On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day

Talking truth to environmentalist power:

Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may.

Defining premises:

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Think ANWR.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

Think “Save the Caribou.”

There’s no middle ground:

It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept the notion that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?

One point I’d like to add is that responsible stewardship of resources is not the same thing as environmentalism. The meaning of “Environmentalism” has expanded (thanks in large part to our simple-minded media) to mean any action that can conceivably be twisted to fit the pre-determined story. So we see celebrities advocating using one square of toilet paper to save the forests–even though paper companies manage forests to maintain their supply of resources, giving employment and convenience to many people. Or other celebrities screeching about the inhumane practice of killing wolves, ignoring the fact that managing the wolf population in turn helps manage the caribou population, which in its turn helps feed people. The whole circle of life thing, in short. It seems as if they want to take people out of that circle, which goes to show that the article has it right.

Another thing I find amazing is the ease with which the environmentally-conscious use and are gulled by the very system they are condemning. Anywhere you look you see green this, eco-friendly that, selling almost any product imaginable. It’s the biggest marketing ploy in recent history. Al Gore wants to save the planet from man-made global warming, so he starts a company that deals in carbon offset credits.   The failed Lehman Brothers and others factor the potential consequences (social and legislative) into their projections and plans. I see people buying eco-friendly cleaning supplies at the grocery store, and wonder if they realize the size of the (non-existent, in my opinion) carbon footprint from the manufacturing process they have just validated (or maybe they think it was produced in some magically non-traditional, non carbon-producing way). Exploitation is not just for money-grubbing capitalists any more, and caring about the Earth doesn’t innoculate you from stupidity.

I’m going to like annoying those people.