Environmentalism, in the name of protecting endangered species, has led the government to stopping activities that are beneficial to human beings. We are told to sacrifice human life, our lives, to those of fish, birds, trees and rats — to value nature above ourselves. In this way, environmentalism is turning man into this country's most endangered species.
Imagine you are a farmer who depends on water from a nearby reservoir. The government knows this but cuts off your supply in the name of saving some fish. You suffer severe damages to crops and livestock — but are told that the fishes' "interests" supersede yours.
A tall fish tale? No, it actually happened in 1992 to several Oregon farmers who depend on water from the Klamath Irrigation Project near the Oregon — California border. The government was enforcing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect the Shortnose Sucker and the Lost River Sucker, at a cost to the farmers of $75 million.
The Sucker fish is but one of countless examples of the ESA being used to block productive activities — i.e., activities beneficial to people — such as farming, forestry, and hydroelectric power. The Northern Spotted Owl became famous when timber production was virtually halted in the Northwest to protect the species. Near Bakersfield, California, a farmer was arrested in 1994 by Fish and Wildlife officers for inadvertently killing five Tipton kangaroo rats while plowing his own field. His tractor and plow were seized as "murder weapons." Under the ESA, he faced heavy fines and three years in prison.
"The Endangered Species Act is the pit bull of environmental statutes," according to Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.), who, together with Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho), has introduced legislation (Endangered Species Reauthorization Act of 1997) to "reform" the 1973 ESA. Unfortunately, this bill — along with virtually all Republican proposals — is merely a cosmetic attempt to make it somewhat more cumbersome for the government to protect endangered species. To achieve real reform, the environmentalist philosophy underlying the ESA must be opposed.
What motivates environmentalists to protect endangered species, with so much zeal that they are oblivious to the harm inflicted on people?
Some environmentalists assert that "species diversity" is extremely beneficial to man. But environmentalists are the staunchest opponents of genetic engineering — which has vast potential for creating new species. Some environmentalists assert that an endangered species could possess medical secrets beneficial to man. But, in 1991, when taxol — processed from the Pacific yew tree — was discovered to be highly effective in treating certain forms of cancer, environmentalists blocked harvesting of the yew tree. Whenever man's needs conflict with the "interests of nature," environmentalists take the side of nature.
The real motive behind environmentalism is stated by David Graber (a biologist with the U.S. National Park Service): "We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free — flowing river, or ecosystem to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value — to me — than another human body, or a billion of them."
This "intrinsic value" ethic means that man must value nature — not for any benefit to man, but because nature is somehow a value in and of itself. Hence, nature must be kept pristine despite the harm this causes man. We must halt activities beneficial to us, such as farming, forestry, and treatment of cancer, in order to safeguard fish, birds, trees, and rats.
Throughout history, people were told to sacrifice their lives to God, the community, the state, or the Fuhrer — all with deadly consequences. Now we are being told to sacrifice our lives to nature. And current environmental legislation, such as the ESA, provides government with massive powers to enforce such sacrifices. What disasters could such power lead to?
Some environmentalists have expressed their preference. "Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature," writes biologist Graber, "some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." City University of New York philosophy Professor Paul Taylor adds: "[T]he ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty 'Good Riddance.'"
While extreme, these anti-human sentiments are logically consistent with environmentalism's "intrinsic value" philosophy: Since man survives only by conquering nature, man is an inherent threat to the "intrinsic value" of nature and must therefore be eliminated. Environmentalism makes man the endangered species.
The only antidote to these haters of mankind and their anti-human philosophy is to uphold man's right to pursue his own life. His nature demands that he does this best by improving his environment through technology and production.
It is time for Congress to uphold man's rights by abolishing any environmental legislation that allows government to sacrifice people to nature. As a start, rather than "reform" it, Congress should abolish the Endangered Species Act.
Glenn Woiceshyn is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, California.
Design copyright Scars Publications and Design. Copyright of individual pieces remain with the author. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
