The environmentalist makes many arguments as to why we should not exploit our natural resources but, when you boil them all down, there is only one argument presented in many forms: that we are destroying the planet – a planet that belongs to future generations. Unfortunately for the environmentalist, this claim destroys their argument.
First, if our resources belong to the future, then who gets to use them, and when? This generation cannot use them because they belong to the next, and the next generation cannot use them because they belong to the generation after that, and so on. Nor can the environmentalist argue that there is a certain amount of resources every generation should be allowed to use because, unless those resources are renewable, eventually, even if each generation only uses a small amount, the earth will run out of that resource and future generations – the supposed “rightful owners” of those resources – will not have any to use themselves. This line of reasoning results in the only possible conclusion being that no generation may use any resource deemed to be finite. But then, the atmosphere of this planet, its water, even the energy of the sun are all finite, so why doesn’t this argument apply to any of these resources? Thus, the claim that the resources of today belong to the people of tomorrow is a self-defeating argument.
Then there’s the conflict between environmentalism and evolution. If there is no God and man is just an accident of this universe, then why place any concern in what happens tomorrow? If we “destroy” this planet and make it so that human life cannot exist, that is – by definition – “evolution.” We should not interfere in it. But the very fact that we can and do interfere suggests that we are not an accident of this universe. After all, the planets do consciously not direct their orbits; nor do animals deliberately alter the direction of their evolution. Nothing in this universe even has a concept of time – except man. Therefore, nothing in this universe worries about tomorrow – except man. The worry about tomorrow is a moral judgment, yet, the concept of morality has no place in this universe. The star does no wrong when it “eats” a comet or even a planet with billions of animals on it. Nor does the lion do anything wrong when it eats a zebra. This is all just the way the universe works. So, if this is the way the universe works, the environmentalist has no grounds for denying natural resources to the people of today. Exploiting our resources would just be following the laws of the universe and evolution. But, if there are grounds for making the argument of conservation for the future, then this admits to a moral law, which then negates evolution (understood here to mean Darwinism) and affirms a Creator, the Author of that moral law. And while it may seem that the existence of a moral law supports the environmentalist’s cause, in reality, it does not. God told us to subdue this world, not preserve it.
So why does the environmentalist argue for a return to primitivism? The answer is simple. Look at any of these environmentalists – especially the ones who pretend to be living their beliefs – and you will find designer clothes, I Pods, Apple computers and very expensive “organic” food. All of these are a waste of resources. When we compare the cost of this “green” life style to that of a more conventional but responsible life style, the environmentalist actually causes more harm to the planet (by their own standards). Then there are the environmental crusaders who fly private jets, eat lavish meals at private banquets and live in multiple homes, only one of which consumes some $20,000/month in electricity. What’s more, the majority of these crusaders end up getting wealthy as a result, and there is the answer to the question of why. It isn’t really that these people care about the future; it’s that they care about their future. Environmentalism is nothing more than “the moral equivalent of war:” a hammer with which they can beat you into surrendering your life to them. And look, they do it in the name of “saving us from ourselves.” How oh so very…Progressive (which is actually the youngest child of Marxism).
[NOTE: Nothing about this piece should be construed as an advocation for wanton destruction of the environment: quite the contrary. I am for the responsible use of the resources available to us because God commanded us to be "good stewards" of this planet. I am merely arguing against the tactic of intentionally scaring people into submission for the purpose of personal gain -- which is all environmentalism really is.]