real reason they “care so much about the Earth” is because what they really really want is to reproduce with the guarantee that there will be an Earth for their offspring to reproduce on. You sick bastards.
2 Comments →
Reader Comments (2)
I stumbled across this post while procrastinating working on my MA thesis, and I have to say, it misses a major motivation for environmental ethics. It seems that you think that environmentalists are anthropocentric. However, the deep anthropocentrism that most persons hold as truth is active in anti-environmentalism as well as in your post. Humans aren't the only species for which human action bears consequence; non-human animals are disproportionately impacted by our rabid use of resources. Truly, moral consideration of the environment and other species is imperative, and ultimately derives from the belief that we aren't that important to the universe. I'm not sure if you're still following this post, as it isn't dated, but it's something to consider.
I want to apologize for the unfortunate delay in responding, and I can only hope you find your way back on occasion. To your point, the baseline is that ultimately, underneath the "save the planet" mantra, which includes all life in the various ecosystems, I think that people really have mostly selfish reasons for caring about it. Are there people who actually are selfless enough to work to preserve the planet so that at least any form of life can exist? Yes, I think there are. I don't think they are the majority.
That also isn't to say people shouldn't try to preserve our natural resources since, so long as we do stick around, it makes sense to have our experience on Earth be as good as possible. The point really is to point out that even the most staunch environmentalist holds inconsistencies and hypocrisies within themselves that ultimately point to self serving purposes.
Hopefully that makes a bit more sense. This was certainly not one of my more thought out or useful posts, but I do want to thank you for taking the time to read it and respond.