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.…

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.…