          The Environmental Movement and the Value of "Moderation"

                              by Brian K. Yoder

[Presented at a 1992 commencement address in California. An excellent
analysis of the totalitarian threat posed by environmentalism. The historical
examples discussed here bring to mind Santayana's maxim, "Those who do
not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it." Note that asterisks are
used to represent italics in this transcript.]

                     --------------------------------

If you could give some advice to a fish about how not to end up on a
fisherman's stringer, you might recommend that he closely examine each juicy
tidbit he encounters to see if it contains a hook. I would like to make that
same recommendation to you this evening with regard to political ideologies.
If you consider swallowing an ideology containing some true and good
components, you should scrutinize its structure in order to determine whether
it contains a false and evil hook.

A look at history will show us many instances of large numbers of people
adopting tyrannical ideologies which killed and enslaved them. What caused
this? Were these people less intelligent than we are? Weimar Germany had
one of the best educated populations in the world before the Nazis came to
power. Certainly they weren't grossly stupid or uneducated. Even today,
many of the most vocal proponents of Marxism on American campuses are
otherwise intelligent people.

Were they more subject to evil intent? There is certainly no evidence of this.
Nobody promotes ideas he considers to be evil. Do you have ideas you
consider to be evil? Of course not. Neither did the citizens of Russia and
Germany. It must be something else.

How could the proponents of tyranny have been so effective and the oppo-
nents so ineffective? If the common people wouldn't stand up for themselves,
didn't business and religious leaders stand up to the tyrants? No, for the most
part, they supported them. How can it be that intelligent, well-meaning people
can allow and even support the development of tyrannical political move-
ments? The answer is that the majority swallowed some juicy bait uncritically,
without looking for an ideological hook, and that's how they ended up on the
stringer.

So, how does one identify a "hook" of this kind? Answering this question is
vitally important today because we are being presented with an ideology
similar in many respects to those of the worst tyrannies of the 20th century. It
is necessary to be able to recognize such ideologies in order to fight against
them.

The ideology I would like to discuss this evening is environmentalism as a
philosophical and political movement. We will examine the philosophy of
environmentalism, and determine whether or not it is safe to swallow.

I could speak about the scientific case (or lack of it) behind such issues as
ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, and the solid waste "crisis", but I
won't, because these issues have been dealt with by many others already, and
because I do not believe that science is what makes environmentalism "work"
as a political movement. Let's begin by looking at several environmental
issues and trying to see what they have in common and how they differ.

Remember Acid Rain? Asbestos? Mercury in fish? Ozone Depletion from
Supersonic Transports? Alar in apples? Rachel Carson's Silent Spring of the
1960s? The Coming Ice Age of the 1970s? Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb of
the 1980s? What all of these have in common is that they are based on
dubious scientific theories, and that they predicted disaster unless the environ-
mentalists were given the power to violate the rights of individual citizens.
Also, ultimately all of the apocalyptic claims were proven to be false, if for
no other reason than that the massive disease and death these theories predict-
ed never materialized.

What about today's predictions such as ozone depletion from CFCs, the
greenhouse effect, deforestation, and the solid waste crisis? What do they all
have in common?

They are being trumpeted by the same people, they have the same dubious
scientific foundations, and they are accompanied by the same demands for
power to violate individual rights as the previous list. The only difference is
that this last list is newer and therefore has not yet fallen to scientific dis-
proof. Actually, global warming is already on its way out as more and more
scientists stand up and point out the theory's faults. Don't worry though, there
will be more sources of doomsday predictions next year. Perhaps the next big
crisis will be the evil of road kills, paint fumes, neon lights, navigation
beacons, or something else I can't even imagine. Probably that.

If these predictions of doomsday are again and again shown to be false, why
do new ones rise to take the place of each one that falls? This propensity can
only be understood in a philosophical and political context rather than a
scientific one. That is because environmentalism is a philosophical and
political movement rather than a scientific one. It is no more scientific than
communism (with its pseudo-science of history) or Naziism (with its pseudo-
science of race).

The communists claimed that scientific socialism would put an end to poverty
and alienation. The Nazis claimed that the science of genetics proved that the
Aryan race was blessed by nature with superior abilities. No matter how many
times these theories were disproved, the adherents remained loyal to the
ideology. Even today one can find many proponents of Marxist or racial
ideologies plying their wares. Is environmentalism an ideology of the same
kind?

If we are to understand the nature of tyrannical political ideologies and
determine whether environmentalism fits into that mold, we should examine
some historical examples, and identify what makes them tick politically.

We'll start with the communists. The essence of what they said to the public
was, "Poverty is bad. We are the people opposed to poverty. In order for
poverty to be eliminated, the people opposed to it must be given the power to
violate individual rights. After all, helping others is the moral ideal and that's
all we are doing. Trust us, we'll do it right this time.".

The Nazis had a slightly different message for the common man. They said,
"The destruction of Germany is bad. We are the people opposed to the
destruction of Germany. In order for Germany to be defended, the people who
defend Germany must be given the power to violate individual rights. After
all, helping others is the moral ideal and that's all we are doing. Trust us,
we'll do it right this time."

The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia said, "Corruption is bad. We are the people
opposed to corruption. In order for corruption to be eliminated, the people
opposed to it must be given the power to violate individual rights. After all,
helping others is the moral ideal and that's all we are doing. Trust us, we'll
do it right this time." Each of these ideologies has a common set of attributes.

    1.    Each defends an utterly uncontroversial position about which most
          people are likely to be concerned. (In these examples, that poverty
          is bad, that national destruction is bad, or that corruption is bad).

    2.    Each offers to solve the uncontroversial problem, if only the public
          will grant the group the power to violate the rights of individuals.

    3.    Each justifies that violation on the basis of the morality of altruism,
          that is, the moral theory that the standard of goodness is doing what
          is beneficial for others.

    4.    Each resulted in millions of deaths, and slavery for millions more.

Ideologies of this kind work by establishing a "package deal" in which a true
and good idea is attached to a false and evil one which is swallowed whole by
the unwitting citizen. This works the same way as a worm on a fisherman's
hook and has similar results for those who swallow the combination.

The simplest way of understanding how people can be tricked into swallowing
a package deal of this kind is to notice that the first claim of each of these
ideologies (that poverty, national destruction, and corruption are evil) are
things everyone already agrees with. So ask yourself, what does taking such a
position accomplish in a political context? Does it mobilize the public to
change its opinions on the issue? Of course not, everyone already agrees.
Does it differentiate the movement from the massive pro-poverty, pro-national
destruction, or pro-corruption forces afoot in the population? Certainly not,
there are no such wide-scale movements. It merely serves as the "worm" for
the hook that follows.

Once one has swallowed the worm and believes that "The Communists are the
opponents of poverty," "The Nazis are the defenders of Germany," or "The
Khmer Rouge are the opponents of corruption," there is only one step left for
the advocates of tyranny. They must establish their goal as a moral primary.
This is necessary because otherwise people could object to the tyranny on the
basis of some higher moral principle such as individual rights.

What I mean by "Moral Primary" is a moral concept which need not be
justified on the basis of any other *moral* premise. For example, if I said, "It
is good to eat your vegetables." you might ask why, to which I would answer,
"A diet containing vegetables promotes health." That means my vegetable-
eating principle was not moral primary. It was based on a more fundamental
moral principle...the goodness of health. After hearing this, you might ask,
"But why is being healthy good?" to which I would answer (depending on my
moral philosophy), "Because having a healthy body is important to my life,"
or "Because God commands it," or "Because society needs strong citizens to
survive," or "Because health brings pleasure." In each case, one is expressing
a moral primary, that one's life, the will of God, the good of society, or
pleasure is the foundation of moral evaluation. Each of these is moral prima-
ry. An egoist has no *moral* principle that underlies his evaluation of his life
as his standard of value. What underlies it is an *epistemological* principle.
A theist cannot explain what *moral* issue underlies the goodness of God. A
collectivist cannot explain what moral issue underlies the goodness of society,
and a hedonist cannot explain what moral issue underlies the goodness of
pleasure. In each case, the explanation of the standard of good is
epistemological, not moral. The theist, the collectivist, and the hedonist, will
typically explain why their standard is correct with some version of "My
standard is good because I feel it is." We'll get back to this issue later when
we discuss the relationship between theories of knowledge and ethical systems.
We will see why egoism can be defended on the basis of more than arbitrary
feelings, while the others cannot.

The moral foundation that the creators of tyrannical package deals count on,
and the moral system already accepted by most people, is altruism. Altruism
is the ethical theory which says that the moral ideal is to do what benefits
others. Broadly speaking, "others" could include other people, supernatural
beings, or even inanimate objects; the important issue is that altruism demands
that one abandon one's own concerns and do things which are contrary to
one's rational self-interest in order to lead a morally acceptable life. This is
the perfect basis for a tyrannical ideology since anyone who claims that he is
being personally harmed by Communism, Naziism, or the Khmer Rouge, is
merely being selfish and is thus an agent of poverty, national destruction, or
corruption. (Do you see how the package deal works here? To oppose the
movement is taken as opposition to the uncontroversial idea, and since that
idea has been elevated to a moral primary, such opposition must be considered
the worst possible sin.) So, how can anyone oppose the tyranny?

Once one has swallowed the hook, the chance for the citizen to oppose the
violation of his rights in a consistent way is *gone*. Accepting the premises
that the tyrants are the advocates of the good, and that the good supersedes the
rights of any individual leads inexorably to the conclusions of the ty-
rants...that they should rule outside of considerations of individual rights.

In our examples, anyone opposed to communism was considered to be in
favor of poverty, and therefore could be treated without regard to individual
rights, since communism was considered to be equivalent to the opposition to
poverty, which was considered to be a moral primary. Anyone opposed to
Naziism was considered to be in favor of the destruction of Germany, and
therefore could be treated without regard to his rights. Anyone opposed to the
Khmer Rouge was considered to be in favor of corruption, and therefore
could be treated without regard to his rights. By grafting the movement to an
uncontroversial idea which is a moral primary, tyrants can dismiss any
objections to their movement as opposition to that moral idea. Opposition to
the actions of the movement therefore becomes an unforgivable sin, subject to
any retaliation the movement chooses.

I should point out that the worst of such retaliation historically has not become
a reality until *after* the tyrants took power. Obviously they can't build death
camps before they take over, so you should not assume that any movement
that hasn't imposed press censorship or started mass purges yet is not tyranni-
cal. Mass killings and censorship are not the hallmarks of tyranny on the rise,
they are the hallmarks of tyrannies in power.

OK. Enough for history. Let's look at current affairs.

Consider the reaction to those who speak out against environmentalism here in
1992. Anyone opposed to the environmentalists is considered to be in favor of
pollution, and can be treated without regard to his rights (at least if the
environmentalists have their way).

The essential message of the environmental movement is, "Pollution is bad.
We are the people opposed to pollution. In order for pollution to be eliminat-
ed, the people opposed to it must be given the power to violate individual
rights. After all, helping others is the moral ideal and that's all we are doing.
Trust us. we'll do it right this time." One can expect that the results of this
package deal will be the same as those generated by its ideological counter-
parts if the environmentalists have their way.

                      --------------------------------

Let's look at what several prominent environmentalists have to say in their
own words . . .

Christopher Manes, the editor of the Earth First! Journal writes "[T]he
biological meltdown is most directly the result of values fundamental to what
we have come to recognize as culture under the regime of technological
society: economic growth, "progress", property rights, consumerism, religious
doctrines about humanity's dominion over nature, [and] technocratic notions
about achieving an optimum human existence at the expense of all other life-
forms."

Lynn White, a professor of history at UCLA wrote: "men must not crowd
coyotes [or] try to exterminate locusts," because, he says: "we can sense our
comradeship with a glacier, a subatomic particle, or a spiral nebula," and
therefore, "We must extend compassion to rattlesnakes, and not just to koala
bears."

Paul Ehrlich, a prominent writer on population control in the Population
Bomb writes: "We must have population control...by compulsion if voluntary
methods fail."

Dave Foreman, a founder of the Earth First! movement and a former repre-
sentative for The Wilderness Society writes: "An individual human life has no
more intrinsic value than does an individual Grizzly Bear life. Human suffer-
ing resulting from drought in Ethiopia is tragic, yes, but the destruction there
of other creatures and habitat is even more tragic."

Kirkpatrick Sale, an "ecological historian" was quoted in the Washington Post
as saying Western civilization is "founded on a set of ideas that are fundamen-
tally pernicious, and they have to do with rationalism, humanism, materialism,
science, progress. These are to my mind just pernicious concepts."

David Graber is a research biologist with the National Park Service. In
Graber's Los Angeles Times review of Bill McKibben's book, "The End of
Nature" he wrote:

"Somewhere along the line -- at about a billion [sic] years ago, maybe half
that -- we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague
upon ourselves and upon the Earth . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens
should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to
come along."

                     --------------------------------

When I present this evidence and reasoning to friends and debating opponents,
a common reaction is "Oh sure, those guys are bad, but they are just on the
lunatic fringe. I'm no misanthrope, I just want clean air and clean water.
That's why I'm an environmentalist, not because I believe in all those radical
ideas." But aren't these "radicals" the ones who are leading influential envi-
ronmentalist groups? Writing books? Making speeches? Raising and spending
millions of dollars for environmentalist causes? Writing educational materials
for our children? Even so, the everyday environmentalists say "That's not
what *I* mean when I talk about environmentalism. I'm a moderate *and*
I'm an environmentalist. Why don't you talk about what moderate environ-
mentalists have to say?" Well, that's exactly what I would like to do this
evening. Let's look at what Senator Al Gore, someone moderate enough to be
elected vice-president of the United States, thinks is a proper response to the
environmental "crisis".

First, let's turn to the explanation Gore gives in his book "Earth In the
Balance: Ecology & the Human Spirit" of why we are in such a terrible
position in the first place. He essentially gives two reasons. First, that we
human beings and Western civilization are mentally ill.

On the one hand, we are individually "addicted" to civilization...

[p. 222]  "Industrial civilization's great engines of distraction still seduce us
          with a promise of fulfillment. Our new power to work our will
          upon the world can bring with it a sudden rush of exhilaration, not
          unlike the momentary "rush" experienced by drug addicts when a
          drug injected into their bloodstream triggers changes in the chemis-
          try of the brain."

That is because we are more interested in technology than in nature:

[p. 207]  "[F]ar too often, our fascination with technology displaces what
          used to be a fascination with the wonder of nature."

On the other hand Western civilization itself is "addicted" to technology...

[p. 220]  "I believe that our civilization is, in effect, addicted to the consump-
          tion of the Earth itself. This addictive relationship distracts us from
          the pain of what we have lost: a direct experience of our connection
          to the vividness, vibrancy, and aliveness of the rest of the natural
          world. The froth and frenzy of industrial civilization masks our
          deep loneliness for that communion with the world that can lift our
          spirits..."

How can addicts of civilization solve this problem?

[p. 225]  "Rather than distracting their inner awareness through behavior,
          addicts must learn to face the real pain they have sought to avoid.
          Rather than distracting their inner awareness through behavior,
          addicts must learn to face their pain -- feel it, think it, absorb it,
          own it. Only then can they begin to honestly deal with it instead of
          running away."

Notice that according to Gore, in order to even recognize that one is addicted,
one needs to accept the idea that one is making choices because of addiction,
rather than because of reason. Anyone who claims to make rational choices in
favor of technological civilization, must be mentally ill and therefore blind to
his illness. In fact, the only "solution" to this illness is for people to accept
that it is real despite the fact that there is no evidence of this technologically-
induced mental illness:

[p. 236]  "[Experts have shown] than the act of mourning the original loss
          while fully and consciously feeling the pain it has caused can heal
          the wound and free the victim from further enslavement."

So, anyone who claims not to feel this "psychic pain", is a wounded, enslaved
victim who can only be cured of this disease, which he doesn't know he has,
by adopting an environmentalist view of civilization, by mourning, and by
experiencing pain. Those who don't agree are mentally ill and are in need of
re-education and psychological help. This is reminiscent of the attitude of the
Soviet Union toward dissidents.

Gore's second explanation is that the prime mover of history is not philoso-
phy, necessity, money, religion, or great men, but the weather. He equivo-
cates about this considerably explaining that he really isn't saying that climate
is necessarily the most important factor in the course of civilization, but you
can decide what he really thinks. He attributes more historic events to weather
than I have time to recite, but I'll read you a few just to give you an idea of
where Gore is coming from. He says weather caused:

    Human evolution, p. 63
    Vanishing of the Minoan civilization, p. 58
    Mass disappearance of population in Scotland in 1150 BC, p. 58
    Cannibalism & failed harvests in China in 209 B.C. p. 59
    Migration of Indians to America, p. 61
    The rise of Mesopotamia and Jericho, p. 62, p. 103
    The rise of Egypt, p. 62
    End of northern bronze age, p. 64
    The invasion of Europe by germanics, p. 64
    Macedonian conquest of Greece, p. 64
    Alexander the Great's conquest, p. 64
    Expansion of Chinese civilization, p. 64
    Decline of the Mali civilization in West Africa, p. 65
    Disappearance of the Mycenaean civilization, p. 65
    Migration of bronze age people from Balkans, p. 65
    The collapse of Hittite civilization, p. 65
    The rise of Rome, p. 65
    The imperial nature of Roman civilization, p. 64
    The fall of Rome & Barbarian invasions, p. 64
    The fall of the Mayan civilization, p. 66,67,379
    The voyages of Leif Erikson & Eric the Red, p. 66
    French revolution, p. 59
    Napoleonic wars, p. 57
    Anti-semitic riots in Wurzburg, p. 57
    The European emigration to the United States, p. 71
    The rise of the modem bureaucratic state (including the New Deal), p. 73

    The renaissance and enlightenment, & individualism in politics, p. 68

If you still don't think that Gore considers weather to be the prime mover of
history, I suggest you read his book and look at the rest of the list I didn't
have time to recite.

Third, he explains that we as a civilization are a "dysfunctional family"
because we can't seem to give up on science and reason, a dreadful hang-up
according to Gore.

[p. 230]  "Like the rules of a dysfunctional family, the unwritten rules that
          govern our relationship to the environment have been passed down
          from one generation to the next since the time of Descartes, Bacon,
          and the pioneers of the scientific revolution some 375 years ago.
          We have absorbed these rules and lived by them for centuries
          without seriously questioning them. As in a dysfunctional family,
          one of the rules in a dysfunctional civilization is that you don't
          question the rules."

All of this addiction and dysfunctional interaction ultimately arises, according
to Gore from "psychic pain" [p. 219] which we experience because we are
separated from nature. This separation began with the invention of agriculture,
and is directly related to the use of knowledge in the creation of civilization.
Civilization keeps us "out of touch" with nature by creating artificial environ-
ments like homes and fields. Being "in touch with nature" apparently requires
the most primitive animal state of existence.

Another problem Gore cites is that we have too much information available to
us:

[p. 197]  "... rarely do we examine the negative impact of information on our
          lives..."

[p. 200]  "We have...automated the process of generating data -- with inven-
          tions like the printing press and computer -- without taking into
          account our limited ability to absorb the new knowledge thus creat-
          ed."

[p. 201]  "Vast amounts of information ultimately become a kind of pollu-
          tion."

So, we westerners and our civilization have been driven to insanity by too
much civilization, technology and information. What method does Gore
suggest we should use to understand our problem? He gives a long list of
methods: the Hindu method, the American Indian method, the Buddhist
method, the Christian method, the Baha'i method and others. All of these
methods, Gore tells us, will lead to the same conclusion...that civilization is a
failure, that technology doesn't work, and that we should give it all up for
some higher purpose. This theme is repeated in his book again and again in
regard to pesticides, fertilizers, mechanical trucks and plows, mass-produc-
tion, decorations, electronic communication, transportation, and the mass-
production of artwork. Gore bases this on some interesting and very scientific
premises:

[p. 244]  "Whatever is done to the Earth must be done with an awareness that
          it belongs to God."

[p. 243]  "From the biblical point of view, nature is only safe from pollution
          and brought into a secure moral relationship when it is united with
          people who love it and care for it."

His scientific analysis continues on:

[p. 244]  "...whatever verses are selected in an effort to lend precision to the
          Judeo-Christian definition of life's purpose, that purpose is clearly
          inconsistent with the reckless destruction of that which belongs to
          God and which God has seen as 'good'."

Now we arrive at the real enemy...human efficacy and achievement. The idea
that we can have what we want out of life is wrong according to Gore.

[p. 206]  "Technological hubris tempts us to lose sight of our place in the
          natural order and believe that we can achieve whatever we want."

To be more specific...

[p. 240]  "We have been so seduced by industrial civilization's promise to
          make our lives comfortable that we allow the synthetic routines of
          modern life to soothe us in an inauthentic world of our own mak-
          ing. Life can be easy, we assure ourselves. We need not suffer heat
          or cold; we need not sow or reap or hunt and gather. We can heal
          the sick, fly through the air, light up the darkness, and be enter-
          tained in our living rooms by orchestras and clowns whenever we
          like."

Apparently, Gore thinks that medicine, aircraft, heating, light bulbs and
agriculture are intrusions against God's creation. If God had meant us to be
mobile, healthy, well-fed, warm in the winter, and able to read at night, he
would have provided us with wings, disease-free bodies, heated caves, and
nite-lights. Since he didn't, it is wrong for us to provide them for ourselves.
That wasn't what God created and saw to be "good" .

But isn't environmentalism supposed to be a scientific ideology? If so, why
bother with the religious arguments? According to Gore, we can reconcile
science with religion in such a way as to allow religious revelation to inform
scientific opinion.

[p. 253]  "...science offers a new way to understand -- and perhaps begin
          healing -- the long schism between science and religion." ...and he
          goes on to explain that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle opens
          the way to allowing religion and science to coexist without contra-
          diction. Exactly how he proposes that this might be done, is not
          clear, but Gore really does think that religion can be used in place
          of science, and therefore that religion is a proper method for dis-
          covering the truth.

In a C-Span interview just after his book was published, Gore explained that
the source of the idea that civilization must be restrained is irrelevant. One
can justify that idea using science, religion, social solidarity, whatever you
like, as long as the conclusion is that we should renounce our civilization,
technology, and power over nature. Any method that does not create that
conclusion should be discarded.

The moral goal toward which that renunciation is to be directed is also
optional according to Gore. You can give up your comforts for the benefit of
the state, for your children, for your class, for the biosphere, for cute little
animals, or for God. What matters is that we use *some* method to arrive at
the conclusion that we should perform *some* acts of renunciation toward
*some* end other than ourselves. This is simple unadorned altruism. The
method of thought doesn't matter to Gore. The recipient of the sacrifices
doesn't matter either. What matters, and he said this literally over and over
again, is that we must sacrifice something, to anyone or anything, for any
reason.

As Ayn Rand said in "For the New Intellectual", p. 73, "It stands to reason
that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offer-
ings. Where there is service, there is someone being served. The man who
speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters. And he intends to be
the master."

To sum it up, the environment reigns supreme as a force in history. People
and civilization are insane, and we should rely on religious insights in order to
see this. We should choose some person, thing, or superstitious entity to
sacrifice ourselves for, and give up everything we can to accomplish this.
Anyone who selfishly refuses to do this is acting immorally because of his
mental illness.

                     --------------------------------

OK, that's the theory . . . lets look at the practice that follows from it.

Gore outlines two political programs in his book. The first is a "Global
Marshall Plan" by which the United States transfers billions of dollars to the
rest of the world to get them to adopt environmentally benign lifestyles. The
second is the SEI (Strategic Environment Initiative), the domestic counterpart
which will completely transform the domestic economy according to a plan of
environmentalist control. This pair of initiatives are, according to Gore,
designed to transfer the entire foundation of civilization from its current focus
on fulfilling individual human needs and desires toward one based on the
preservation of the world in its natural state.

[p. 269]  "I have come to believe that we must take bold and unequivocal
          action; we must make the rescue of the environment the central
          organizing principle of civilization."

[p. 270]  "Although it has never yet been accomplished on a global scale, the
          establishment of a single shared goal as the central organizing
          principle for every institution of society has been realized by free
          nations several times in modern history."

In other words, rather than being in the business of promoting the lives of
human beings, as it does now, civilization ought to primarily be in the
business of making it more difficult for human beings to extract values from
nature.

According to Gore, existing civilization is based on the fulfillment of human
wants and desires:

[p. 243]  "[O]ur civilization is built on the premise that we can use nature for
          our own ends."

and goes on to explain that this is contrary to religious dictates.

Civilization, Gore says, is wrong because it tries to do good things for people,
when it should be trying to do good things for Bambi instead and he knows
this because God told him so.

He explicitly calls for a change in the central organizing principle of civiliza-
tion to one which has as its goal the maintenance of the world in a wild state,
and he claims that the only way to accomplish this is by the establishment of a
world-wide pseudo-government which will control all of the human activities
which have any impact on the environment.

[p. 204]  "the people of all nations have begun to feel that they are part of a
          truly global civilization, united by common interests and concerns --
          among the most important of which is the rescue of our environ-
          ment. "

[p. 295]  "what's required now is a plan that combines large-scale, long-term,
          carefully targeted financial aid to developing nations, massive
          efforts to design and then transfer to poor nations the new technolo-
          gies needed for sustained economic progress, a worldwide program
          to stabilize world population, and binding commitments by the
          industrial nations to accelerate their own transition to an environ-
          mentally responsible pattern of life."

[p. 302]  "We must negotiate international agreements that establish global
          constraints on acceptable behavior but that are entered into volun-
          tarily -- albeit with the understanding that there will be both incen-
          tives and legally valid penalties for non-compliance."

This [p. 301] "framework of global agreements" Gore insists is not a govern-
              ment despite its binding nature and enforcement mechanisms
              and Gore assures us that our fear of such a delegation of sover-
              eignty to a global government is a guarantee that it couldn't
              possibly develop. Clearly he wants it both ways...to have a
              global government to manage the economies of the world but
              without it having any power. For what it is worth, the index of
              the book says that this page contains a discussion of "Post-
              nationalism" even though that word is never actually used...it is
              pretty obvious that is really what he is proposing here, a global
              environmentalist state.

As you might guess, this switch from the idea of the individual good to the
collective good involves a switch away from the idea of individual rights, and
toward the power of a universal government just like the ones proposed by the
other tyrannical ideologies.

[p. 278]  "we have tilted so far toward individual rights and so far away from
          any sense of obligation that it is now difficult to muster an adequate
          defense of any rights vested in the community at large or in the
          nation -- much less rights properly vested in all humankind or
          posterity."

With this anti-individual rights paradigm in hand, Gore can plan his domestic
policy. He can argue for it on the basis that his opponents are insane and
therefore need not be answered rationally. He can argue that religious deter-
mination is more important than individual rights. He can argue that people
ought to be prevented from using the Earth to improve their lives, and that all
of this follows from the desire for clean water and air.

He can base it on that same old kind of package deal: "Pollution is bad. We
are the people opposed to pollution. In order for pollution to be eliminated,
the people opposed to it must be given the power to violate individual rights.
After all, helping others is the moral ideal and that's all we are doing. Trust
us, we'll do it right this time."

Let's look at the Strategic Environment Initiative. Here is an outline of the
parts of the plan:
[p. 319-320]

    1.    Tax incentives for government-approved technologies and
          disincentives for those the government doesn't approve of.

    2.    Research and development funding for government-approved tech-
          nologies and bans for all those the government doesn't approve of.

    3.    Government purchasing programs for the new technologies.

    4.    Government promises of large profits in a market certain to emerge
          as older technologies are phased out.

    5.    The establishment of rigorous technology assessment centers which
          evaluate new technologies and determine whether they are "appro-
          priate".

    6.    The establishment of a network of training centers to create a core
          of environmentalist planners and technicians to control third world
          economies.

    7.    The imposition of export controls in developed countries to assess a
          technology's ecological effect and prevent all trade the government
          doesn't approve of.

    8.    The expansion of intellectual property rights to include genetic
          materials which will be the property of the governments where
          various species emerged.

This amounts to complete domination of the domestic economy by environ-
mentalist government agencies. It is quite consistent with Gore's proposal to
change the central organizing principle of civilization to be the preservation of
the world in a natural state. That being the case, individual rights, economic
efficiency, and human advancement must all be made subservient to environ-
mentalist dictates.

Gore doesn't believe that just dominating the lives of Americans is good
enough. He insists that the only way he can achieve his goals is through
coordinated global actions, through a global state with powers of economic
planning, technology approval, redistribution of income, and enforcement of
its demands. Of course, everyone will voluntarily cooperate with this, so no
violence will be necessary. "After all, helping others is the moral ideal, and
that is all we are doing."

Here are a few of his "strategic goals":

    1.    A comprehensive population control program, p. 311-314

    2.    A blur in what Gore calls the artificial distinction between hard and
          soft currencies in international trade, p. 344

    3.    The establishment of debt-for-nature swaps whereby poor countries
          have their debts forgiven in return for their promise to leave their
          resources untouched, p. 345

    4.    The establishment of a CO2 trading credit system with fewer and
          fewer credits being issued each year, p. 345

    5.    A change in the way GNP and productivity are calculated to include
          the use of natural resources to counteract the apparent creation of
          wealth when a resource is used to create goods, p. 346

    6.    A shift in the legal burden of proof from those who want to prove
          environmental harm to those who want to prove they are innocent,
          p. 341

This last is particularly ominous since it assumes that everyone is guilty of
crimes without proof, and with counterproof an impossibility because it is
impossible to prove a negative. We are to be considered guilty until proven
innocent of crimes which violate the central organizing principle of civiliza-
tion. What could be worse?

There are some additional ominous items in the joint Clinton-Gore campaign
book, "Putting People First" which are not in "Earth in the Balance." For
example:

    1.    A national identification card with a magnetic strip which will be
          required to gain access to government services such as medical
          care.

    2.    A national service corps where young people will serve the state in
          order to gain access to government services.

    3.    The establishment of a government-controlled national computer
          network linking every home, library, and classroom in the country.

    4.    A change in the corporate average fuel economy regulations from
          current 27.5 MPG to 40 MPG by the year 2000 and to 45 MPG by
          2015.

    5.    Massive spending on public transportation.

    6.    Opposition to use of nuclear power.

    7.    A national program to re-educate citizens to produce environmental-
          ly correct behavior.

Elsewhere in "Putting People First", we see proposals for government control
of other areas as well, including doctors, insurance companies, hospitals,
pharmaceutical companies, labor, transportation, education, energy produc-
tion, civilian R&D, the arts, political elections, day care, space exploration,
computer telecommunication, the housing market...have I left anything out?
The principle is clear. If the citizens are not doing what the wise managers of
the environment desire, there is no reason why the individual rights of the
people involved should get in the way. "In order for pollution to be eliminat-
ed, those opposed to pollution must be given the power to violate individual
rights. Trust us, we'll do it right this time."

What's that you say? You don't want government control of everything? You
don't want a global state whose central organizing principle is to thwart your
use of the earth to make your life better? You want the government to respect
your rights? Why, if that's what you want, you must want to drink polluted
water and breathe poisonous air! Remember, "Pollution is bad. Environmen-
talists are the people opposed to pollution. In order for pollution to be elimi-
nated, environmentalists must be given the power to violate individual rights.
After all, helping others is the moral ideal and that's all we are doing. Trust
them, they'll do it right this time."

The unstated argument here is that individual rights are incompatible with life,
and that respecting them will lead to death and suffering. Of course, if that
argument were to be addressed in this head-on way by the environmentalists,
they would have to make admissions they would prefer to avoid. Among
them, what individual rights actually are, that environmentalists are opposed
to individual rights, and that this is on the grounds that citizens are incompe-
tent to arrange their own affairs, and must turn to government bureaucrats for
orders. Free thought and free action are what individual rights exist to defend.
If they are forced to address the question, environmentalists have to admit that
they are opposed to free thought and free action and in favor of government
control of individual lives and property.

As we look at the history of the 20th century, we observe that the most
"toxic" thing present is not plutonium, dioxin, pesticide residues, or mercury.
These have at worst killed a few thousand people. Far more dangerous than
these are the things they combat: spoiled food, the winter cold, starvation, and
disease. Before the 20th century these were very wide-scale killers and
cripplers of human beings, and they have been in the 20th century where
modern technology was not available. But both of these hazards pale in
comparison to the hazards of political tyranny. Governments using ideological
package deals of the kind environmentalists present have killed hundreds of
millions and enslaved billions more. Even if there really are dangerous
environmental catastrophes looming on the horizon, abandoning technological
civilization, and granting the government (a world-wide one at that) the power
to violate individual rights is FAR more dangerous.

If anything, the environmentalists are worse than the Nazis, the Khmer
Rouge, and the Communists. At least the Nazis, Communists, and Khmer
Rouge were claiming *some* kind of human goal as the reason for their
activities. The environmentalists are explicitly promoting the idea that having
human needs and desires met is a bad thing.

I hope you can see by now that there can be no such thing as a "moderate
environmentalist" any more than there can be a "moderate Nazi", "moderate
communist" or a "moderate axe murderer". Anyone who grants moral support
to an ideology of this kind is helping to bring it into reality...not just the
"clean air part" or the "anti-poverty part" but the whole package deal, worm,
hook, and all.

So, what is the position of the leader of the Republican Party, George Bush,
on this? He says "I'm an environmentalist too... just a moderate one."
Unfortunately, Bush and many other conservatives think that the way to win
battles against those who want to violate individual rights is to leap out ahead
of the pack and show that they agree with every premise of the environmental-
ists, and to claim that their policies are every bit as severe as those of the
radicals.

Witness George Bush's recent performance at the Rio Earth Summit [June
1992]. Rather than pointing out the scientific faults of the environmentalist
cause, or pointing out the moral flaws in the idea that governments should
violate the rights of individuals, or pointing out the counterproductivity of
various environmental proposals, or simply staying away from the Earth
Summit entirely, he conceded every point immediately. He begged the
audience to believe that the Clean Air Act, the policies of the EPA, and a
myriad of other laws he has supported are as strong as the restrictions the
radical environmentalists wish to impose.

This is obviously false. Worse yet, by arguing this way, opponents of the
environmentalists, such as Bush is supposed to be, cannot hope to win. They
concede every important point before they even begin. They have swallowed
the environmental package deal hook, line and sinker.

In political life today, there are no anti-environmentalists. There are only
"pretend environmentalists" like Bush who pretend to be both pro- and anti-
environmentalist, and there are "moderate environmentalists" like Gore who
offer the public a dangerous package deal. This situation is not a good one.
We are not given a choice between environmentalism and anti-environmental-
ism, but between enthusiastic genuine environmentalism and weak-kneed "me-
too" environmentalism. It is heads-environmentalism and tails-environmental-
ism.

What conservatives like Bush lack is a rational philosophy to counter the
irrational philosophy of the environmentalists. At best, they simply offer no
philosophical alternative, and at worst, they offer a religious or emotional one
which (fortunately) they are shy about expressing. To combat a philosophy
one cannot use emotion or raw conviction as intellectual weapons. The
opponents of environmentalism are in desperate need of philosophical ideas.
What they need is a philosophical answer to the people like Al Gore who deny
free will in favor of climatological determinism. What they need is an answer
to those who deny reason in favor of religion, emotion, or social consensus as
a method of thought. What they need is an answer to those who deny the
objectivity of values in favor of intrinsic values based on some irrational
revelation. What they need is an answer to those who deny individual rights in
favor of collectivistic tyranny.

In short, what they need is an *intellectual* defense of their opposition of
tyranny. Without one, they will ultimately fail in their fight. What they need
is Objectivist philosophy.

For those of you who may not be familiar with Objectivism, I would like to
present to you the outlines of the Ojectivist point of view to help you under-
stand why such an intellectual foundation is necessary for an *intellectual*
defense of any ideas whether they are scientific, moral or political.

Obviously, I cannot in the few minutes remaining give a thorough exposition
of objectivist philosophy. What I can do is recommend that you read Ayn
Rand's books: "Atlas Shrugged", "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," and
"The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution." I also recommend
"Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" and "The Ominous Parallels" by
Leonard Peikoff. I also recommend Ayn Rand's novella "Anthem," it you
want to have a look at the kind of "in touch with nature" society these "mod-
erate" environmentalists propose.

Although I cannot give a complete exposition of Objectivism in the remaining
time, I will offer a brief outline:

There are 5 branches of philosophy, four of which are important in the
context we are examining:

    1.    Metaphysics - Which answers questions about the fundamental
          nature of reality.

    2.    Epistemology - Which deals with the nature of knowledge and the
          means by which it can be acquired.

    3.    Ethics - Which deals with questions regarding what choices one
          ought to make with that knowledge.

    4.    Politics - Which deals with issues of ethics in a social context.

Let's look briefly at each of these:

In metaphysics, some believe that the ultimate foundation of existence is one's
own mind and that there is no external reality. Others believe that it is the
collective mind of society which is the source of existence. For others, it is
the mind of God, and for others, there is simply no reality and no way to
know anything about it if it did exist. The objectivist view is that reality *is*
the foundation of existence. Objectivism says that *External reality exists
independent of the mind.*

In epistemology, there are many who believe intuition, religious revelation,
social consensus, or word games are the means by which knowledge can be
acquired. Others deny that knowledge of the real world is possible by any
means. The objectivist position is that human beings possess free will and can
choose to use a process of reason and science on information presented by the
senses in order to achieve knowledge of reality. Objectivism says that *reason
allows knowledge of existence.*

In ethics, many believe that people should make their choices of action based
on what would benefit the race, the class, the nation, one's neighbor, God, or
the ecosystem. Others claim that any kind of ethical principle is naive and that
one ought to act on the expediency of the moment. The objectivist position is
that one ought to make choices which are to one's rational self-interest.
Objectivism says that *rational choices of action are those which are consistent
with one's self-interest.*

In politics, many people believe that the proper role of government is to plan
the lives of individuals, to do the will of the majority, to serve the will of
God, to serve the interests of the powerful, to serve the interests of the weak,
to maximize the common good, or to preserve nature against human intru-
sions. The objectivist position is that the proper purpose of the government is
to protect the rights of individuals by outlawing the initiation of force and
fraud from human affairs. Objectivism says that *the rational way to live in a
social context is by the principle of individual rights.*

To review:
    External reality exists independent of the mind.
    Reason allows knowledge of existence.
    Rational choices of action are those which are consistent with one's self-
    interest.
    The rational way to live in a social context is by the principle of individu-
al rights.

The objectivist political message is this: "The initiation of force is bad. In
order for the initiation of force to be eliminated, the government must protect
the individual rights of every citizen and never violate these rights itself. After
all, rational self-interest is the moral ideal, and that is the source of the idea
that individuals have rights." This is different from the tyrannical ideologies in
that it doesn't demand that people renounce the control of their lives to the
government. It demands that the government renounce the violation of rights
and prevent others from doing so as well. This provides the kind of environ-
ment where individuals are free to solve their problems, economic, personal,
environmental, and otherwise.

You cannot mix and match these positions. It you believe that the foundation
of reality is social consensus, how could you conclude that individuals have
inalienable rights? Maybe next week there will be a poll in which most people
deny individual rights.

It you believe that reality cannot be known, how can you conclude that one
course of action is actually better than any other?

It you conclude that serving God is the ethical ideal, how can you consistently
defend a secular government? What if God demands theocracy? What if God
changes his mind?

Just as the objectivist ideas of reality, reason, egoism, and individual rights
are consistent with one another, so are theism, skepticism, irrationalism,
altruism, and tyranny. If you are consistent (and most people are not) you will
ultimately have to choose between these incompatible systems of ideas.

At any point in the philosophical hierarchy, objectivism answers the argu-
ments of environmentalists that the "me-tooism" of the kind Bush exemplifies
cannot.

In metaphysics, the environmentalists claim that the ground of existence is
anything but reality, and that allows them to turn away from the facts when it
suits them. Objectivism claims that reality is a primary which cannot be
ignored or wished away.

In epistemology, environmentalists claim that religion, intuition, and tradition
just are as valid as reason and science. Objectivism counters this with an
insistence on observation and reason. Each position flows from the previous
metaphysical premises. A conservative who agrees that reality is not a prima-
ry, but a matter of social consensus, religion, or intuition, cannot consistently
adopt a pro-scientific position and will have to slug it out in the
epistemological free-for-all that results when one's ideas have no firm ground
to stand on.

In ethics, environmentalists claim that trees and animals have "intrinsic
value." How do they know? They "feel it", or God has told them so. Without
a rational epistemology, how can such claims be discredited? A conservative
who agrees that non-rational methods of thought are valid cannot consistently
accuse environmentalists of flaws in the way they determine what has value
and why. He has thrown away every tool that could have disproven the ethical
claims of the environmentalists.

In politics, environmentalists claim that the government knows best how to
organize society and that individuals ought to be forced to conform to the
demands of the government as long as the world is being maintained in a
natural state. They claim that people have no rights if the government consid-
ers itself to have a good reason to violate them. A conservative who simply
asserts the existence of rights (using some equally flawed epistemology based
on emotion, intuition, tradition, or revelation) can't even explain what rights
are. His arguments are just as weak as those of the environmentalists. They
typically amount to nothing more than appeals to emotion. Such arguments are
only empty shells. Their foundation has been undercut by a lack of any
intellectual foundation in ethics.

Finally, when the environmentalists claim that this or that law ought to be
passed or that this or that industry ought to be attacked and destroyed, the
conservatives show their bankruptcy. They have no intellectual arguments with
which to combat such laws. They are reduced to pathetic me-tooism rather
than a principled opposition. They have no principles and nothing to build
them out of.

How have large business concerns reacted to this onslaught? No better than
the politicians, I am afraid. They have pumped millions of dollars into
environmentalist groups, and into their own ad campaigns that promote their
products as being ecologically beneficial. They hope that by doing this, they
will get the environmentalists to leave them alone. They are just as wrong as
the supposed opponents of environmentalism in government. They too need an
intellectual defense of their existence and of their freedom, and without one,
they will continue answering attacks with bribes rather than with moral
condemnation.

So, how can one fight against this ideology once one concludes that it is
tyrannical?

If you are a part of the political process as either an intellectual, a politician,
or a voter, you need to take sides. A "moderate" position is no more accept-
able against environmentalist tyranny than against Nazi or Communist tyran-
ny. It you are a businessman, you must stop sanctioning your destroyers. Stop
supporting environmentalist groups with donations. Stop advertising your
products as "recyclable". Stop any support of the environmental movement
that may encroach on your work. Lastly, if you are a student, parent, or a
teacher, work to restore a sound science curriculum to your school. If there
are environmentalist materials in your curriculum, complain about them.
Learning about science is important, learning environmentalist pseudo-science
is not, and every hour wasted discussing the apocalypse of the month is time
that could have been spent studying important things like literature, science,
history, and math. Youth is too important to waste on pseudo-scientific
propaganda.

                          --------------------------------

When citizens are presented with a tyrannical ideology, they can either accept
the package deal and suffer the consequences or recognize it for the trap it is
and reject it. Germany, Russia, and Cambodia failed to do so, and suffered
the horrible consequences we have all seen.

It you were a fisherman, you might offer advice to nearby fish along the
following lines: "Worms taste good. This tidbit contains a worm. In order for
you to benefit from the worm, you have to swallow it all the way down. After
all, eating is the most important thing fish do, and that's all I'm suggesting.
Don't look too closely, it'll be tasty this time." I hope I have helped to
cleared the way for you to see that environmentalism is a worm on a hook. I
urge you not to take the bait.

Thank you.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
