04.06.06
Environmentalist Mankind-Hating Death Worship
Michael S. Berliner summarizes this objectivist point of view in his article “If Environmentalism Succeeds, It Will Make Human Life Impossible“:
The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Environmentalism’s goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather, it is a subhuman world where “nature” is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.
[…]
[T]he naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people.
Just the incendiary, divisive rhetoric of one right-wing nutjob? I am a lapsed Objectivist, but Rand and Berliner may have been very, very specific and completely, one hundred per cent accurate in their assessment of environmentalism. Case in point: One prominent American university professor actively advocates the death of 90% of existing human population.
Eric R. Pianka is the Denton A. Cooley Centennial Professor of Zoology at the University of Texas, and is well regarded for promoting the death of about 5.8 billion people who are alive right now.
Pianka is the author of a textbook, Evolutionary Ecology, that “explores topics that include the effects of human domination on the ecosystems, pollution of the atmosphere, water and land, habitat destruction and fragmentation and extinction,” has been translated into many languages, and gone through five editions.
He was awarded the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist by the Texas Academy of Science. He is not dismissed as some left-wing kook. When he speaks, he receives enthusiastic applause and standing ovations. His students make comments like:
“He’s basically advocating for the death for all but 10 percent of the current population. And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he’s right.”
So, how does one go about killing 5.8 billion people? Pianka offers some practical advice on the subject:
“Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.”
He must have mentioned this “solution” during his college classes, because one student evaluated him by saying:
“Though I agree that convervation [sic] biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola [sic] is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness.”
Other students were more favorable:
- “I knew this would be a most interesting class the first day when Dr. Pianka downed homocentrism. I am in absolute agreement with that idea and it was fortunately a recurring theme throughout.”
- “This the closest thing this university has to a true religion course and Pianka is the perfect preacher.”
- “I worship Dr. Pianka.”
News of Pianka’s presentation and recommendations have recently spread across the internet, and reaction has been swift and harsh. He says that his comments have been taken out of context and that he doesn’t advocated genocide.
Really? We’ll never know because the context of what he said was intentionally made impossible. Forrest M. Mims, a scientest who attending the conference where Pianka gave his presentation, and who largely broke this story, said:
Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.
This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us.
I wonder what the “context” of the presentation was. What is it that the general public is not ready to hear, if not that a scientest arguing for the death of 90% of the human population?
In his response, Pianka says he “doesn’t bear any ill will towards anybody” and that “I’ve got two granddaughters, man. I’m putting money in a college fund for my granddaughters. I’m worried about them.”
I am unconvinced by his protestations. One doesn’t have to bear ill will against single individuals to advocate the death of billions of people. One death is a tragedy, but 5.8 billion deaths is a statistic. And the fact that he wants his two granddaughters to live and be successful only means that he wants his progeny to be in the lucky 10% that get to live. My progeny, and the progeny of billions of others, will be the ones doomed to death by an airbourne Ebola virus.
One must also point out the blatant double-standard applied here. He laments that humanity is “just mindlessly rushing ahead breeding our brains out” while he himself apparently has no problem “breeding” enough to have two grandchildren. Why is it that Pianka can “breed” and it’s not mindlessly rushing ahead?
An associate of mine dryly pondered whether we could get away with killing only twenty percent of the population if we selectively kill the just the right twenty percent.
Dark humor aside, the point is that there is a sickening elitism in Pianka and those who support his massive death proposal. They implicitly assume that they and theirs will be spared the upcoming slaughter applied to the unwashed masses.
I am suspicious of the environmental movement. It is based on the concept of biocentrism, where all life, or even the whole universe living or otherwise taken as a whole, is equally valuable and humanity is not the center of existence. Humanity is no more valuable than mice or bacteria. Pianka’s vision is the final, distilled heart of the environmentalist movment: mankind-hating death worship.
Environmentalists are not just people who want clear air, clean water, and wilderness conservation. It is absolutely possible to value those things in an anthropocentric context, where everything is judged by its relationship to human experience and livelihood, where mankind is a steward of the environment, not an enemy of it.
However, the environmentalist movement is made up of groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Earth First, EarthJustice, the Endangered Species Coalition and Friends of the Earth, and people like the Unabomber. The groups have a long history of acting against the interests of mankind. These groups have embraced Pianka’s vision. What is the Earth being liberated from? Humans. If Earth is first, humanity is second (at most). If Earth is the friend, who is the enemy? Humans.
Even the so-called “moderate” environmentalist groups — Greenpeace, Audobon Society, National Wildlife Federation, etc.– have not repudiated Pianka or his proposal. Since I am now suspicious of any environmentalist organization, I need to hear that declaration. I need to hear someone in the environmental movement say that that they completely disagree with Pianka’s ideas and repudiate what he stands for.
I hold out hope that “moderate” environmentalists do no agree with Pianka. I need to know that they do not condone the deaths of 5.8 billion people in order to preserve the environment. I really do need to hear it.
