Industrialization: The Environmentalist's Version of Original Sin

Capitalism Magazine | March 6, 2000 | Glenn Woiceshyn

[Raymond Fabrizio]

Environmentalists -- notorious for making doomsday predictions about man's industrial activities while appealing to "science" -- are now turning to religion to halt the "sins" of industrialization and development. Over a year ago in a full-page article ("Keep Faith With Nature" -- Calgary Herald, Jan. 16, 1999), eco-activist Harvey Locke exhorted: "we need to restore a sense of the sacred to creation if we are to save it." He urged greens to "reach out to those who have religious and spiritual impulses and strive with them to protect the full diversity of life on Earth." Other prominent environmentalists since, such as David Suzuki, author of The Sacred Balance, have made similar appeals.

For those of us who simply enjoy nature's beauty and recreational possibilities, Locke suggests that regarding nature as sacred is fully compatible with that enjoyment. Dead wrong!

Enjoying nature, for many, consists of hiking, skiing, canoeing, camping, etc., in the woods or mountains, enjoying the adventure, exercise and beautiful sights, sounds, smells. One could not enjoy nature if one's life were immediately threatened by man-eating beasts, extreme cold, hunger or disease. Nor if one had to engage in back-breaking labor all day to produce only the bare necessities of survival.

Thanks to the "sin" of industrialization, we now have the health, wealth, leisure time and hi-tech equipment to enjoy nature without being at its mercy -- and to enjoy a "diversity" of other things that an industrial society offers. To enjoy something presupposes that one values one's own life and everything that enhances human life (especially industrialization and everything it rests on -- science, technology and political freedom).

To regard nature as sacred would mean to value it intrinsically -- i.e., apart from one's life. A pristine swamp swarming with mosquitoes and poisonous snakes would have sacred "value" regardless of its threat; filling it to build a house or car factory -- to enhance one's environment and life -- would destroy the sacred "value."

It's understandable why a city dweller, after an intense week of creative and productive work, would value (and be willing to pay for) the experience of skiing down a mountain, or sitting beside a calm, beautiful lake, or watching a film about African wildlife. But why regard as sacred every thorny bush, malaria-infested mosquito, or cubic centimeter of bug-infested bear dung? To value something just because it exists in nature is irrational.

Recall the natural fire that was allowed to torch Yellowstone Park in 1988, causing $150 million in damages and destroying 1 million acres of trees. Environmentalists qua Park Officials prohibited firefighting for weeks because the fire was "natural" and "fire is a benign rather than a malignant force." According to the New York Times (Sept. 22, 1988): "They said they were trying to protect pristine areas from the destructive effects of bulldozers, fire engines and irrigation pipes." If nature is sacred, fighting natural forest fires is also a sin.

In his essay, The Philosophy of Privation, Peter Schwartz succinctly explains this nature-as-sacred creed as follows: "Today's man is told by environmentalists that he -- like his primitive ancestors -- must hold nature in quivering awe. He is to be, not the ruler of nature, but its obedient thrall. That is, he is to worship nature -- as a God." (The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, by Ayn Rand, Meridian, 1998).

The primitive savage is what Locke et al want us to emulate. This nature-as-sacred creed is blatantly anti-human. If a wolf uses its natural endowments (speed, strength, fangs) to kill and devour deer for its benefit -- that's apparently good. If man uses his natural endowments -- his rational mind -- to exploit other living species and reshape the Earth for his benefit -- that's evil. Hence, man is inherently evil because he can think -- the green version of Original Sin. What Locke et al seek is the moral sanction and political power to force their religion on others (just as Christians did during the Middle Ages or as Muslims are doing now in Afghanistan). They are currently pressuring governments into shrinking the amount of land available for the "sins" of industry and development. And it's naive to think they will be satisfied with their current demands; as Locke concluded: "Let us ... work for the protection and restoration of nature's full glory." (Emphasis mine.)

My conclusion: we should reject this anti-human creed and uphold man's right to achieve his full glory by using his rational mind to conquer nature for the purpose of enhancing and enjoying his life.

[Raymond Fabrizio]

Let's keep informed!

[free from tyranny]

Good Post!

The western standard of living is accelerating its decline as the widening vortex draws more and more of the middle class deeper and deeper.The disillussioned, once the faithful of the mullahs of envirohabiism will shed the deprivation of the orthodoxy.The false prophets of industrial doom will be revealed as powermad bureacrats bent on terrorizing their believers with threats of industrial armageddon.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[madfly]

ping

[ffusco]

I agree completely. Global warming is now the original sin of capitalism. It is the polar opposite of Locke's theory of Property.

[ffusco]

Locke on Property:
Locke supposed, the earth and everything on it belongs to all of us in common; among perfectly equal inhabitants, all have the same right to make use of whatever they find and can use....applying these actions to natural objects by mixing our labor with them, Locke argued, provides a clear means for appropriating them as an extension of our own personal property.