Replies

It is a myth, not even a very convincing one, that humanity on the lower levels of development was somehow more caring for the environment. American Indians used fire as part of the hunting, burning large territories in the process, and had no problem dropping hoards from a cliff, killing much more than they could eat or use. I am using Indians because they are often sited as the best live-with-nature people. When they could kill more they did.

As long as wood was the most universal tool and source of energy, the woods were cut mercilessly everywhere. Before agriculture became effective on the modern levels, more and more lands were used in the extensive, low yield way.

Our technological progress, achieved through capitalistic innovations and entrepreneurship, brought us finally to the level of prosperity and affluence when we CAN care for the environment. All generations before us did not have that luxury. Abundant energy is an important contributor to this luxury. Note, that I am not at all "anti-environment". I am all for the responsible use of the resources. The point I want to make is that environmental activists, if even part of their proposals will ever be adopted (through global warming hysteria proposals or other causes), will effectively push us back to the state when caring for the environment once again will become a luxury people cannot afford. (Like many Leftist ideas when implemented it becomes counterproductive and defeats the original "noble" stated goal).

In the paragraph above I used "we" for the industrialized world. All other nations are not at that level of prosperity yet. Whatever curtail of progress insisted by the environmental extremists that will inconvenience us in the West, it will kill many in the undeveloped countries. (like banning of DDT did) So much for the fuzzy mushy caring Left.