Dr. Peikoff on Environmentalism vs Religion

[Paul's Here 0]

Dr. Peikoff

Posted June 12, 2007

Q: I am concerned about the “global warming” movement, and think that it might be a worse threat than Islamic Fundamentalism. Do you agree?

A: The global-warming movement is one offshoot of today’s mysticism and statism. As many have observed, it represents in essence the onetime pro-industrial Reds changing—with the same purpose, but to be achieved this time by different means—into the anti-industrial Greens. The global-warming call to statism will have harmful effects but, I think, the movement is going to be short-lived; too many people remember how recently we were terrorized by the prospect of an imminent, man-caused ice age, and before that by the doom of over-population, DDT, etc.

The danger to the West is not this kaleidoscope of absurd concrete-bound threats, but the philosophy which makes their common denominator stick. This is the very philosophy (unreason and self-sacrifice) which is the essence of religion.

If and when people do become frightened by all these projections of the Apocalypse, it will not advance the secular or quasi-religious doomsayers, but merely push people more strongly into the arms of their basic teachers, who have taught them their intellectual and moral framework and who promise safety from everything, in the hands of God.

The Greens offer no solution to the disasters they predict but sacrifice for worms and forests, a big and permanent cut in man’s standard of living, and a big increase in government. This is not exactly a platform which will attract a mass base; its adherents will mainly be corrupted intellectuals, with not much national influence. The religionists, by contrast, offer as the solution to all problems a firm code of values, moral principles supposedly provided by God and proved through the ages—and claim to promote the dignity of man and his eternal joy. Which of these contenders do you think people will follow?

To compare ecology and religion in terms of the threat to our future is to fail to understand the power of abstract ideas. No political movement, however popular at the moment, can compete in the long run with a basic philosophy.

[B. Royce 0]

If the essence of religion and environmentalism is selflessness, wouldn't environmentalism win because it is more consistently selfless?

[Stussy88 0]

The Greens offer no solution to the disasters they predict but sacrifice for worms and forests, a big and permanent cut in man’s standard of living, and a big increase in government. This is not exactly a platform which will attract a mass base; its adherents will mainly be corrupted intellectuals, with not much national influence.

True as far as it goes, but incomplete. The greens (over here at least) are making the case that there is no alternative to their viewpoint, (ie do as we say, or basically die in global breakdown). It's not saying the green way is the better way, the argument goes, the green way is the only choice we have. So it's post-socialist anti-capitalism.

People won't warmly embrace this, but they may tolerate it out of fear.

[bborg 0]

If the essence of religion and environmentalism is selflessness, wouldn't environmentalism win because it is more consistently selfless?

From “The Anatomy of Compromise”: “In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.”

The question is, what principles do these groups share? I think what Dr. Peikoff is pointing out is that ultimately most people want to live, which means that although environmentalism is more consistently selfless, people will go to religion because they believe it is more consistent with life on earth.

[jdperren 0]

"The Greens offer no solution to the disasters they predict but sacrifice for worms and forests, a big and permanent cut in man’s standard of living, and a big increase in government. This is not exactly a platform which will attract a mass base; its adherents will mainly be corrupted intellectuals, with not much national influence." [emphasis mine]

And yet, it has. Though the truly fervent are limited in number, those who fervently oppose it are equally limited in number. The overwhelming majority accept the basic tenets and, to a degree, the proposals as true and valid.

The viro movement won't outlast other, more traditional and comprehensive religions. But it's hardly as light a puffball as he seems to suggest, given their successes of the past 35 years and the current popularity and mass acceptance of at least a mild form of viropaganism.

[jdperren 0]

The theme is actually continued in the next question he answers:

"Q: The year 2007 is the 25th anniversary of The Ominous Parallels. Would you make any changes to your book if it were coming out today?

A: Yes. Though I do cover religion, I would place more emphasis on it both in Weimar Germany and in recent America, along with its importance in the rise of dictatorship, even one that professes to be secular. The explanation of my error is the fact that, when I wrote the book (I started it in 1968), I could not have imagined the recent religious upsurge in America. In my youth, religion was regarded by educated people as a joke—a stagnant backwater of the passive and mindless specimens concentrated in the Bible Belt."

Ah, if only that were (even 40 years ago) the case. Wm F Buckley was hardly an atheist, nor was he uneducated. Jesuits were fairly numerous in the U.S. 40 years ago, as they are now. Catholics numbered in the millions, in Boston, New York, and elsewhere and a fairly normal percentage of them (I would guess, I haven't checked) would be found among intellectuals and educated persons in general. In short, the kind of evangelical balderdash to which Dr. Peikoff refers is only one form of religion in America.

How is this relevant to the prior question? Among other aspects, it demonstrates that his references to fact are too narrow and selective. The radical viros are relatively rare and isolated, as were the fervent evangelicals (40 years ago). But there are many who adopt both philosophies to an unfortunate degree and both are about equally dangerous. Which shouldn't be surprising since they are, in terms of many fundamentals, very similar.

[Carlos 0]

How could Environmentalism not be more of a threat than Religion? The banning of DDT has probably resulted in more deaths in the last 30 years than Religion could ever be blamed for over the total of Man's existence (Since DDT has been banned, there have been about an extra million deaths a year for the past 30 years due to Malaria).

I want to gently say that I think Dr. Peikoff focuses too much on the role of abstract philosophy in man's existence (Fundamentalist Christianity/Islam) and too little on the role of more concrete, less abstract movements and events (Environmentalism).

[Carlos 0]

http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html

[B. Royce 0]

The theme is actually continued in the next question he answers:

"Q: The year 2007 is the 25th anniversary of The Ominous Parallels. Would you make any changes to your book if it were coming out today?

A: Yes. Though I do cover religion, I would place more emphasis on it both in Weimar Germany and in recent America, along with its importance in the rise of dictatorship, even one that professes to be secular. The explanation of my error is the fact that, when I wrote the book (I started it in 1968), I could not have imagined the recent religious upsurge in America. In my youth, religion was regarded by educated people as a joke—a stagnant backwater of the passive and mindless specimens concentrated in the Bible Belt."

Ah, if only that were (even 40 years ago) the case. Wm F Buckley was hardly an atheist, nor was he uneducated. Jesuits were fairly numerous in the U.S. 40 years ago, as they are now. Catholics numbered in the millions, in Boston, New York, and elsewhere and a fairly normal percentage of them (I would guess, I haven't checked) would be found among intellectuals and educated persons in general. In short, the kind of evangelical balderdash to which Dr. Peikoff refers is only one form of religion in America.

How is this relevant to the prior question? Among other aspects, it demonstrates that his references to fact are too narrow and selective. The radical viros are relatively rare and isolated, as were the fervent evangelicals (40 years ago). But there are many who adopt both philosophies to an unfortunate degree and both are about equally dangerous. Which shouldn't be surprising since they are, in terms of many fundamentals, very similar.

In Dr. Peikoff's answer, he says that his error regarding the impact of religion was based on what he "...could not have imagined..." what does what one can or cannot imagine have to do with rational analysis?

[jdperren 0]

How could Environmentalism not be more of a threat than Religion? The banning of DDT has probably resulted in more deaths in the last 30 years than Religion could ever be blamed for over the total of Man's existence (Since DDT has been banned, there have been about an extra million deaths a year for the past 30 years due to Malaria).

Measuring the relative toxicity of the two could be tricky (not to mention, probably pointless).

But just to point out a few relevant issues...

1. Environmentalism, except in the most extreme cases, is putatively fact or science based. That's its weakness. When confronted with overwhelming evidence that its factual claims are false, it must ultimately give way or expose itself as blatant nature mysticism, whence it becomes less popular.

Religion has no such weakness because it doesn't pretend (except in equally rare cases) to be based on science. No amount of fact can make a dent in anyone who is even weakly committed to it.

2. Religion cuts at the very root, the pre-condition of that which sustains human life: the rational mind.

Environmentalism is, in a sense, merely a scanvenger that feeds off guilt and the limited ability of people to judge properly. But it doesn't create the very conditions it needs to take advantage of that guilt and inability.

3. Religion, in the form of Christianity, Islam, etc is more comprehensive, detailed and has a huge, traditional popularity.

Viropaganism is actually a much older and more primitive kind of religion. But as such it is less well developed as a total guide to human action. Also, it is only recently very popular. Organized, formal religions have a kind of staying power that viropaganism lacks.

Because of these facts, and many others, viropaganism and its political implementation, Environmentalism, will likely fade within the next few decades, even as it does much more damage on the way out.

Even now, for example, there are prominent environmental leaders (James Lovelock, the founder of Gaia theory, is one example) who are touting nuclear power.

As such, religion is the greater long term threat and can ultimately damage and even kill many more people than viropaganism has. But, it is no greater threat than any form of irrationalism that is taken seriously and becomes widespread. It happens to be on the rise philosophically, to some extent, while environmentalism is -- despite much recent political success -- on the wane.

[PhilO 0]

Ah, if only that were (even 40 years ago) the case.

I think it is relevant that he grew up in Canada, a fact often forgotten - and spending most of one's adult years with history's greatest genius as a mentor, in a sophisticated city such as New York, does not exactly constitute a grass roots education in the actual state of America, "In my humble opinion." I don't think that the religious character of America has changed that much in a long time - insidious Christianity has been grawing at its feet since the founding of the country - and as one who *did* grow up in America, I can say that a bit less than 40 years ago I consciously became an atheist precisely by listening to and refuting the fundamentalist BS being spouted by several kids in my first grade class. To think that this is new is truly to lack perspective of the scope and depth of the problem.

[PhilO 0]

It's a false dichotomy to contrast environmentalism with religion. Arguably environmentalism is a religion. It is not merely a transient political movement. I don't think Dr. P. is wrong to identify religion as a deadly threat - but especially because that includes environmentalism. Christianity will just keep doing its damage as it has in this country for 500 years, but the environmentalists are really and literally out for blood, here and now, and they are the most consistent selfless altruists ever known, sacrificing for nature - which, being perceivable, should have a bigger draw than sacrifice for an unseen and unseeable "god".

[Capitalism Forever 0]

I totally disagree with the premise that Environmentalism is just a political movement. It has every key aspect of a religion qua attempt at philosophy:

1. Metaphysics

Christianity:

God as the ultimate good vs. Man as worthless and sinful

Man owing his existence to God but fallen when eating forbidden fruit

Environmentalism:

The Earth as the ultimate good vs. Man as polluting and irresponsible

Man owing his existence to the Earth but departed from "harmony with Nature" when agriculture invented

2. Epistemology

Christianity:

Faith in Revelation

Lip service to Reason

Lack of faith sinful

Environmentalism:

Findings of junk science not to be questioned

Pretense of being scientific

"Deniers" lackeys of oil companies

3. Ethics

Christianity:

Service to God

Specifics to be found in Scripture

Some of them coinciding with individual rights (e.g. "thou shalst not kill") while others contradicting man's nature, impossible to follow or making life miserable

Absolution from guilt through confession

Environmentalism:

"Stewardship" of Earth

Specifics enunciated by environmentalists

Some of them coinciding with individual rights (e.g. keep rivers clean) while others contradicting man's nature, impossible to follow or making life miserable

Absolution from guilt through carbon offsets etc.

The difference is that while Christianity currently has little power in politics but is reportedly gaining power in philosophy departments, Environmentalism currently has a lot of clout in politics but may be on the decline in philosophy departments. If that is indeed the case, then by all means, religion should be recognized as a threat and fought in academia. But what happens in academia now will not have an effect on our lives until after decades, while what is happening in politics has an immediate effect. And politics, at the moment, is held in an iron grip by the religion of Environmentalism. Supporting viro politicians is not an effective way to fight off the religious professors in academia, but it IS a very quick and reliable way to commit suicide.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Arguably environmentalism is a religion. It is not merely a transient political movement. [...] the environmentalists are really and literally out for blood, here and now

I just saw this after I posted the above. Seems like we think alike!

[PhilO 0]

1. Environmentalism, except in the most extreme cases, is putatively fact or science based. That's its weakness.

I think you're mixing concrete political tactics with the actual fundamentals. Fundamentally, environmentalism has an ethics, and that ethics is sacrifice for the sake of nature. It is a form of altruism and thus cashes in on millenia of religious dogma. And since it makes no sense, it necessarily relies on mysticism (e.g. Gaia and the like, the metaphysics of the movement.) Other religions also try to use science to give themselves credibility (such as the recent "Creationism Museum" in Kentucky.)

3. Religion, in the form of Christianity, Islam, etc is more comprehensive, detailed and has a huge, traditional popularity.

Environmentalism, which I think is a religion, has today a huge popularity, a growth rate that radically exceeds that of earlier religions partly because of the efficacy of modern communications, and partly because it shares common characteristics of all religions: a mystical god (Gaia, in effect), and altruism (sacrifice to nature/Gaia.)

I see absolutely no evidence that environmentalism is on the wane, personally. American children, K-12, are being pumped full of that propaganda on a daily basis, unhindered by legal strictures against teaching religion in public schools.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

BTW, the original question asked about Environmentalism vs. Islamic Fundamentalism, not Christianity. Anyone want to comment on that?

[B. Royce 0]

BTW, the original question asked about Environmentalism vs. Islamic Fundamentalism, not Christianity. Anyone want to comment on that?

Environmentalism vs. Islamic Fundamentalism??

"Further, God compels Muslims in the Quran to respect and revere the environment when He says, 'Greater indeed the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth.' (40:57)"

"In Islam, even the Earth has inalienable rights endowed by its Creator."

"Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as telling of an incident that happened to another prophet in the past. This prophet was stung by an ant and, in anger, he ordered the whole of the ants' nest to be burned. At this, God reprimanded his prophet in these words: 'Because one ant stung you, you have burned a whole community which glorified Me'."

[Capitalism Forever 0]

The difference is that while Christianity currently has little power in politics

Oh, and I forgot to mention another important difference: The goal of Christianity is to humiliate Man. The goal of Environmentalism is to eliminate Man.

Even radical Islam (to stay on topic!) does not have that goal. They want to bring about a world where no man lives qua man--much like the world of Anthem--but they do not want to wipe the genetic code of man off the planet. It takes an environmentalist to want to do that.

[Scott A. 0]

Posted June 12, 2007

Q: I am concerned about the “global warming” movement, and think that it might be a worse threat than Islamic Fundamentalism. Do you agree?

A: The global-warming movement is one offshoot of today’s mysticism and statism. As many have observed, it represents in essence the onetime pro-industrial Reds changing—with the same purpose, but to be achieved this time by different means—into the anti-industrial Greens. The global-warming call to statism will have harmful effects but, I think, the movement is going to be short-lived; too many people remember how recently we were terrorized by the prospect of an imminent, man-caused ice age, and before that by the doom of over-population, DDT, etc.

The danger to the West is not this kaleidoscope of absurd concrete-bound threats, but the philosophy which makes their common denominator stick. This is the very philosophy (unreason and self-sacrifice) which is the essence of religion.

If and when people do become frightened by all these projections of the Apocalypse, it will not advance the secular or quasi-religious doomsayers, but merely push people more strongly into the arms of their basic teachers, who have taught them their intellectual and moral framework and who promise safety from everything, in the hands of God.

The Greens offer no solution to the disasters they predict but sacrifice for worms and forests, a big and permanent cut in man’s standard of living, and a big increase in government. This is not exactly a platform which will attract a mass base; its adherents will mainly be corrupted intellectuals, with not much national influence. The religionists, by contrast, offer as the solution to all problems a firm code of values, moral principles supposedly provided by God and proved through the ages—and claim to promote the dignity of man and his eternal joy. Which of these contenders do you think people will follow?

To compare ecology and religion in terms of the threat to our future is to fail to understand the power of abstract ideas. No political movement, however popular at the moment, can compete in the long run with a basic philosophy.

I take several things from what Dr. Peikoff is saying.

First, he is acknowledging the threat of the global warming movement, indicating that it "will have harmful effects" and even identifying some of the specifics. However, if I understand him correctly, he believes it will be short-lived because people won't buy it. Furthermore, if and when they do, they will still not accept or adopt the green "worldview." Instead, they will move toward something that offers a superficially positive view of man and a "firm code of values," i.e., religion.

Another reason he gives for the move to religion is that he sees the global warming movement as merely one political manifestation of what is fundamentally a mystical, religious philosophical base. I take it that it is this latter that he is more concerned with in the long run, while still acknowledging the real threat that this movement poses in the shorter term.

One other aspect of this I find interesting is commentary indicating his current assessment of the general populace and perhaps culture, which is something I'm always curious to get others' perspectives on. Specifically, I interpret his statements as saying that the populace as a whole still has a positive sense of life, i.e., want a positive view of man and life, as well as clear moral guidelines. Yet, the primary intellectual alternative to the chaotic irrationality of the greens proposing to offer such things is religion. Implicitly, this points out how far Objectivism has to go to influence the culture.

All this seems correct to me. However, one statement I'm not sure I fully understand is "To compare ecology and religion in terms of the threat to our future is to fail to understand the power of abstract ideas." I take him to mean the long-term future, because he does acknowledge a shorter-term threat from the global warming movement. I further understand him to mean that because religion is more fundamental than a particular movement it spawns, it isn't appropriate to compare the two as equals. In other words, every particular movement that comes from religion will be a threat, and so in order to eliminate those specific threats, you have to defeat their cause, i.e., religion.

Does anyone see this the same way?

[bborg 0]

Does anyone see this the same way?

Your thoughts mirror mine.

The interesting thing about environmentalism is that its followers really consist of two tiers: those who accept its fundamental ideas and form the core of the movement, and those who accept the PR message of caring for our environment for future generations (and reducing pollution for ourselves). In fact, I've noticed that it takes quite a lot of time to prove to your average environmentalist that the movement is based on an anti-man ideology. Such "moderates" usually view the "radicals" as distinct from the ideas put in practice such as the DDT ban, recycling, global warming etc., which they regard as genuine concern for protecting humans from themselves (however mistaken that concern may be). The pseudoscience such as ecology has been accepted and is taught everwhere, but it hasn't been the case that people fully accept or even understand the beliefs. I don't think the actual core of environmentalism has taken root or will ever take root in America because it's simply too explicitly horrible.

It's pretty clear that the public "moderate" message was designed differently in order to attract more members and get a faster political payoff. I think the movement has come to a head, though, and will not last much longer because they've reached a standstill. Even the pseudoscience can't support the radical market regulations they want, and so they've had to rely heavily on fear and hysteria in their propoganda. Global warming has become the mechanism for that hysteria. However this is backfiring because the scientific community and even the layman are rebelling against the increasingly ridiculous claims.

All this seems correct to me. However, one statement I'm not sure I fully understand is "To compare ecology and religion in terms of the threat to our future is to fail to understand the power of abstract ideas." I take him to mean the long-term future, because he does acknowledge a shorter-term threat from the global warming movement. I further understand him to mean that because religion is more fundamental than a particular movement it spawns, it isn't appropriate to compare the two as equals. In other words, every particular movement that comes from religion will be a threat, and so in order to eliminate those specific threats, you have to defeat their cause, i.e., religion.

I think the latter reason you list is the one Dr. Peikoff is focussing on here. Since environmentalism is simply one more incarnation of mysticism, to compare the threat of environmentalism vs. religion is to ignore the hierarchy of knowledge. It is also the reason why you fight environmentalism not by trying to refute its specific "scientific" claims, but by attacking the mysticism it's based on directly.

[Paul's Here 0]

The theme is actually continued in the next question he answers:

"Q: The year 2007 is the 25th anniversary of The Ominous Parallels. Would you make any changes to your book if it were coming out today?

A: --------

In my youth, religion was regarded by educated people as a joke—a stagnant backwater of the passive and mindless specimens concentrated in the Bible Belt."

-----------

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of Dr. Peikoff's point here. 40 years ago, abortion was illegal for religious reasons. In many major cities, stores were legally closed on Sundays because of religious reasons; prayers were said in public schools; books were censored in many cities. When Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he had to answer questions whether he would be following orders from the Pope. Martin Luther King, who struggled for civil rights, was a Reverend. I'm sure there are many other examples.

Does "educated people" refer to his Objectivist associates or others in society? Why is regarding an ideology as a joke a standard for evaluation? What will happen when the religionists adopt the viro philosophy as there own?

[Paul's Here 0]

How could Environmentalism not be more of a threat than Religion? The banning of DDT has probably resulted in more deaths in the last 30 years than Religion could ever be blamed for over the total of Man's existence (Since DDT has been banned, there have been about an extra million deaths a year for the past 30 years due to Malaria).

I want to gently say that I think Dr. Peikoff focuses too much on the role of abstract philosophy in man's existence (Fundamentalist Christianity/Islam) and too little on the role of more concrete, less abstract movements and events (Environmentalism).

I disagree with you here. If there's anything that Atlas Shrugged demonstrated, it was the role of abstract philosophy in man's existence. Why do you hold that environmentalism is less abstract? It is a follow-on of the New Left, which comes from the Old Left, which comes from Marxism, which comes from Hegel and Kant. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, whereas environmentalism is the lastest by-product of a long philosophic tradition.

You claim that millions died because of DDT over 30 years. Well, man's life expectancy was less that 30 years for centuries because reason was subordinated to faith.

[Paul's Here 0]

BTW, the original question asked about Environmentalism vs. Islamic Fundamentalism, not Christianity. Anyone want to comment on that?

Environmentalism vs. Islamic Fundamentalism??

"Further, God compels Muslims in the Quran to respect and revere the environment when He says, 'Greater indeed the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth.' (40:57)"

"In Islam, even the Earth has inalienable rights endowed by its Creator."

"Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as telling of an incident that happened to another prophet in the past. This prophet was stung by an ant and, in anger, he ordered the whole of the ants' nest to be burned. At this, God reprimanded his prophet in these words: 'Because one ant stung you, you have burned a whole community which glorified Me'."

Sourses?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If there's anything that Atlas Shrugged demonstrated, it was the role of abstract philosophy in man's existence. Why do you hold that environmentalism is less abstract? It is a follow-on of the New Left, which comes from the Old Left, which comes from Marxism, which comes from Hegel and Kant. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, whereas environmentalism is the lastest by-product of a long philosophic tradition.

I think environmentalism is less abstract and philosophical than Christianity and that is why it is much worse.

Environmentalism has it's ultimate source in the most cognitively primitive man's inability to deal with existence and his resulting abject fear of nature and the natural world. It is the mindset of pre-civilized, pre-philosophical savages.

Religion may be dead wrong, but environmentalism doesn't even rise to that level.

[Paul's Here 0]

If there's anything that Atlas Shrugged demonstrated, it was the role of abstract philosophy in man's existence. Why do you hold that environmentalism is less abstract? It is a follow-on of the New Left, which comes from the Old Left, which comes from Marxism, which comes from Hegel and Kant. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, whereas environmentalism is the lastest by-product of a long philosophic tradition.

I think environmentalism is less abstract and philosophical than Christianity and that is why it is much worse.

Environmentalism has it's ultimate source in the most cognitively primitive man's inability to deal with existence and his resulting abject fear of nature and the natural world. It is the mindset of pre-civilized, pre-philosophical savages.

Religion may be dead wrong, but environmentalism doesn't even rise to that level.

I see what you mean. I didn't think of it in those terms. I guess it's like racism or tribalism are less abstract than philosophy in the sense that the latter two require only the concrete-bound identification with a physical characteristic rather than with an ideological system. However, to combat environmentalism requires just as much abstract thought as does any philosophic system. When companies ban industrial products from being used in production because of alleged threats to health and the environment, it is not because of their pre-civilized inability to deal with existence or fear of nature.

In what way do you regard it as "worse" because it is less abstract?