Monday, November 19, 2007
Paul Driessen calls for "all-out war against malaria" at Spiked Online, and describes how such a war ought to be waged, but not before he makes the following observation -- and comes closer than any other mainstream commentator to saying outright that environmentalism is anti-man:
If an accident kills wildlife or people, punishment is meted out and restitution made. A host of regulators, lawyers, judges, activists, journalists and politicians help bring the wrongdoers to justice.This is a direct result of the altruistic morality espoused by these "ethics cops", who see the sacrifice of human beings to nature as a moral ideal, and this omission weakens the piece, because it is this morality which must be challenged before significant progress against environmentalism can be made.
But when it comes to policies and programmes that sicken and kill millions of parents and children a year, these ethics cops and eco-warriors are not just silent. They refuse to hold government agencies and activist groups to the same honesty and accountability standards they apply to for-profit companies. They even oppose programmes that would reduce disease and save lives.
Nevertheless, unlike so many similar pieces, usually by economists or libertarians, that fail to even attempt to make a moral argument against socialism, this piece at least tries. Many people do implicitly value their own lives, and feel sufficient good will towards others that they will find the sacrifice of children to wildlife unconscionable. For that reason, the piece conveys a level of indignation missing from similar pieces, which will make the facts therein speak more forcefully than is usual for such pieces.
This is a must-read, particularly for those of us who do understand the immorality of self-sacrifice.