Tuesday, February 06, 2007

When having faith is a bad thing...

While haunting Wikipedia, I stumbled upon this essay by Dr. Michael Crichton.

In it, he argues that environmentalism is a substitute for Judeo-Christian thinking wrapped in a tortilla of socially acceptable feel-goods.
"There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe."


He then proceeds to once again knock down all the precepts we've been spoon fed as "truth".

An interesting point he raised is about how ridiculous it is for us in the Western world to have glorified "nature", never having seen it's viciousness or callous disregard for all forms of life.

"Nature" has never been anything but an ugly, murderous mix of the stronger preying on the weaker until the weaker has been dominated or the stronger is temporarily placated (I.E. "I'm full").
" And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them."

At what point does a commonly held idea become religion? When it takes faith to believe in it? Ironically, that would make Atheism and Agnosticism religions as well.

Is it simply a set of instruction? I tend to think that when it crosses the line to guiding and dictating your actions and how you live your life, you have made that idea into your religion.

By putting the environment as the forefront of all things, we have made it a god, and worship daily. We accept social change blindly in the name of "the environment".
We ban chemicals that can help our fellow man in third world countries because the royal priests of environmentalism have decried them as bad, and a book was made in the 1970s. Never mind that they never were a threat to either nature or man. The most despicable part is that those attempting to ban DDT knew it was not harmful when they attempted to outlaw it.

We turn the stewardship of forests over to those that in the name of conservation and fire prevention, set change into motion from which the forests will never recover in their current incarnation.

We attempt to change ourselves to create a fictional, static environment that we think we have lost, ignoring the fact that nature around us will change with or without our interaction. A magnetic reversal of the poles is already underway, the Sahara desert is shrinking, the Antarctic ice sheet is growing and getting thicker, the hole in the ozone is shrinking, etc. You'd think that scientists would be questioning this.
"...because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakable belief."

But shouldn't study of environment be based on science? You'd think environmentalism would be moved from a state of mind to a scientific study. But you'd be wrong.

From Forbes' article "Clean and Green":
"Global revenues from clean technology, broadly defined, nowsurpass $150 billion a year, according to the Cleantech Venture Network, a for-profit membership group that connects venture and institutional investors with entrepreneurs."

So it's a multi-billion dollar industry.

And it's not just industry. Universities have been corrupted with the infusions of cash. $20 billion as a conservative number.

Be sure to read the Crichton article. In it, he suggests a plan to eliminate the religious aspects of environmentalism and get it back to hard science.
In the interest of starting anew, I suggest a term for those who choose to ignore the emotions, politics, and religious overtones of the study of the environment:
Terralogy. The scientific study of Earth.

No comments: