The Environmentalism movement would have you believe that its critics want to kill the planet. It is a unique individual that wishes to live in a dying toxic world devoid of nature. I have yet to meet any such person - although the closest I’ve come are some radical environmentalists themselves, who often choose to live in the sterile, paved downtown areas of overdeveloped cities, far removed from nature.
From these abiotic bubbles of apartments and “dog parks,” they then heap scorn on suburbanites, commuters, farmers, oilmen, rednecks, hunters, fishermen, miners, loggers, and other assorted villains and yahoos who actually live out there where all that nature that the environmentalists claim to love so much actually exists.
For many, environmentalism is not a consequence of a love of nature so much as a justification of their hatred of much of mankind. “Defenders of Wildlife” sounds so much better than “misanthropes.”
Mankind, in the radical environmentalists’ worldview, is a bad thing.
This is seen most clearly the movements attitude toward reproduction: children are a problem, a population bomb set to destroy the world, a Malthusian indulgence to be had in small numbers, late in life - if at all.
And that’s the mainstream environmental belief; to see the cutting edge of the movement all one has to do is read a piece in last week’s Daily Mail (U.K.), entitled (informatively, if not succinctly), “Meet the women who won’t have babies - because they’re not eco friendly.”
The article profiles at length two British Women, Toni Vernelli, a vegetarian animal rights activist and an employee of an environmentalist non-profit, and Sarah Irving, an employee of the Ethical Consumer green shopping guide, who doesn’t own a car, recycles, uses low energy light bulbs, never flies, and eats only organic locally produced food.
Both women view children as bad, bad, bad.
Vernelli has had herself surgically sterilized because she is worried about the future of life on Earth. She’s so worried about it that before getting herself spayed, she aborted one little piece of future life on Earth, her own unborn child. Vernelli explains this highly ethical decision: “it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.
"I've never felt a twinge of guilt about what I did, and have honestly never wondered what might have been.
"After my abortion, I was more determined than ever to pursue sterilisation.”
You see, the problem with her baby is that it would have grown up to be a human - and what are they like according to Vernelli? “Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
Egad! These “persons” sound positively horrible. Can’t we develop some sort of aerial spraying program to rid ourselves of them before it’s too late?
Not only are persons who are born bad, but the people who give birth to these bad born persons do so for horrid reasons. “Having children is selfish, “ says Vernelli, “it’s all about maintaining your own genetic line at the expense of the planet.”
I couldn’t agree more. Every really selfish person I know has like twelve kids.
Why just the other day, as I was sitting, unbathed and exhausted, in the kitchen selfishly riding herd on three screaming children, all of whom were simultaneously demanding that I continue my genetic line by providing them with juice boxes, goldfish crackers, hairbows, wardrobe changes, sno-cones, candy, lunch, water, DVDs, computer assistance, reading assistance, diaper changes, judicial intervention, and “milkey, he-a-uh” (milk, heated up), I thought to myself, “Man, am I selfish!”
“We want Mommy!” the genetic line demanded. “I TOLD YOU MOMMY IS SHOPPING!” I retorted selfishly, “I’m all you got today.” And that made me selfishly happy, knowing that I had the indulgences for another two hours before Mommy got home from her selfless shopping expedition. In pure selfish bliss, I thought about my poor childless friends, as I ate cold turkey and dressing with an undersized SpongeBob spoon, because every other utensil in the house was dirty, thanks to the genetic line. But I digress.
The second woman in the article, Irving, had a similar philosophy to Vernelli, except that rather than being spayed, she had found a compliant man and had him neutered. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again here: any man who can be talked into having a vasectomy by a woman, should just go ahead and have the Doctor remove everything, because the vas deferens wasn’t attached to much in the first place. But I digress. (Vernelli had her first husband fixed, but his sterilization somehow lost its power to keep her free of unborn persons after she left him. Of course, he’s still sterile.)
Vernelli and Irving are not unique. Both had no trouble finding men to neuter, and describe knowing numerous other eco-greenies with similar beliefs. “The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement” even has a website and a motto “Live Long and Die Out.” Note the “live long” part. None of these selfless people wants to deny themselves life - just deny it to others.
But don’t think I am critical of the eco-sterility cause. For once, I have found a leftist movement that I totally agree with. Leftist should not breed under any circumstances. If we can get 100% compliance on this point, we’re just one generation away from a better world. I think it’s fair to say that Vernelli and her kind are absolutely correct: the fewer children they have, the better.
It amuses me greatly that the greatest political proponents of evolutionary theory today, western leftists, are about to be its most recent victims. I can assure you that no species, no group, no community has ever successfully evolved childlessness as one of its defining characteristics. The dinosaurs and the Shakers tried, but for some reason they’re not around today to share their wisdom on the subject.
By contrast, social conservatives the world over, many of whom reject or question evolution as a theory, are all set to be the theory’s great winners, since they maintain the traditional love of family. But then it doesn’t matter who believes Mr. Darwin. It just matters who has kids. The future belongs to those who send descendants there.
The future will not belong to those that commit evolutionary suicide because they are fretting overly about their carbon footprint. It is safe to say, therefore, that the future will not belong to sterile vegan animal rights activist environmental patients.
Whew! One less thing to worry about.
