The Environmentalists' Goal

Noodlefood and the New Clarion recently featured some horrific examples concretizing the true goal of the environmentalist movement. I agree with their comments, and urge you to watch the video posted at Noodlefood.

But I also find it interesting to note that, while there are many similarities between the environmentalist movement and religions, in some cases environmentalists are actually more consistent (and thus perhaps more dangerous).

For example, it doesn't really make sense that a supposedly "all powerful" god would need weak and impotent humans fawning over him. Environmentalists recognize this contradiction, such that their god (Gaia) has no such need. Hence they're quite happy to simply get rid of us all.

And as an aside, these examples highlight why an ethics much confront the question: "what is the good?". Altruists essentially evade it, in a certain way making their position the weakest; religionists answer: "that which our god wants", and environmentalists answer: "untouched wilderness".

Ayn Rand, of course, answered:

"All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil."

She then went on to define the standard of value as:

"That which is required for the survival of man qua man”.

And elaborated that:

“Man’s survival qua man” means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice.