Ed. Note: This is Part 5 on the ideology of environmentalism and its incompatibility with the foundational individualist philosophy of the United States. “America’s Enlightenment Heritage” (Part 1) is here; “Conservation vs. Preservation” (Part 2) is here; “Inhuman Rights” (Part 3) is here; “Philosophic Conflict” (Part 4) is here; “The ‘Ideal’ of Primitivism” (Part 6) is here.
“Yes, we too are part of nature; but our nature is that of a developer…. It’s morally appropriate for us to regard the rest of nature as our environment—as a bountiful palette and endless canvass for our creative works.”
The basic premise of preservationism is that all of nature—except, of course, human nature—has “intrinsic value” in itself, and thus a “right” not to be affected by Man. But this premise, which is the moral core of modern environmentalism, is a colossal fraud.
The simple little question that punctures the balloon of intrinsic value is: Why? Why is the status quo of nature good in itself? No one has ever offered an intelligible answer.
To declare that a Northern spotted owl, a redwood tree, or the course of a river has “intrinsic” or “inherent value in itself,” is to speak gibberish. There’s no inherent “value” or “meaning” residing in nature, or anything else. “Value” presupposes a valuer, and some purpose. It’s only in relation to some valuer and purpose that something can be said to “have value.” Thus, there’s no such thing as “intrinsic value.” The concept is meaningless.
In addition, while animals and plants do pursue values that further their lives, they do so automatically: they cannot choose to ignore their genetic programming. Without the conceptual capacity to think, to project various future possible outcomes, and to choose among them, they reside outside the realm of morality and meaning. That’s because moral values and meanings can only be created and imposed upon an otherwise meaningless nature by a volitional, conceptual consciousness—that is, by a human being.
All life on earth is relational, and in the struggle to survive, often competitive. Relative physical and mental abilities afford each species varying competitive survival advantages and disadvantages. In this, humans are terribly vulnerable: they can’t compete physically with animals that are stronger, faster, and equipped with superior senses and natural weaponry. Humans distinctively survive only by utilizing their single unique advantage—the power of reason—in order to adapt the rest of nature to themselves. This means that even to subsist, Man must necessarily, unavoidably use and disrupt animals and their habitats, transforming these natural resources into food, clothing, shelter, and tools (capital).
Yes, we too are part of nature; but our nature is that of a developer.
As the only entity on earth having both the conceptual ability to define “good” and “evil,” and the power to choose between them, Man is the only natural source of moral values—and of meaning. The environment, then, acquires moral value and meaning only insofar as it’s perceived, developed, used, and enjoyed by human beings. That’s why it’s morally appropriate for us to regard the rest of nature as our environment—as a bountiful palette and endless canvass for our creative works.
To Enlightenment thinkers, this was Man’s power and his glory. To environmentalists, however, Man is the only thorn in an otherwise perfect Garden of Eden. But again—why? By the only moral standards there are—ours—human creativity is not a vice, but a virtue; our products are not evils, but—literally—“goods”; and the term “developer” is not an epithet, but a title of honor.
If we reject the idea of nature’s intrinsic value, we may also reject its corollary: the notion that animals have inherent rights not to be bothered by people. Rights are moral principles that define the boundary lines necessary for peaceful interaction in society. Any intelligible theory of rights presupposes entities capable of defining and respecting moral boundary lines. But since animals are, by nature, unable to know, respect, or exercise rights, the principle of rights simply can’t be applied to, or by, animals.
Practically, the notion of animal rights entails an absurd moral double standard. It declares that animals have the “inherent right” to survive as their nature demands, but that Man doesn’t. It declares that the only entity capable of recognizing moral boundaries is to sacrifice his interests to entities that can’t. Ultimately, it means that only animals have rights: since nature consists entirely of animals, their food, and their habitats, to recognize “animal rights,” Man logically must cede to them the entire planet.
All animals may be equal in animal rights theory; but—as Orwell quipped in Animal Farm—some animals are more equal than others.
This environmentalist double standard applies to humans not just in our relation to animals, but also in our relation to all of nature. If a hurricane erodes miles of seashores—well, that’s nature for you; if a man bulldozes a beach to build his home, however, that’s a desecration. If the Mount St. Helens eruption destroys hundreds of square miles of timber, that’s natural; if a man clears a patch of that very same forest in order to raise his crops, that’s a biological holocaust—and he’s contributing to global warming, to boot. If a beaver builds a dam and floods a dry field, that’s an “ecosystem”; if a developer builds a duck pond on the same dry field, that’s an ecological atrocity, and the felon must be sent to the slammer.
Man the Creator
And this is where the second idea I mentioned comes in: the ancient notion that self-interested activities are morally tainted or evil.
There is only one fundamental alternative in the natural world: the alternative of life and death. Like all living things, we humans must act to further our own interests, or we perish. But—as I pointed out—unlike other living things, we cannot effectively compete as predators, with claws, fangs, speed, and strength. In order to survive and flourish in nature, we must produce what we need. We must use our unique reasoning powers to transform natural resources into the goods and services that sustain and enhance our lives.
Alone on a desert island, a man would realize immediately that the amount of his wealth is not fixed, but expands based solely on what he produces. However, in a complex economy built on trade, where direct causes and effects are harder to trace, it’s easy to forget that overall material abundance doesn’t exist in some fixed, perishable quantity. As a result, many believe that the economy holds only a limited supply of resources and wealth—like a pie of fixed size, so that if one person gets a bigger piece, his neighbor has to get a smaller piece. And so, to many, “self-interest” in the economy has come to mean not productivity, but getting something at the expense of others—acting not as a producer, but as a parasite, or even as a predator.
This premise—that the interests of men are inherently in conflict—is rooted in our tribal past. It’s the source of the myth that the pursuit of one’s self-interest must necessarily harm others. And that myth, in turn, has led to the corollary idealization of self-sacrifice: the belief that to reduce social conflict, the individual must be made to sacrifice his interests for the sake of others, or of the “greater whole.”
However, the premise isn’t true. The belief that human interests are inherently in conflict fails to take into account human creative intelligence. We aren’t fighting over a fixed or dwindling quantity of resources, or an economic pie of fixed size. That’s because we aren’t just pie consumers: we’re pie producers. By using our creative intelligence to develop previously idle resources, we create a bigger pie—then more pies—then better pies—then cake, as well.
The history of human progress is that Man takes things from nature, and by using his reason, transforms them into ever-increasing abundance. He does so with ever-greater efficiency, too, creating more values with fewer resources. And then he adds to his abundance by trading what he produces for other things that he wants. Both sides to a trade get something that they want more, by trading away something they want less. Such enlightened self-interest doesn’t require anyone’s victimization: free trade is a win-win situation.
Far from using up a fixed and shrinking amount of natural resources, then, Man’s rational intelligence produces a growing bounty of new resources from material previously considered to be useless. That is why centuries of Malthusian predictions about resource depletion, mass starvation, population outrunning resources, and the destruction of the planet have utterly failed to materialize—why global living standards and life spans have, in fact, been rising at an accelerating pace.
About the Author
Robert Bidinotto is an award-winning journalist, editor, lecturer, and novelist who reports on cultural and political issues from the perspective of principled individualism. Over three decades he has established a reputation as a leading critic of environmentalism.
As a former Staff Writer for Reader’s Digest, Bidinotto authored high-profile investigative reports on environmental issues, crime, and other public controversies—including articles on global warming and the 1989 Alar scare. His Alar article was singled out for editorial praise by Barron’s and by Priorities, the journal of the American Council on Science and Health. He authored a monograph, The Green Machine,and for several years ran a website (“ecoNOT”), both critically examining the environmentalist philosophy and movement.
Bidinotto’s many articles, columns, and reviews also appeared in Success, Writer’s Digest, The Boston Herald, The American Spectator, City Journal, The Freeman, and Reason. He served as the award-winning editor of The New Individualist, a political and cultural magazine, and as editor of publications for the Capital Research Center, a nonprofit watchdog group.
In 2011, Bidinotto began writing political thrillers. HUNTER—the debut novel in his Dylan Hunter series—soared to the top of the Amazon and Wall St. Journal bestseller lists. BAD DEEDS, the first sequel, dramatizes the evils and dangers of environmentalism. A number-one best-selling Audible political thriller, BAD DEEDS was named “Book of the Year” by the Conservative-Libertarian Fiction Alliance. Bidinotto’s thrillers are available on Amazon.
Learn more about Robert Bidinotto at his fiction website, “The Vigilante Author” and at his nonfiction blog.
Genesis makes the same argument by stating that God has given man dominion over all living things. Environmentalist arguments such as you describe are clearly a new religion.
Thanks for your comment, Denis. You may want to check out my discussion of Genesis (chapters 2 and 3) in Part 1 of this series.