Environmentalism likes to portray itself as the ultimate conservation ethic: it claims a mandate to preserve endangered species and fragile ecosystems. More and more, I think that just the opposite may be true: that at its heart, environmentalism is a creed of nihilism, more interested in destruction than preservation.
I'm not just talking about fringe groups like Earth First!
Consider the popularity of the History Channel series "Life After People." What would make a series about the planet without humans the most popular series ever on the channel?
Or consider the casual neo-Malthusianism of the movement. Here is a piece I found on the "Environment" page of the website for The Guardian, a lefty British newspaper. The article laments that the Earth's human population will soon pass 7 billion, perhaps as early as this year. Writes The Guardian,
"We can't stop the growth of our numbers in any acceptable way immediately. But we can put in place conditions that will support an early end to growth, possibly making this year's the last billion-population day we ever mark."
'In any acceptable way'? What unacceptable ways did the authors consider and discard?
Look for more development of this idea on this site.
No comments:
Post a Comment