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.