Power-Grabbing, Are We?

As we know, whoever controls the definitions controls the debate. For instance, all that is necessary to institutionalize perfectly sane persons is to redefine madness. A government unhappy with dissent need only redefine madness in terms of political disapproval, and--abracadabra--half of society is mad. Thus, any time a government introduces new definitions or euphemisms, we ought to be wary.

It turns out the White House wants you to start calling it "global climate disruption" rather than "global warming." Why? Because "global climate disruption" is vaguer, and because it is vaguer, it means that laws giving the government the ability to shove 'greenness' down your throat will suddenly be able to apply more broadly.

Having bonfires in your backyard leads to global warming. No more s'mores, kids. But what about cutting down that tree that leans precariously over your child's bedroom? Sorry, climate disruption. It'll have to stay. Move your kid. Thinking about buying a dog? Sorry, climate disruption. Your backyard will never be the same. Want to fertilize your asthmatic lawn? Isn't that climate disruption, too?

My point is this. Your environment is whatever surrounds you. Environmentalism might as well be called 'Everythingism.' And the moment our surroundings become more important than the persons who inhabit them, we haven't become 'environmentally conscious;' we've become anti-human. Even most murderers aren't anti-human. They just hold a grudge against a single person, or a single group of a people. But to be anti-human is a much bigger thing. Any racist is more humane than a person who despises the existence of more than six billion humans.

And don't give me the "Environmentalism means to save the planet to save humanity--you have it backwards" line. If it was about humanity, the emphasis would be on greater production and freedom, not limiting production and limiting freedom. The question ought to be "how can we meet the needs of the peoples of the world?" rather than "how can we keep folks from killing the planet?" If you meet the world's needs, the planet will take care of itself*. If you try to save the planet, you'll destroy humanity.

*(Do you think the folks cutting down rain forests do it because its fun? Or because they need money? Notice that only wealthy countries can afford to preserve their land. And my pet peeve: as long as the UN keeps cheap power out of Africa, nobody in Africa will care about anything but their immediate needs. Environmental policies that prevent development kill poor people.)

Rant over. Peace.