The fundamental divide in life is quite simple: God loves people, environmental activists don’t.
In God’s worldview, man is created in his image for the purpose of procreation and to exercise dominion over all the earth and over every living thing that lives on it.
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth (Genesis 1:26).
In the view of eco-fascists, on the other hand, man is a noxious weed who is nothing more than a parasite, whose presence and imprint must be removed as far as possible from every place on earth. The fewer human beings, the better.
I call environmental activists eco-fascists, because a fascist is someone who allows you to own your home, your own car, your own garden, but insists on telling you how to manage it. The very definition of fascism is “a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls.”
Fascists seek to control every facet of life but hide behind the empty conceit that you still get to own the stuff they tell you how to run. It’s a devious and duplicitous form of tyranny because it maintains the illusion of private property. If you can’t decide what you do with it, is it really yours?
It’s just the opposite with God, who believes the more the human beings, the better.
God instructed our original parents to “be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28).
With at least 90% of the earth’s surface unoccupied and undeveloped, we’ve obviously got a long way to go. The problem is that there are not enough people, not that there are too many of them.
Thomas Sowell once calculated that every human being on earth could move to the state of Texas, with each family of four having something like 1800 square feet of living space. This would take up about 1/4 of the available land. Another quarter of the state would be reserved for agriculture and manufacture, leaving the last quarter for recreational pursuits. The rest of the globe, mind you, would be completely uninhabited.
Lest you doubt me about the view of human beings that is the beating heart of environmentalism, consider the words of philosophy professor Patricia MacCormack of Anglia Ruskin University. She says the only way to save planet Earth is to “let humans become extinct,” and “the worst thing you can do” to the environment is to have a baby.
She also embraces “human extinction, vegan abolition, atheist occultism, death studies...and the apocalypse as an optimistic beginning.” She’d be a real kick at a dinner party, cheer the place right up. She also moonlights as a London DJ.
Ms. McCormack doesn’t want to kill everybody, she just wants us all to die, as a form of atonement for all “the damage humans have perpetrated on the Earth and its other inhabitants.”
Her manifesto, as you might expect, “questions the value of human exceptionalism,” and challenges the idea that humans are really the “best” forms of life. She even complains about the “Extinction Rebellion” since its focus is only on its effects on human life.
The University supports the views of this woman and praises her expertise in “posthuman ethics” (your guess is as good as mine) and “horror films,” which might be the beginning of an explanation for her mental processes.
She certainly sounds whack, and she probably is. But what she believes, on the whole, is mainstream environmentalism, that animal life is superior to human life, that man is an invasive, non-native species that threatens the entire environment.
The choice is actually quite simple. We either accept God’s view of man and the environment or Ms.MacCormack’s view. I’m going with God on this one.
The author may be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org