Protecting Society from Environmentalism
a presentation of an alternative approach

by John Jacobson

Responses to this article.


I want to defend society and its inhabitants against all ideologies--Environmentalism included.1 Environmentalists promulgating their doctrine as truth, have with too little resistance from the left, advocated an expensive, masochistic and irrational agenda so successfully that now Environmental laws enforce productive inefficiency, Environmental guilt compels inconvenient habits and Environmental "thinking" taught in schools contributes to a process of indoctrination which discourages critical thought. Environmentalism is so successful that it renders viable alternatives virtually unthinkable. This is power. And such power combined with epistemological and moral arrogance should set off our nonsense detectors. Whenever any group claims it knows the Truth and demands that we act in accordance, we should ask questions. As it turns out, Environmentalism is not a rational response to the current state of affairs, but rather constitutes a value laden ideology, as arbitrary as idol worship, that is harmful to a society which has no recourse to alternatives. Here I will provide an alternative in order to disrupt the Environmental monopoly on public sentiments.
As of now Environmentalists claim the upper hand against two unpopular foils: Ignoramusism and Don’t-Give-a-Fuckism. Both views, though unpopular, sport virtues and costs, and are deserving of elaborate charitable presentations, but here I’ll merely sketch the most extreme versions of both. The first as advocated by Rush Limbaugh and others of similar breed, denies that society is destroying the biosphere. They dispute evidence and act as if it weren’t there. The "earth is robust," they proclaim. "Forests, water, air--we got plenty of that--burgers, factories and really fast cars are what we need... and condos too," may constitute a motto sung to the McDonald’s theme. Don’t-Give-a-Fuckism is without active spokespeople, but in apathetic murmurs it maintains "who cares." Both views contradict one of the two popular propositions that, barring concerns for immediate dangers and the maintenance of biodiversity2, supposedly compel the Environmental outlook:

P1: Contemporary industrialized and post-industrial societies are destroying the biosphere and rendering the planet uninhabitable to humans and other species.
P2: We must not inflict suffering on innocent, future generations.

P1 is the dull news Limbaugh suppresses and P2 is reminiscent of the cliche Native American motto "We must think seven generations ahead" Don’t-Give-a-Fuckists cannot commit to. Environmentalists would have us believe that these propositions alone constitute an argument for their program. But closer scrutiny reveals that the Environmental case is as weak and as value laden as a Branch Davidian’s. The two premises are consistent with at least one other alternative, Endism. Endists, in considering P2, realize that there are at least two ways to avoid inflicting suffering on future generations. We can, as the Environmentalists insist, pursue the painful dismantling of our industrial infrastructure and submit to their tyranny, or remove the subjects of suffering. Endists advocate ceasing reproduction. As the last generation Endists entitle themselves to the right to live well, and only concern themselves with the most immediate environmental concerns--particularly those that will have an impact over the next eighty years. Endists are as committed to P1 and P2 as the Environmentalists, but prefer Endism to Environmentalism because it allows for more liberty, and less inconvenience. The Endist motto is, "What did your great-grandchildren do for you?"
The motto is catchy, but should not be misread. Endists pride themselves on not confusing the rights of potentially living and actually living beings. This is in sharp contrast to Environmentalists who exploit our parental instincts and demand obedience to their insane leadership as ransom for nonexistent future generations. But as hard as I try to depict Environmentalism as the odd, irrational view that it is and Endism as a viable alternative, some readers may still find Endism unpalatable, perhaps even revolting, for reasons still in the gut or some already articulated. Below are the sketches of rebuttals to three objections.

1) The Humanist Objection: Endism is misanthropic. Humans should strive to persist forever, not accelerate their own demise. Any view which advocates civilization’s suicide should be rejected along with other self-destructive notions.
Rebuttal: Endists find this objection triply flawed. First, Endists recognize that this objection is based on the immodest and unfounded assertion that humans have as their rightful destiny perpetual existence, and, it would seem, the eventual colonization of the universe. Second, since it seems clear to many that humanity won’t go on living forever, isn’t it best that we go out in dignity--partying? Third, there is nothing misanthropic about enjoying the twentieth century lifestyle. Easy jet travel, cheap consumer goods, vast foodstuff selection and magical pharmaceuticals are wonderful. The truly misanthropic program is Environmentalism which pushes a masochistic ascetic agenda. Living like a Buddhist monk or a third world pauper is no fun.
2) The All or None Objection: In order for Endism to work everyone would have to commit to it. Since that will never happen, no one should abandon Environmentalism and become an Endist.
Rebuttal: Arguments of this form are almost always used to justify the status quo, but in this case the bad argument does not even apply. Endism no more requires universal cooperation than Environmentalism. As long as fewer people reproduce, there will be more resources for surviving future generations; and, most crucially, since every Endist assists in decreasing the amount of progeny, the total suffering is dramatically decreased. If this summing of individual sufferings seems odd, recall that it is a cornerstone commitment of American society and Environmentalism. The sixty-five mile an hour speed limit kills two thousand more people a year than an fifty-five mile an hour speed limit, but it’s a drag for all of America to slow down for them. Environmentalists in the Northwest are infamous for creating unemployment, which leads to crime, and demanding modifications of construction projects which endanger workers. Summing sufferings is common practice, and if morally objectionable, it is a cost of both Environmentalism and Endism. Since this is not a critique of Utilitarianism, I will not dwell on it any further.
3) The Value Judgment Objection: The desire to reproduce is better than the desire to pollute, if they are conflicting people should opt to reproduce. How could anyone choose material comfort over children? How could that be right?
Rebuttal: This objection like the others is easily managed once unpacked. First, we need to realize that this argument appeals to a value judgment, "the desire to reproduce is better than the desire to pollute." Is this true? Not everyone agrees so. As stated it seems as if only the most heartless would conclude that "material wealth is better than children," but really there is more to it. Many people choose not to have children, because they can not afford it. They won’t starve and neither would their children, but they are unwilling to make the sacrifice. That’s hardly heartless, and constitutes the Endist position. Endists conclude that the demands of Environmentalism are too taxing, and so the only known way to remain morally upright, committed to P1 and P2, involves preventing themselves from reproducing. Second, we must take care not to be seduced by the question, "Would this be right?." Here again the Environmentalist confuses the rights of the living with the rights of the not living. We have no obligation to reproduce.
Everybody knew Environmentalism was expensive, but we endured because Environmentalists insisted it was the right rational thing to do. This is clearly false. No sound argument compels the Environmental dogma, epitomized by the Trinity, "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." The best argument for Environmentalism is consistent with at least one other alternative, Endism. An alternative, that once fleshed out, seems more appealing, primarily because it entails less hardship at no moral cost. To those so inspired that they wish to establish Endist societies, please remember to keep an open mind. Endism developed out of a desire to overthrow a tyrant, not replace it with a worse one. There may be alternatives, yet undiscovered, better than both Endism and Environmentalism3.

Endnotes:
1Stylistically, this sentence is a reworked version of Paul Feyerabend’s introduction to "Defending Society Against Science," 1975. His influence pervades this article.
 2An essay on Biodiversity is forthcoming.
3Copyright 1996 by John Jacobson