What Others Are Saying

March 15, 2007

Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection. Behind their people- and nature-friendly terminology, the adherents to this ideology make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, all of us and our behavior, as well as our values.

There is no doubt that it is our duty to protect rationally the nature for the future generations. The followers of the environmentalist ideology, however, keep presenting to us various catastrophic scenarios with the intention to persuade us to implement their ideas about us and about the whole human society. This is not only unfair but extremely dangerous. What is, in my view, even more dangerous, is the quasi-scientific form that their many times refuted forecasts have taken upon themselves.

What belongs to this ideology?

Disbelief in the power of the invisible hands of free market and belief in the omnipotence of state dirigisme.

Disregard for the role of important and powerful economic mechanisms and institutions - primarily that of property rights and prices - for an effective protection of nature.

Misunderstanding of the meaning of resources, of the difference between the potential natural resource and the real one, that may be used in the economy.

Malthusian pessimism over the technical progress. ...

All of these views are associated with social sciences, not with natural sciences. This is why environmentalism - unlike scientific ecology - does not belong to the natural sciences but is to be classified as an ideology. This fact is, however, not understood by the common people and by numerous politicians.

- Vaclav Klaus, Czech president

Each year, the federal, state, local and tribal governments spend billions of dollars protecting the United States and U.S. property against acts of terrorism, with human, military and capital resources allocated in ways that reflect the value and vulnerability of each venue to be protected. Yet those buildings, institutions and icons perceived as being of utmost value to the United States may not be perceived as such to its potential attackers; the country, in other words, may be protecting its buffalo when really it is the goats that are at risk.

- Exploring Terrorist Targeting Preferences, Rand Corp.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.