Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

“When people believe that a fragile ‘Mother Nature’ is harmed by anything humans do, it’s actually the humans who suffer”

Yes! This is what I’ve always said. Enviros have forever been speaking at cross-purposes. You know why? Because—suprise, surprise—it’s not about the environment. It’s about socialism. The environmental movement, or at least the part of it that gets all the press, is a leftist movement. The plight of humans under a corrupted Mother Nature is merely one of the currently (or, more and more, formerly) popular problems to be solved. Socialism is always a solution in search of a problem.

If the language of public welfare never jived philisophically with the Earth First mentality, that’s because it wasn’t a philosophically consistent movement. Few ideologies are, true, but this especially so. Because it was especially dishonest. Ever wonder why their radical avoidance of cost-benefit analysis? Not because they want humans to go extinct so that—what? I don’t know, the planet’s crust can prosper? Granted, many espouse some version of this, but they’re merely confused (or more confused).

They talk like they want humans to go extinct because they want current human civilization to crumble, so that they can replace it with a new order. Just like every other revolutionary leftist group, except this one with flowers in their hair. They proposed Cap’n’Trade knowing it would cripple our economy because they want to cripple our economy. Yet they speak as if they’re in favor of , because they are in favor of public welfare. It’s just that the adverse affects to be expected to follow civilization crumbling are less important than the eventual benefits they (irrationally) expect to follow from socialization.

It’s simple.


9 posted on 04/05/2012 3:39:32 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Tublecane
it’s not about the environment. It’s about socialism.

I get your point, but I'm not sure socialism is the right term.

Socialism, it if has any meaning at all that covers its wide diversity, means the political ideologies that have human well-being and equality, especially economic equality, as their first priority. (We'll leave out of the discussion whether this has any relationship whatsoever with what they do in practice.)

For your deep environmentalists this is no longer their first priority. In fact, they want to regress humans and drive down their numbers. The health of the ecosystem is much more important than human equality or even prosperity and health.

I'm not sure what to call such an ideology, but I don't think it's really socialist. Though many socialists support it to varying degrees.

11 posted on 04/05/2012 5:07:39 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson