On Earth Day, April 20, environmentalists take the opportunity to emphasize the greatness of our planet and often to point out the harm man has inflicted upon it. Is it true that man has defiled this planet? Can it be true?
Humanity has progressed to the point where it can harness aspects of nature to improve man's standard of living and reduce his suffering. The only moral reason to avoid the suffering of the planet's ecosystems is to prevent the suffering of man.
Should we save the rainforests? Sure. The rainforest is suspected to contain countless cures to human illnesses. The rainforests are useful to man. But should we avoid Alaskan drilling to keep polar bears safe? The answer is "yes" only if a compelling argument could be made showing that man would be worse off for having endangered the polar bears. If we were to avoid such drilling, it wouldn't be for the sake of the bears or nature or mother Gaia. It would be for the sake of man.
Consider a vehicle. Driving a car too hard or failing to keep it properly tuned can result in damage; but why does the owner care? Is it for the car's sake? No! He cares for the car because of what the car can do for him. If he destroys it today, he cannot drive it tomorrow.
Identically, if man destroys the environment, it is surely negative, but only because of the effect of the destruction on man. Man's interests include an interest in a habitable planet. Because of this, the environment will never have to be saved. Just like his car, if he destroys it today, he can't use it tomorrow.
Environmentalist ideology seems reasonable enough on the surface. Maybe you even consider yourself one. Clean air and pure water free of toxins are ideals difficult to oppose. The truth is that no matter how environmentalism is presented, it is at the core anti-human. Many environmentalists believe in an Earth returned to its "natural" state, populated by tribes of semi-intelligent club-swinging primates without the ability to create the fire necessary to burn coal or oil. Which society do you prefer?
Environmentalists who present their philosophy for what it is are rare. More common and far more dangerous are the moderates, the ones who shroud their anti-human beliefs behind the veil of environmental preservation. Consider an excerpt quoted on the Sierra Club's web-site: "[Drilling] would almost certainly do nothing to help move America off its dependence on fossil fuels, an addiction that has cost us thousands of military lives and forced us to make friends with some horrible people around the globe."
Let us address why we face this addiction in the first place. Industrialization was decades ago adopting a newer, cleaner, safer and almost infinitely renewable source of power: nuclear energy.
However, environmentalist interest groups successfully pushed nuclear regulations through Congress, preventing the natural transition a freely capitalist and industrialist nation would make toward nuclear energy. Why would industry make this transition? Because when man values environmental preservation he is willing to pay for it, and capitalist industry will find a way to sell it (consider hybrid cars, for example).
When the focus is on man, any rational action must ultimately lead to man's continued survival. Man exists for the sake of man. Man's highest goal is the preservation of man. Any prioritization that subjugates man's life to anything else is inherently irrational, as it places less value in the continued existence of man than it does on some other value.
And so I encourage you all to celebrate Earth Day. But do not feel guilty that you exist to enjoy this world's resources.
--Harrison Bradlow is a junior international relations and business and management major from Tampa, Fla. He is the Marketing Officer of the Johns Hopkins Objectivist Club.
