Gaia, the Greek supreme goddess of Earth, the inspiration of all environmentalists is the force, which moves millions of us, humans towards the green revolution, the revolution to protect the environment at the expense of Human Life and progress.
It is not very difficult to understand that environmentalism is a product of a failed hypothesis of socialism. To rule over human masses, often the wicked uses the weapon of guilt and sacrifice.
Gaia hypothesis¹ considers the Earth as a single organism, a single living body. We all species, rivers, sea, oceans, mountains, air everything on earth and atmosphere, being the part of the single living body, which is earth. It is very simple observation to be made. Yet it ignored the basic fact that only the Individual thinks, only the Individual act, and he act for his life, for his progress.
Socialism, which imagined all national as one under the rule of a welfare state with socialist planners as the ruling head, where the Individual aspirations of a human and his freedom to live and act for his own sake and development was supposed to be a sacrificial entity which must be sacrificed for the sake of common good of that single body which humanity, or a society represents.
Because of its unrealistic and irrational base of thought, socialism ended as a killer of millions. Nazism and all of its murders aside, Marxian “scientific” socialism was responsible for more than eighty million murders in the twentieth century: thirty million in the former Soviet Union, fifty million in Communist China, and untold millions more in the remote countries including India, where the virus of Naxalism and Maoism is still killing people. Environmentalism is the residual of same culture of repression, oppression and exploitation of Individual liberty and his will for his progress.
Every parent wants his children to lead a life better than what they experienced themselves. This simple natural instinct of human makes it possible for every parent to work, innovate and create wealth, pleasure, and comfort for their children. Towards the better way of life, is the motto of civilization, which lead human to innovate agriculture, housing, wheels, and the list goes on towards the latest technologies.
Everything we do to maintain our lives has an impact on nature. Every assessment we create to advance our well-being; every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone, mobile laptop we manufacture, is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from changing nature for our own benefit. It is all selfish; we lead towards progress, sustenance, good living by the virtue of selfishness.
Is it wrong? Changing environment for our own development, comforts and progress, how can it be wrong, and if it is wrong, then why do we want more and better roads, better flyovers, infrastructure, more cars and computers, new factories, industries, hospitals, health-care centres? We keep on changing the world, the environment. It is impossible to live without changing the environment for our selfish purpose.
Yet, the socialist turned environmentalists want you to be guilty, guilty of being better than other animals and species. How can one suggest that all species on earth are equal? Can one suggest the same to the Lion, and stop him from killing and eating a deer? Can we stop a horse from eating the grass? How can we suppose man to give up his aspirations to be better to make better comfortable world by changing the environment, by progressing, innovating, capitalizing on the raw material.
If it is a matter of guilt for Man that he changed the nature, the environment, than this guilt will always remain because change is the rule of nature. Every time we take a breath, we convert oxygen to carbon-di-oxide, causing the green house effect. Should we stop breathing? As a matter of truth, no philosophy or political movement based on sense of guilt, self-pity and sacrifice can be honest and workable. How can we be guilty to have a laptop, electricity in our homes, excellently architecture houses, better roads, proper communication process, mobiles, Iphones?
If we project a satellite in outer orbits of earth atmosphere, the environmentalists will call it pollution of atmosphere, a thing of guilt, can we give that up?
If we spray DDT to save ourselves from malaria, it causes pollution, but it saves us. Can we deny that, should we feel guilty of killing mosquitoes?
Environmentalist McKibben in his book “The End of Nature”² says

“Human beings — any one of us, and our species as a whole — are not all-important, not at the center of the world. One of his supporters says “We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value — to me — than another human body, or a billion of them.”

Obviously, they have less value or almost no value for the human life, his freedom and sanctity. We change bulbs to fluorescent lights, did we considered the harmful effects of mercury on human? Yet, human life is secondary and sacrificial, first is environment, as if changing all bulbs to fluorescent tubes will conserve the environment. In fact, it also changes the environment. So we must feel guilty of using electricity too.
Recently, governments are stressing more on nuclear electricity plants; in order to banish coal based thermal electric plants. Obviously, it is for preventing the global warming, which is nonexistent because since 1998, earth is cooling fast. The question is, who will manage the nuclear wastes and how? Is CO2 more dangerous or nuclear wastes?
No individual want to give up his search for better life, more comfort and happiness. Thus, it is necessary for the socialist environmentalists to use the “guilt factor” as a tool to induce a forcible sacrifice on citizens. To rule over citizen, they need power, the political power of big government, where the government politicians and officials will “think” what is better for the individuals, as the individuals are all selfish and will hurt the earth, and those government officials and politicians are the great selfless social servants which need to rule over individuals and treat them as slaves to order ban and censor their lives. For all that big fraud of making human society slaves of some ruling sectors, they need big governments, higher organized socialistic set up of state. As Ludwig Von Mises put it up

“The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute preeminence of his own plan.”

Yet, it is up to us to think rationally and better. What is the right way of life, forward progress or backward chaos, the return to Dark Age?
Should we look forward to search the corners of solar system outside the earth to expand our reach in order to gain better and more resources for the human individual development, or should we look back to give up all our progress and start going back renouncing human progress and loving the animalistic life?
Every poor want to earn better facility, electricity in his remote village and house, drinkable safe water, television, mobiles, Iphones, computers, fans air conditioners, everything, which the rich and urban life enjoys. To let the poor enjoy the richness of life is to let the human exploit the nature further and change the environment to extract more raw material and synthesize. We should understand that reduction of poverty is possible by only one means, by producing more. Equality of rich and poor by looting richness from the rich is not the aim, aim is to let the poor become rich and enjoy the best essence of life and keep innovating developing it, obviously by exploiting the nature.

“The difference between animals and human is that the animals change themselves for the environment, but the human change the environment for themselves”. Ayn Rand.

Update: A news worth mentioning, 93 year old man freezes to death after city limits electricity.

1. Gaia Hypothesis, Wikipedia Link [↩]
2. Environmentalist McKibben, “The End of Nature” [↩]