If you wanted to undermine human exceptionalism and interfere with human thriving, a splendid way would be to elevate nature to the moral value of human beings, almost a person, or at least, a rights bearing entity. The drive toward what could be described as “nature rights” has already begun, for example, when Ecuador’s new constitution explicitly created the rights of nature to be equal to those of humans.
Now, an environmental campaigner is promoting the same ends from a punitive direction. She is pushing hard to transform serious pollution into a crime against nature (peace) that would be deemed as odious as crimes against humanity are currently. From the story:
A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK. The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins. The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry. Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change. “Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life,” says Higgins. “It leads to resource depletion, and where there is escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing behind. Where such destruction arises out of the actions of mankind, ecocide can be regarded as a crime against peace.”
Of course. When you attack human exceptionalism, you not only undermine human value, but also assault human freedom. The totalitarian impulses of the current anti humanism are exposed clearly in this noxious proposal. Hey, I wonder if I could find myself in legal trouble for saying that!
Anyone who thinks this will just be laughed away hasn’t been reading Secondhand Smoke:
After a successful launch at the UN in 2008, the idea has been adopted by the Bolivian government, who will propose a full members’ vote, and Higgins has taken up her campaign for ecocide. Ecocide is already recognised by dictionaries, but Higgins’ more legal definition would be: “The extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.”
“Peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants” is a very broad term intended to include everything from grass, fish, and insects, to animals and people. It is an equalizer of the value of all life in the area. Under this view, the Exxon Valdez accident could be elevated to a crime equivalent to the Holocaust!
This is wrong on so many levels. First, it revealingly illustrates that environmentalism is fast becoming a religion for some of its most strident adherents. Thus, denying global warming would be akin to the worst blasphemy in a totalitarian theocracy. If also elevates flora and fauna within ecosystems to the importance of humanity. Moreover, to claim that eco destruction was akin to Rwanda, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the torture camps like Auschwitz, both diminishes those true evils in the comparison, as it elevates ecological zones to the moral status of human population categories.
I’m going to think about this some, and perhaps expound at greater length in the near future.
April 10th, 2010 | 6:57 pm
[...] this proposal is gaining traction at the UN. More details and analysis over at Secondhand Smoke. Comments [...]
April 10th, 2010 | 6:58 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Radical Environmentalism: Is “Ecoside” as Evil as Genocide? » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/msoBo [...]
April 10th, 2010 | 11:35 pm
IMO, radical environmentalism is a method of justifying human genocide. Many believe the earth is overpopulated and intend to depopulate it one way or another.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Marion: You are quite right. I started focusing on radical environmentalism after I became alarmed at the angry anti humanism within the movement.
April 11th, 2010 | 1:56 am
If somebody destroys an ecosystem knowing full well it could lead to the death of many through famine, disease and war, then that would be as evil as murdering that same number of people.
Except it’s not really a separate crime. It is ‘just’ a crime against humanity.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 11:02 am
In your scenario, that would be a crime against humanity, Josh. But ecoside is not that. It is polluting, and could be charged, as I understand it, even if no human were harmed in any way.
April 11th, 2010 | 1:59 am
[...] Smith posts details from the UK article via First Things about the British radical who is campaigning the UN “to accept ‘ecocide’ as [...]
April 11th, 2010 | 9:16 am
“-cide” not “-side” in the headline.
The world’s corporations will not tolerate this.
As the human population continues to grow doesn’t it seem moral to try to find ways to limit if not correct the damages we do to the environment where we live, and where we hope our children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren will live?
Is it moral for WTK to level large swaths of the Amazon because it benefits their stockholders and builders at the expense of the rest of the planet? Should man be able to use the Earth’s resources without regard for future inhabitants?
April 11th, 2010 | 9:20 am
Do-it-yourself climate assessment. Accurate calculation of average earth temperature for at least 114 years and counting with no need whatsoever to include the effects of change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas. See how and eye-opening graphs at sc25.com.
April 11th, 2010 | 11:08 am
Mr. Smith, I find this absolutely disgusting and offensive. As someone who has survived war in Bosnia, have seen genocide and killings of human beings first hand, I don’t even know where to begin to disagree with the statements you quoted. This is insanity manifested. Cultishly (as in the New Age movement), this push for the environment denies evil completely, and ultimately denies meaning of suffering and life. I wonder whether these people would feel the same way about the environment if they saw their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, friends tortured, raped and killed right before their eyes. THAT is the reality and power of evil, and despite the fact that evil is the absence of being (as S. Thomas writes, who never denied evil), its presence is well and alive. We must wake up from this dream, this shadowy, substance-less “Age of Aquarius.” Thanks for bringing this to your readers’ attention.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Emina: I’m with you.
April 11th, 2010 | 11:23 am
I wonder if the result of treating “ecocide” with the same severity as “genocide” won’t be to trivialize the latter instead of punishing the former.
Likewise, if you want to treat people and animals with the same level of care, you can either treat animals at the level of people – or people at the level of animals. I know which I think is more likely.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
SparkVark: How can it not reduce the seriousness–I wouldn’t say trivialize–the horror of genocide? We are taking unique things, on a positive side–rights–and on a negative side–the worst crimes like genocide–and lessening them in our personalization of flora and fauna, and concomitant depersonalization of some humans.
April 12th, 2010 | 10:21 pm
If pollution = genocide, does secondhand smoke = murder?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
No, I would say sanity.
April 15th, 2010 | 3:15 am
[...] Radical Environmentalism: Is “Ecoside” as Evil as Genocide? – Wesley J. Smith. Ecuador’s… [...]
April 16th, 2010 | 3:35 am
Thank you Wesley J. Smith for exposing the Truth so that the truth can be know.
The Cap-and-Trade bill is in the Senate. It passed the House 219 – 212 June 2009. This silliness needs to be stopped.
This is a good website to pass on to others with a good petition which will go on to your Senators, Represesentative and President:
GlobalClimateScam.com
http://www.globalclimatescam.com
April 23rd, 2010 | 10:46 am
[...] Two weeks ago, I wrote here about a proposed new “crime against peace” called ecocide, deemed to be equivalent to genocide. I will have more to say about that matter soon, but in the meantime, it seems increasingly clear that–hand-in-hand with personalizing “nature,” will come criminalizing resource development as an assault against nature–thereby stifling prosperity by returning us, essentially, to so many hunter-gatherers–or better yet, just gatherers. That such a course will increase poverty and misery–or at the very least, make its eradication much more difficult– seems to escape its proponents. [...]
May 3rd, 2010 | 9:49 am
[...] I reported here a few weeks ago about a new radical thrust in environmentalism that seeks to hyper criminalize resource development as an international crime akin to genocide or crimes against humanity. At the time, I promised a more thorough analysis. It is now out in the current Weekly Standard. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact