I think there is something seriously wrong with a point of view in which the struggles of the impoverished are secondary to preserving nature as it is, simply for ideological reasons. For the more radical environmentalists, the needs of human beings are often subservient to the needs of animals. Peter Singer is one who embodies this very philosophy. This is a man who unsuccessfully ran as a Greens candidate for the Australian senate and co-authored a book with Bob Brown.
He hasn’t mellowed over the years. In 1983 Singer wrote an article in Pediatrics in which he said the following: “Species membership in Homo-sapiens is not morally relevant. If we compare a dog or a pig to a severely defective infant, we often find the non-human to have superior capacities.”
[…]This preference for animal life over human continues throughout his writings. In 1994 he wrote these words: “the argument for not eating fish is much stronger than the arguments against abortion”. (Rethinking Life and Death, p. 209)
[…]And in the September 16 issue of The Spectator he again argues for infanticide, stating that we need to determine whether new-born babies should be allowed to continue living: “we should have a ceremony a month after birth, at which the infant is admitted to the community.” (p.22)
In other words, eugenics. The historical analogy seems lost on Singer.
I’m sure (and I hope to God that it is so) that most Greens would repudiate such evil sentiments, but I do wonder about the moral fibre of a party that endorsed this guy as a candidate. And yes, I think “evil” is an accurate description of infanticide.
I think the greatest argument against this sort of radical collectivism is summarised within the American Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Whoops. It seems that I am now guilty of hate speech.