Orbiting Mass of Dirt and Rock in the Balance

To print this article, select file from your browser's menu, then select print.

Orbiting Mass of Dirt and Rock in the Balance
by Jules Varwig

"Earth First!" and "Save the Earth!": These two slogans are a large and representative sample of the environmental movement's reasoning. At first blush, this nugget of bumper sticker wisdom sounds reasonable to many people. Who could disagree with maintaining our planet of residence? Well, lots of slogans sound good to the casual ear. The question is how well do they stand up to the discerning ear?

"Save the Earth": Taken by itself, we must assume this means save the Earth from whatever would despoil it. The environmental camp never seems to mention that the Earth is in much danger from snail darters, wolverines or yucca trees, so we must assume that the despoiler they are concerned with is the human species. The goal is to save the Earth from people. To what end?

Perhaps there is a clue in the tandem slogan, "Earth First." Only two words here and the meaning is pretty clear. It's simply another admonishment to spare trees and not wear leopards, right? No, if the Earth does indeed come first, then that would mean everything else occupies a lower place in the hierarchy. If we subscribe to "Earth First" and also subscribe to "Save the Earth", then we must be saving the Earth for its own sake. In fact, that is exactly the idea espoused by the no-compromise environmental organization (conveniently named) Earth First. Their literature claims that the Earth has an intrinsic value "without consideration for any real or imagined value to human civilization."

If we are going to look at this orbiting mass of dirt and rock in that manner then, short of us setting off an explosion big enough to turn it into another asteroid belt, there is nothing we can do to destroy it. Besides which, remnant or recurrent superstitious nonsense to the contrary, an orbiting ball of rock cares not a whit whether it is a coherent whole or reduced to pebbles and space dust. We might as well shout "Mars First" and buy bumper stickers that admonish our fellow travelers to "Save the Red Planet" if the self interest of humans isn't going to enter into the equation. "Earth First" is simply ludicrous.

Are we saving the Earth so that spotted owls may enjoy their due rights? It's a fine idea but any concept of rights for owls vanishes in the absence of humans sufficiently concerned with owls' happiness. The only rational answer to why we are saving the Earth is that we are saving it for ourselves. But, if that is the case, we must mean to utilize it to our benefit. The proper companion slogan to "Save the Earth" would be "People First".

Of course the radical environmentalists save their most vehement rhetoric for those who would maintain that humans have a right to utilize the resources available to them. Human beings can have no place within their rhetoric. In the environmental Newspeak, and its companion dialect, Animal Rights Gibberish, miners become rapists, loggers thieves, and connoisseurs of hamburgers ghouls. As for those who serve the hamburgers? PETA president Ingrid Newkirk says, (with a straight face, I presume) "...Ronald McDonald isn't a clown, he's a murderer."

The rank and file of the movement tend to be confused souls more in tune with the Disney version of nature than anything rooted in reality. Their elite leadership, though, are wild eyed zealots who tip their hand when they invoke the "Earth First" slogan. The cards they are holding are four: 1) considering human beings as something less than human; 2) forcing individuals to bend to the will of a subjectively determined collective; 3) placing themselves in the elitist position of determining everyone else's interests; and 4) demonizing those who would oppose their schemes.

I appreciate trees. They provide shade in the summer and are easy on the eyes. I know all about how they are a source of oxygen, and when properly whittled they provide a fantastic raw material for building and furnishing our abodes.

I like animals. As pets they can be companionable creatures, they are endearing and entertaining when employed in a circus, the ones that swim in the lakes and oceans provide great sport when played on a light line, and many of them taste just fine when fried, stewed, baked or broiled.

I am in awe of our Earthly environment. It is here for our use, and common sense dictates that we use it wisely, and use it to further our self interest.

But those who place more value on the location where people live than they do on people embrace a philosophy more people-hating than nature-loving. They would sacrifice any number of individuals to their perception of common good.