Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

I keep an eye on the anti humanism in radical environmentalism in my work defending human exceptionalism.  I have noted here and elsewhere that the ecocide brigades held a mock trial of fictional Alberta tar sands executives and—surprise!—found them guilty of extracting oil for the benefit of humankind ecocide. They have now held a “sentencing,” with one receiving four years in jail and one forced to engage in “restorative justice.”

I decided that event warranted a broader critique than space permits on a blog. So, I sent a piece to the Daily Caller.  I hope you will read the whole thing, but here is the part I wish to share here.  The prosecution had lawyers representing “the earth,” ”wider humanity,” “future humanity,” “birds,” and indigenous people.  I thought that opened up an argument that these representatives failed to make. From “Ecocide Would be a Crime Against Humanity:”

Talk about legal malpractice! Apparently, the legal representative for “wider  humanity” — e.g., all of us — failed to argue that criminalizing the extraction  of oil from tar sands would chill all large-scale energy production everywhere  in the world, which would result in terrible harm to humans, including wild  increases in the cost of heating our homes. The barrister representing “future  humanity” similarly failed to note that ecocide laws would result in our  posterity being born into a world of increased poverty and want. Nor did the  lawyer representing “indigenous peoples” — many of whom live in  resource-abundant areas — protest that ecocide would doom billions of his  clients to permanent poverty by thwarting their ability to develop the wealth on  their own land.

In other words, the lawyers should be opposing ecocide if they really wanted to represent the best interests of current and future humanity and indigenous people!  But the birds could also bring a claim against wind farms for ecocide:
And don’t think that ecocide wouldn’t also thwart the development of green  renewable energy technologies. Take wind farms: The lawyer for the birds could  argue that wind turbines cruelly slaughter millions of his clients in their  spinning blades every year. The lawyer for wider humanity could argue that they  also produce sound pollution and mar the beauty of the landscape. Indeed,  opponents of large-scale wind farms already claim that wind farm developers are committing  ecocide.

There’s more, but here’s how I conclude:
The heart of the problem, of course, is that the misanthropic radical  environmentalists reject human exceptionalism. Believing we are the enemy of the  planet they would have us eat our own tail and punish ourselves with  ever-lowering standards of living and consequentially shorter and more brutal  lives.

We should reject their self-destructive advocacy out of hand. Making “ecocide” an international crime would be a profound offense against  humanity.

These radicals have the potential to really hurt us. We need to protect the environmental movement against the seeping misanthrope with which it is infected.

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles