Ed. Note. This concludes our six-part series on the incompatibility of environmentalist ideology with the foundational individualist philosophy of the United States. Previous posts were “America’s Enlightenment Heritage” (Part 1); “Conservation vs. Preservation” (Part 2); “Inhuman Rights” (Part 3); “Philosophic Conflict” (Part 4); and “The Value of Nature” (Part 5).
“Environmentalism reflects an antipathy for a complex, technological, and free society where survival is bought at the cost of ambition, learning, thinking, taking risks, and working hard, within a free, competitive marketplace.”
Despite all the benefits of modernity, the primitive tribal “ideal” of self-denial still persists, most explicitly within the environmentalist movement.
Because of its enduring popularity, many view its environmentalist advocates as sincere idealists, but simply too extreme. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, their supposed “ideal” isn’t ideal at all. No, I’m not criticizing them for being too committed to a principle. I’m accusing them of being committed to the wrong principle.
Ask yourself the following question: Where is there a place for humans and their works in a world where pristine nature is deemed ideal, and the productive use of nature for human gain is deemed immoral?
In essence, environmentalists are attacking our very right to live, period. That position permits no compromise. To concede an inch of ground to it is to surrender, in principle, the entire battle for our lives, well-being, and happiness.
For too long, defenders of modernity have tacitly conceded the realm of philosophy—and the mantle of moral idealism—to its critics. Too few have demanded that the environmentalists answer such philosophical questions as:
So long as the “ideal” of a pristine nature unspoiled by self-interested human use remains unchallenged, that ideal will remain the compass that sets the direction of national debate and policy. And its logic will demand that we slowly, inexorably surrender more and more of our property and profits, more and more of our rights and freedoms.
That’s certainly the vision of environmentalist leaders. “We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle of civilization,” declares Al Gore. The changes demanded by this organizing principle, he says, will be “wrenching” and “will affect almost every aspect of our lives together on this planet.”1
Yet that prospect doesn’t appear to faze him or his environmentalist colleagues in the least. Paul Ehrlich, for example, makes it clear that the environmentalist goal isn’t to make poor people better off. Since he believes that rich people, by using more resources, cause many times more “ecological destruction” than poor people, Ehrlich concludes: “Actually, the problem in the world is that there are too many rich people.”2
Environmentalism reflects an antipathy for a complex, technological, and free society where survival is bought at the cost of ambition, learning, thinking, taking risks, and working hard, within a free, competitive marketplace. One sees the true environmentalist motive clearly captured in the book title Returning to Eden—a woozy yearning for an egalitarian garden, where fruit drops from the tree into one’s lap, where the struggle to survive ceases, where all animals lie down in peace and harmony. The Eden of environmentalism is a risk-free place where idle wishes will be the coin of the realm.
Defending the Human Quest
But we don’t live in a mythical Eden. We live on a planet where the struggle to survive is an implacable fact of nature. And those of us who do wish to survive—and thrive—can no longer afford to remain on the moral defensive. We can no longer afford to remain agnostic and mute about the philosophical issues at the root of the attacks on our lives and livelihoods. We can’t expect to rally public support against the environmentalists if we fail to challenge, openly and unapologetically, the moral assumptions underlying their efforts.
No, a moral assault must be met head-on—with a moral response. To clarify the public debate, we must do two things. First, we must begin to understand and uphold the moral rightness of the human use of nature. Second, we must begin to understand and uphold our own moral right to do our work, and to profit from it.
So far, the critics of modernity have been winning the public relations battle. But there’s nothing inevitable about that. I don’t believe that the public is fundamentally predisposed against a rational view of Man and nature. They’re merely confused by arguments that pit the alleged moral claims of nature against the moral claims of human nature.
But defenders of Man have one huge advantage over their adversaries. The anti-human premises of environmentalism clash with every person’s life, well-being, happiness, and—perhaps above all—his self-esteem.
As a case in point, science writer Jeremy Burgess, himself an environmentalist, wondered aloud: “Is it just me, or does everyone else feel guilty for being alive too? …Eventually, and probably soon, we shall all be reduced to creeping about in disgrace, nervous of our simplest pleasures.”3
This, then, is the emotional reward of environmentalism: a metaphysical inferiority complex.
And how could it be otherwise? If untouched nature is the ideal, then, in logic, our lives, interests, well-being, and pleasures must be sacrificed to the “greater” interests of our surroundings. And if they aren’t—if our selfish, life-serving acts impinge on the “ideal” in any way, as they must—then we will come to feel guilty about being alive.
But no one is born spitting into his own face. A metaphysical inferiority complex has to be acquired. It clashes with everything in the human spirit: the desires to learn, to grow, to do, to succeed, to be happy.
It’s time that we reject the environmentalists’ degrading view of human nature, and go on the moral offensive.
It’s time that we, as human beings, assert our right to exist as our nature demands.
It’s time that we stop apologizing for our every footprint, for our every fence, for our every meal.
It’s time that we stop regarding our homes as morally inferior to the trees they came from, or our children’s needs as less morally important than Bambi’s.
It’s time that we recapture the Enlightenment legacy, and build upon the philosophical work begun so nobly by America’s Founders—those heroic achievers who “exalted Reason and worshipped at the altar of Liberty.” It’s time that we define and defend a new vision: an inspiring individualist vision of human potential, in which each human being is honored as an end in himself, with reason as his guide to action, and his own life, well-being, and happiness as his ultimate reward.
_____________________________
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.