Yesterday I found a debate that I found interesting, a debate between liberty and ecology. This debate sparked because of a quote by Mayer Hillman a senor fellow emeritus for the Policy Study Institute saying basically that totalitarism is better then extinction. That in fact if people did not want to take the measure to solve the environmental problem they should be forced to do so. I think that there is a lot of potential there for conflicting worldview to collide and for people to be in denial of what they value. For example, I’m betting that many of my reader would say that it is a not a bad thing to impose environmentally friendly method to society particularly if it means death for humanity and all life on Earth not to do so. Most if not all of the same people would however argue that it would be immoral for humanity to escape an eventual extinction by colonizing the solar system and the universe.
I think that it shows a strange thing, that some people value “nature” over humanity, “nature” over freedom, hell “nature” over life. I’ve heard people say that if humanity is the cause of the Earth problem the solution is to kill off humanity. As if humanity and “nature” where two completely distinct thing, as if “nature” was only Earth, as if “nature” was only life on Earth as if “nature” was something holy and humanity a monstrosity in the universe. The argument that “nature” is something greater then humanity and that we own it something is weird. Humanity is the product of and a part of nature, a product that apparently can drastically alter nature itself but even completely altered or “destroyed” by humanity it remains natural. For all our talk of humanity ability to destroy the natural world we should consider that everywhere we though life did not exist on Earth, we have found life. Everywhere we though our pollution had made life impossible, we have found life. Life is amazingly more resilient that we give it credit for.
There is also the value of intelligence that we should consider, what is something worth without someone that can appreciate it worth? You might have the most beautiful light show in the universe but if no one can perceive light what is it? Can we really say it exists and if we can how? Maybe we are wrong and every living thing can see the beauty of “nature” and the universe and it is just our ego that makes us thing otherwise but once again does it really matter if we are gone?
Finally, there is the idea that free determination is the problem of humanity, which I think is the main point of the quotation. A large enough number of people cannot understand what some consider as reason and as such they must be forced to follow the rule of an enlighten minority. I once said on this blog that I am very worried whenever someone tells me something is for my protection, or for my own good and this is exactly what this is. Some people think they would be doing me a favor by forcing me to do thing their way. This seems to have a lot more to do with controlling humanity then it as with protecting the environment. It as the typically trapping of using fear to get people to give you power over them…