For some time now I have pondered why environmental activists seem to reject evidence that capitalism has been making the world a better place for all levels of society. The pampered aristocracy of just a few hundred years ago lived miserable lives compared to the least wealthy citizens of just about any capitalist country today. All segments of society today have access to state-of-the-art healthcare, sufficient and healthy food, warmth in the winter and cooling in the summer, ease and safety of travel, etc. that could not have been imagined by the upper crust of just two hundreds of years ago.
An Experiment in Nineteenth Century Living
I recall an experiment conducted a few decades ago by students from the University of Illinois. The pioneer village of New Salem—just outside the Illinois capital of Springfield—had been reconstructed as an outdoor museum. Abraham Lincoln lived there as a young man from 1831 to 1837.
The rude cabins, barns, and other structures were rebuilt as closely to their original condition as records revealed. In fact, as a very young boy, taken there by my parents, I thought that the rude buildings were original to the time of Lincoln’s habitation there. I was much older when I saw photos of the faint outlines of foundations from that time.
In an experiment of what living conditions were like in that era, the University of Illinois asked for student volunteers who would attempt to live in these reconstructed cabins through a typical Midwest winter. I’m sure they gave it the “old college try,” but these hardy volunteers had to abandon the experiment due to harsh winter conditions. This was just a typical Midwest winter, but it demonstrated how far society has come in providing better living conditions.
Immanuel Kant’s “Humanity Principle”
So, why do environmental activists like Greta Thunberg reject progress that has brought what at one time would have been seen as unimaginable higher living standards to all society? I think I know the answer. It is right in front of us. The very term “environmental activist” tells us that Greta and her ilk care not a whit for the betterment of mankind, except in the most theoretical and secondary way. It is the “environment,” as defined by themselves and brooking no debate, that is the end goal. Man is simply the means to achieve that goal, whatever it may be. Of course, this violates Immanuel Kant’s “Humanity Principle,” which states that man is an end and cannot, ethically, be used as a means to an end. Furthermore, it is “Categorical,” meaning that it applies to all rational beings at all times.
Notice the vast gulf between Kant’s humanitarian ethics and that of environmental activists, who deign to anoint themselves as judge of the extent that people must sacrifice their living conditions now in order to prevent some dire future of the earth, again as defined by themselves and brooking no debate as to its validity. Man must be used as a means to achieve an end.
Examples of this error can be seen almost every day. For instance, the worry about resource depletion (which is impossible, by the way, in a free market economy that allows prices to adjust to supply), and claims of overpopulation leading to a Malthusian catastrophe.
A Disappointed Al Gore
Naturally, these activists must be immune to the solutions that they wish to impose on everyone else, such as traveling vast distances by modern modes of travel in order to attend meetings and deliver lectures in which they decry the same right to others. They are the “anointed.”
Al Gore’s touring the earth a few years ago delivering lectures on the subject and producing a film titled “An Inconvenient Truth” is a case in point. The film was released twenty years ago, yet perhaps miraculously the earth hasn’t burned up yet or has shown any signs of doing so, which must be a great disappointment to Mr. Gore.
