Perhaps some of my readers think I exaggerate when I compare modern environmentalism to the murderous communist movements of the 20th century. An article in today's American Thinker makes me realize that David Suzuki's off hand comment about reducing the world's population by half is now mainstream thinking. To that end a study has been done by the Carnegie Institution. Ah, the Carnegie Institution. Wasn't that originally financed by Andrew Carnegie with the goal of building libraries in every town in North America so that the average person could educate himself? We have one of those libraries in Victoria. It's not a library anymore, but it's a fine looking building... as are all the Carnegie libraries. Plain and functional buildings were not sufficient for Mr. Carnegie. He wanted to add beauty to them as well. Philanthropy is a word meaning love of man, and Mr. Carnegie, having spent much of his life accumulating wealth reached a certain age and decided to give it all away. He was a classic philanthropist.
I wonder what he would think if he knew what the charity he founded was up to at the dawn of the 21st century. Philanthropists no more, the mot juste to describe his successors is misanthropic, which means hater of mankind. You see, for environmentalists mankind is a curse on the earth, a destructive parasite. And so Genghis Khan, a spiritual ancestor of Mao, whose depredations allegedly killed forty million people, is now a hero to these environmentalists. Why? Because nobody was left to till the fields in the regions he conquered and so reforestation occurred. This was much better than the Black Death (which is estimated to have killed half the population of Europe) because the Black Death happened too quickly. There wasn't time for the rotting corpses to completely decompose and stop giving off those horrid greenhouse gases. But Genghis Khan had a long career and so the corpses had lots of time to dry out.
This is the kind of thinking that comes out of our universities these days- Stanford, in this case, headed by one Julia Pongratz. You know the nice thing about about having women free to advance in the professions is that we need their warm and nurturing presence. The good news that war and death are good for the planet has quickly spread a lot of good cheer among the environmental "community." Of course, when they contemplate mass die-offs, they only imagine them happening to us little people, not to them. They, after all, are the enlightened ones, the wise guardians of the planet.
For them, the gulags, the Holocaust, the Great Leap forward, Pol Pot's regime, were all beneficial. As for the 50,000,000 babies killed since 1973, why that's just a trifle, and corpses that small don't give off much in the way of emissions. What's not to like?
One has to wonder how a totally bogus theory of climate change came to be so enthusiastically embraced by our academics and the media types who believe in them, even to the verge of advocating for the death of large swaths of mankind. The question I ask myself is if they are environmentalists (or communists or abortionists) first and develop their murderous proclivities later, or if people who are inclined to murder are opportunists who see ready made justifications in these ideologies.
This is hard for me to understand. Everywhere I look I see beauty. I was at one time attracted to environmentalism for that reason. But while there is beauty there is also ugliness and foulness, just as there is truth and there are lies. It's really important that we learn the difference.