|
April 18, 2005
Social Darwinist elitism?
Are environmentalists, by opposing new food technologies and life saving pesticides, actually harming people in Third World countries, and preventing their economic advancement? I just ordered Eco-Imperialism, by Paul Driessen which claims this is the case, and offers detailed documentation. Here's Amazon's Product Description: Reveals a dark secret of the ideological environmental movement. The movement imposes the views of mostly wealthy, comfortable Americans and Europeans on mostly poor, desperate Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. It violates these people's most basic human rights, denying them economic opportunities, the chance for better lives, the right to rid their countries of diseases that were vanquished long ago in Europe and the United States.I haven't read the book, but I note that it's endorsed by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who states: This book is the first one I've seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. Here's a review by Gary Griffiths, who liked it: The premise of Paul Driessen's sobering 'Eco-Imperialism' is as straightforward as it is chilling: the increasingly radical agenda of the so-called green movement is stifling economic development in the third world and, worst, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of millions. Is argument is presented with clarity and fact - as well fed affluent bureaucrats of the EU, the UN, the US, and any number of environmental protection groups force their unfounded radical views on developing nations, the basic steps in economic evolution to these nations are being denied, virtually eliminating any hope for improvement. Issues ranging from alternative energy source, genetically modified food, sweatshop labor, global warming and others are reviewed in enough detail to make the points, sparing the reader of the often endless graphs, charts, and minutia that often accompany books of this type. In an interesting twist, Driessen does not limit this criticism to the political bureaucrats and radical activists, but also points a finger at global corporations. On one hand, rather than standing up to the junk science and extreme positions of the radical green movement, most large corporations are simply rolling over, acquiescing to these economically dangerous demands. On the other hand, a number of corporations - most notably BP, to which Driessen delivers some well-deserved body blows - are allowing the Greens to play into their hands, duping the public into believing their pro-environmental purity, while in fact simply spinning clever PR smoke. BP, for example, would profit greatly from acceptance of the Kyoto accord through their natural gas business, while continuing to grow oil revenues and profit.As I said, I haven't read it, but the above reviewer was certainly right about one thing: Driessen was dutifully attacked by another reviewer (anonymously, of course) -- not as a corporate prawn, but as a "Corporate Attack Dog": Corporate Attack Dogs Target Environmental Activists, March 4, 2004If it's so "obvious," why not give a single example? And why doesn't the reviewer say who he or she is? Is it possible that "A reader" didn't bother to read the book? (Obviously not; that would be against Amazon's rules!) At the author's website, Mr. Driessen has more reviews (positive and negative), and addresses the Monsanto/Dow "mouthpiece" allegations: has never received any funding from either Monsanto or Dow – though both companies, and many other corporations, ought to be supporting the life-saving efforts promoted by his book, website and other projects, and by the organizations with which Driessen works. And here's Steven Milloy's review of the book. (He gives examples which indicate that he's read it, too!) Frankly, I've long suspected that these environmentalists are radical social Darwinists whether they admit it or not. Their NIMBY policies favor the already-developed First World and there seems to be at the very least insensitivity to the plight of the less developed (if not outright hostility to their continued existence). Even domestically, environmental regulations give the large companies a major advantage, leading this writer to call environmentalism a form of Social Darwinism. I think they'll probably lose against the forces of economic creationism. . . posted by Eric on 04.18.05 at 12:39 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|