Posted on 04/16/2008 2:30:32 PM PDT by dynachrome
Yet with Mr. Ehrlich, as with Mr. Miller, it is the psychology of the duped disciples that raises the most questions. Ms. Mills, at least, demonstrates exactly the same ideological frenzy and moral vanity, the hatred of elders and the past, as a Red Guard denouncing his teachers in the Cultural Revolution. Even today, her speech has the power to frighten with its self-righteous malice. For while Ms. Mills is talking about the end of civilization, she is no more able than a Mao or a Savonarola to disguise her satisfaction at the prospect.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
So little time. So much to fix.
It’s not the actual result that matters, but your “good intentions”.
What road is paved with those?
If you are going to fix it, fix it right.
If millions more humans were alive, the problem of Global Warming would be even worse!
Great article. It once again points out why labeling environmentalists as “self-loathing” is applicable.
As judged by their words and actions, they hate their own humanity.
Informative environmentalist article.
You are right. I am so insensitive to Gaia. Please alert the authorities so I may be reeducated.
Yesterday evening while flying into Chicago ( yes I have a huge carbon footprint) a woman in the row behind me remarks to her husband that because of all the small lakes in northern Illinois the area will be flooded as global warming causes waters to rise.
The environmental crisis mongers on the left have screwed up so many people I'm growing more pessimistic by the day this nation will survive another 50 years
Yet already in this unobjectionable formula we meet the questionable strain in environmentalist thought and writing. For once environmentalism is understood as an ethic — and there is no doubt that, since Thoreau, its claims have been ethical, even religious — then it can no longer be judged simply as a series of more or less accurate predictions about humanity’s effect on nature. Another way of putting this is that environmentalism is not scientific. The claims of scientists must be falsifiable and value-neutral; the claims of environmentalists, as we see them in “American Earth,” are neither.
They are watermelons. Green outside. Red inside.
I have heard environmentalists call for the elimination of 90% of the world’s population or mandated 1 child rules and aborting the rest. But that’s OK, it’s for the planet.
A single conservative states that a few thousand people found guilty by jury should be humanely executed, well, that’s just immoral. And heaven forbid they call not to kill your kid! That’s just evil oppression there.
/all sarcasm.
Liberation Theology has much in common with the cult of the environment. One of the issue that they both warn against is technocentrism, the over reliance on technology. In other words we wouldn’t want to get too scientific, facts may get in the way of advancing our agenda.
Make it meaningful to them:
Without Rachel Carson, we might still be poisoning ourselves with DDT millions of innocent animals (including racoons, wolves, wild horses and peregrine falcons!) killed by heart worm, encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and other mosquito borne diseases, would be alive.
It does no good to make arguments relavent to our side; it is they who must be convinced of their folly, in termes they can understand and relate to.
If we could implicate seal or polar bear deaths in the banning of DDT, they would be clamoring for its reinstatement.
Remember: It is the seriousness of the charge that counts; and is up to them to prove it wrong...but once the meme is "out there", they can never get rid of it...and when they try, yell "denier!" at them.
Misanthropy; that’s a good way to put it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.