Abandoning procreation, disrupting human life, and wishing for death on a large scale, environmentalism exhibits cult-like tendencies.
History teaches us that some ancient civilizations killed their children to change the weather. They practiced child sacrifice to please their gods in an attempt to attract their good graces. These primitive peoples believed that through human sacrifice, the forces of nature could be forced to their advantage. For example, one of the ways the Aztecs honored their gods was to kill people in the field with arrows so that their blood would fertilize the ground.
The modern environmental movement is often compared to religion. It certainly believes that humans can change the weather, and includes a vision of sin and repentance – damnation and salvation. Beyond the presence of neo-pagans and Gaia worshipers in its ranks, the environmental movement itself displays traits of a nature-worshiping cult – a cult that is markedly anti-human. Many of its supporters believe that the world has cancer, and that the cancer is called the human race.
The Just Stop Oil movement provides a compelling example of how modern environmentalism has become a primitive and barbaric religion by any other name. In October 2022, Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers (1888) was targeted by rebel activists at the National Gallery in London, to protest the “climate emergency”. By destroying works of art in museums, blocking roads, stopping play in sports matches, and much more, these eco-fascists reveal an environmentalism that has not only apocalyptic overtones but also an intent to make life miserable for their fellow human beings and destroy some of the finest things. Examples of historical human achievements.
Of course, reasonable concern for avoiding pollution and responsibly conserving our natural resources is a laudable ethical position. We should always care about the environment, be responsible for protecting it, and at the same time, help the poor.
However, “green” efforts to reduce carbon emissions make energy less expensive and accessible, drive up the costs of consumer products, stifle economic growth, cost jobs, and impose adverse impacts on the Earth’s poorest people. Conversely, allocating financial resources to help build wastewater treatment plants, enhance sanitation, and provide clean water to the poor would have a greater direct impact on their plight than the battle over the vague concept of “global warming.”
At the heart of climate change extremists’ beliefs are two key principles: that humans can control the weather, and that humans will bring about the end of the world if they do not respect nature. This sounds like a sacred religious text, and although environmentalists will readily offer scientific research to support their statements, they rarely tolerate counterarguments – as when someone points out that none of their apocalyptic predictions have yet come true.
According to Australian Senator James Patterson.
“The public shaming and intimidation of any scientist who differs from traditional orthodoxy on climate change is eerily reminiscent of the Salem witch trials or the more recent Spanish Inquisition, where they were publicly flogged – metaphorically speaking – for their intellectual crimes. In reality, ‘dissenters’ suffer, as It is also called a ritual of humiliation at the hands of their colleagues and the media, with their every motives questioned and their opinions slandered.
When the temperature rises, we hear: “This is clear evidence of climate change.” But when there’s rapid cooling, we hear: “Wow, this is more evidence of climate change.”According to Jonah Goldberg, founding editor of National Review Online: “The beauty of global warming is that it touches everything we do – what we eat, what we wear, where we go. Our ‘carbon footprint’ is a human measure.”
In other words, the idea of “climate change” is fundamentally irrefutable, because the climate somewhere, in some way, is constantly changing. This irrefutability makes it an ideal basis for religious belief. This faith in turn makes people in… “indigent” men and women. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served as President of the United States from March 1933 to April 1945, once said that humans in an age of scarcity would find themselves forced into something he called “necessary.” Life requires satisfying necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter. So Roosevelt insisted on it “Necessary men are not free men.” And that the state must be able to form people “Free of fear.”
James Tonkwich of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C., explains that there is a long history of environmental thinking that sees humans primarily as consumers and polluters. “This thinking leads many to insist that abortion rights are an integral part of any environmental agenda,” He says. Thus abandoning children and even having abortions are promoted by “green elites” in so-called “Western democracies” as environmentally friendly, while childless women do their bit to reduce the carbon footprint of civilization.
Tragically, not only are younger generations being tricked into giving up children out of fear of endangering the planet, they are also terminating their healthy pregnancies, with some going so far as to outright claim this is done to serve climate goals. . A married woman once told the newspaper “Not having a child is the most environmentally friendly thing you can do.” The same article states that another woman terminated her pregnancy because of her firm belief that:
“Having children is a selfish thing… Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees, produces more trash, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and increases From the problem of overpopulation.”
Of course, concerns about overpopulation are not new. In 1968, ecologist Paul Ehrlich echoed 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus when he predicted global famine due to overpopulation and called for immediate action to limit population growth. Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb is one of the most influential books of the last century. “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come.” He said it in a prophetic tone more than 50 years ago.
Needless to say, this prophecy was never fulfilled. Despite all the concerns, access to food and resources has increased as the world’s population has risen.
Clearly, this has not stopped some environmental activists from continuing to make similarly outlandish statements about humanity and the future of our planet. Prince Philip, the late Duke of Edinburgh, wrote in 1986: “I must admit that I tend to view reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” As a way to do something about human overpopulation.
We should be highly skeptical of any argument that uses language that refers to humans as an “invading virus,” a “plague,” or even a “problem” that needs to be solved. It is an argument that smacks of a desire to bring death on a massive scale, eliminating humans in search of a small, utopian number of sustainable survivors.
However, some environmentalists complain that neither war nor famine can reduce the population sufficiently and would rather a deadly virus arrive to prey on innocents. We have reached the point that even new human life is viewed as a threat to the environment, with some outright claiming that new babies are unwanted sources of greenhouse emissions and consumers of natural resources.
That is why these insidious aspects of environmental worship must be exposed and confronted.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of RT.