Sunday, February 24, 2008


In a recent posting on his blog, the economist George Reisman points out that although we may disagree with many ideas (isms), few adhering to beliefs in those philosophies would admit to supporting what could be characterized as evil i.e." that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune". Additionally I would pose the question: does evil exist independent from human existence? This is akin to the academic query that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it is there in fact a noise? The moral concept of evil is recorded by human history and invariably posits that evil must be related in some measure to human existence. Consider the following quotes:

"What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

"Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”
Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."
Carl Amery

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population."
Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)

"In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.
Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)

All of the above quotes are by so called "leaders" in the environmental movement. There is NO record of these statements being either condemned or disputed by any recognized environmental organization.
If and when the environmentalists take full power, and begin imposing and then progressively increasing the severity of such things as carbon taxes and carbon caps, in order to reach their goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent, the number of deaths that will result will rise into the billions, which is in accord with the movement’s openly professed agenda of large-scale depopulation. (The policy will have little or no effect on global mean temperatures, the reduction of which is the rationalization for its adoption, but it will have a great effect on the size of human population.)

Compared to the so called "evil" political movements of recent history such as Communism and National Socialism, environmentalism ranks as equally evil if one considers the 96+ millions of deaths attributed to the unnecessary banning of DDT.


Anonymous said...

“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it”
- H. L. Mencken

There are a few web-postings written by a gentleman named John Jay Ray from Australia, who spends a great deal of time tendering the theory that rampant, rabid environmentalist behavior shares many traits with sociopathic and psychopathic behavior. I will try to track down a link later when I get a chance.

They take it to an extreme that is totally unecessary, exposing their meglomaniacal undertones.

Efforts to maintain the Earth, conserve resources, and to ensure that we are not defecating in our own proverbial well, are very worthwhile and totally necessary. However, taken to the extreme, these efforts go from being laudable to being psychotic and terrifying.

The fact that "we" as a society seem to be buying into the scare-mongering sort of reinforces a point I made in a posting not long ago that we are being totally disconnected from the hard truths of nature, living in the industrialized, comfortable society that we all enjoy, and are therefore more likely to buy into these things we are being told by "experts" because we have no concept of it ourselves.

Link 1:

Link 2:


McDirt said...'re really off the scale my friend! Or perhaps it's just laziness. Too intellectually taxing to acknowledge the shades of gray in public policy discourse....far less work than pretending everything is black and white. So much easier to pick a side when there's a clear front line and everyone and everything is either good or evil. (mmmm...good, or evil?...the choices are so hard!) (Mmmm....evironmentalists, evil; me, good!)

Your roster of crackpot statements from fringe idiots ("leaders" my backside, not in any normal environmentalist's book are any of these folks leaders) is the most offensive and outrageous you could find....stacking them up and pretending they represent a concerted widespread philosophy is dishonest and bizarre. You're clearly smart as heck. Smarter than me. Why won't you use your intellect for rational policy discussion, rather than suggesting cannibalism is a core philosophy of environmentalism because some wacko who calls himself and enviro and has a fringe following says so?

As I recall the population control folks tried to hijack the Sierra Club a few years back, but were beaten soundly and didn't get their folks on the SC Board of Directors. And it 'aint like the SC is a bunch of milquetoast mainstreamers!

I imagine no enviros are out screaming about these statements for the same reason no one is raising heck about the Flat-Earth Society's asserstions or the folks who think all the moon landings were faked...too preposterous to respond to.

One exception....the fellow who equated the cooling of the earth in the 70s was dead-on. Particulate pollution in the atmosphere blocked the sun.....the advent of modern pollution controls has changed that. Catch-22, I know, take away the cancers, asthmas and cardiac diseases that the smog causes, and the tradeoff is a warming globe....kinda sucks....either way, maybe it means I won't have to fulfill my dream of coming back as a deadly virus (oops, my slip...not supposed to share the wacko enviro playbook with nonbelievers!)

Seriously, don't you think public discourse would be better served by ignoring the fringe idiots on all extremes rather than falsely portraying them as the mainstream thought of your opponents? Or is that just an easy way of justifying your own extremism in the defense of liberty? I'll stick with lazy.

Yours in the spirit of collectivism, or evil, or sociopathic behavior or whatever you decide best bolsters hysteria.

Anonymous said...

"One exception....the fellow who equated the cooling of the earth in the 70s was dead-on. Particulate pollution in the atmosphere blocked the sun.....the advent of modern pollution controls has changed that. "

Proof please? This is a decent theory, but there isn't any evidence to support this other than coorelation. Coorelation does not equal causation, even in the most lax of scientific reviews.

Our climate has been, and always will be, in a state of change since long before we came around. The proof that we are causing these changes is sorely lacking, relying, again, on a coorelation that is being shot full of more holes than a basket strainer. To think that we are the sole cause of any of the climate's endless cycles is the grandest form of hubris.

I give you one perfect example, and will leave it to you to explain to me why, if humans are the cause, these events occured the way that they did:

1.) Global average temp began rising in the late 1800's, and early 1900's, prior to any increase in atmospheric CO2. WHY?

2.) Once CO2 began to rise in amounts noticeable to our measurements, global temps dropped. This was in 1938, when agriculture was still mostly horse-drawn, autos were simply rare, and we were still in a depression; quite some time before you could possibly make the argument that aerosols are causing the issue. WHY?

3.) CO2 rose steadily, while temps dropped, until 1976, when temps started rising again. The "meat and potatoes" part of the Clean Air Act, which is the one that really started taking aerosols out of the environment, was not passed until 1977. That is pretty good, it started working a year before it was even passed! WHY?

4.) We've just now hit near the peak that we previously hit in 1938, and once we got near that peak, warming leveled out (just like before!), and now, suddenly, and seemingly REVERSED (just like before!), just like it did back in 1938! WHY?

But it would simply be foolish to assume that we are dealing with NATURAL CYCLES here, right? I mean, it HAS to be our fault! Right?

This is all a result of my aforementioned Disney-fication of nature. We are simply unable to admit that nature can, and has, changed violently and often without our input.

If you look at 400,000 year ice core data, it shows that we are virtually right on track with where we should be at this point in the cycle. We are due a cooling now, and by golly, look at what is happening!