by Lewis Loflin
Environmentalism, often presented as a movement to protect nature, can harbor an anti-human ideology that prioritizes non-human entities over human well-being, threatening both reason and liberty. In his 1992 book *The Toxicity of Environmentalism*, Prof. George Reisman warned of this danger, a concern that remains relevant today. As a Deist, I advocate for empirical science and practical solutions, emphasizing the need to place human welfare at the forefront of environmental policy while rejecting ideologies that undermine our freedoms.
At its core, the anti-human strain of environmentalism—often called biocentrism—elevates nature above humanity, viewing humans as a destructive force rather than a part of the natural world. This ideology asserts that non-human entities, such as animals, ecosystems, or geological formations, have intrinsic value greater than human life, either individually or collectively. Prof. Reisman describes this as a “doctrine of the negation of human values,” arguing that it inherently dismisses the worth of human well-being and progress (*The Toxicity of Environmentalism*).
Such beliefs can lead to extreme positions: advocating population control through measures like abortion, or denying care to the sick, elderly, or dying on the grounds they no longer “contribute” to society. These ideas devalue human life, treating people as expendable in the name of preserving nature. I liken this mindset to botulism—a natural toxin that, even in small amounts, can poison an entire batch of food. Similarly, a small dose of anti-human ideology in public policy can have devastating consequences for society.
In Virginia, a coalition of political and corporate interests has leveraged environmentalism to impose costly climate policies, often at the expense of working-class citizens. In 2017, Governor Terry McAuliffe pushed regulations to counter President Donald Trump’s rollback of Obama-era EPA rules, which had targeted the energy sector (*Richmond Times-Dispatch*, May 16, 2017). These policies artificially inflate energy costs, benefiting the green energy industry—whose solar panels and wind turbines remain unaffordable for many—while burdening low-income households with higher electric bills and potential job losses.
Dominion Energy, Virginia’s largest electric supplier, supports these measures, operating on a cost-plus basis that guarantees higher profits as production costs rise. For example, Dominion can purchase a wind farm in Wyoming to meet environmental standards, passing the cost—plus a profit—onto Virginia customers, regardless of the impact on affordability. This arrangement, often mislabeled as a “market-based mechanism,” is far from a free market; it’s a collaboration between government and corporations that prioritizes profit over public welfare, highlighting a lack of transparency and accountability in environmental policy.
Environmentalism often relies on alarmist predictions to justify its policies, yet history shows these claims are frequently unfounded. In the 1970s, environmentalists warned of “peak oil” and predicted that industrial metals like lead, copper, and nickel would be depleted by 2000. By 2017, these fears were debunked: hydraulic fracturing and other technologies have made the U.S. a leading producer of oil and natural gas, with reserves lasting centuries. Advances in extraction and manufacturing have also reduced the need for rare materials, keeping prices low and availability high—even small quantities of metals are now accessible on platforms like eBay.
Prominent figures like Paul Ehrlich, an entomologist with no expertise in resource management, have perpetuated these myths. Ehrlich’s decades of failed predictions, from resource depletion to climate catastrophe, demonstrate a reliance on ideology over empirical evidence. Similarly, Bill Nye, known as the “Science Guy,” claimed on television that Earth’s temperature should match levels from the American Revolution—ignoring that this period coincided with the Little Ice Age, a time of global cooling. When pressed to quantify human impact on climate, Nye couldn’t provide data, revealing a reliance on emotion rather than reason (*Tucker Carlson interview*).
The anti-human strain of environmentalism often operates on dogma, not science, rejecting the scientific method’s emphasis on empirical evidence and experimentation. Global temperatures have risen by 1.4°F over the past 200 years—a modest increase following the Little Ice Age, when warming was expected (*NASA Earth Observatory*). Yet, many environmentalists claim this rise, even after data adjustments, signals a crisis, while simultaneously dismissing the safety of vaccines, nuclear power, and other scientific advancements. They distrust modern technology, yet place blind faith in computer models predicting climate 100 years into the future—models that have consistently failed to match real-world outcomes.
This contradiction extends to broader ideological claims. Bill Nye, for instance, has argued that gender is determined by feelings rather than biology, a stance that defies scientific understanding. Such irrationality mirrors the quasi-religious nature of environmentalism, where nature is treated as a sacred entity—Representative Morris Udall called the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, a frozen Arctic desert, a “sacred place”—and human progress is seen as a sin against it. This mindset prioritizes emotion over reason, undermining the pursuit of truth.
Environmentalism’s anti-human ideology often intertwines with religious and socialist influences, amplifying its impact. Pope Francis, who adopted the name of St. Francis of Assisi—the patron saint of ecology—has embraced biocentrism, equating all animals, from rats to humans, in value. Influenced by liberation theology, a Marxist interpretation of Christianity, he advocates for policies that prioritize nature over human welfare, while remaining silent on crises like Venezuela’s economic collapse, where socialism has led to mass suffering (*New York Times*, 11/26/2016; 4/26/2017). His focus on mass migration and environmentalism, rather than addressing violence against Christians, reflects a troubling blend of socialism, ecology, and anti-human theology.
David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, exemplifies this ideology’s extremes. In a 1989 review of Bill McKibben’s *The End of Nature*, Graber wrote, “We’re not interested in the utility of a particular species… to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value—to me—than another human body or 1 billion of them… Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along” (*Los Angeles Times Book Review*, 10/22/1989). This call for human genocide in the name of nature’s “intrinsic value” reveals the dangerous undercurrent of biocentrism, which views humanity as a “cancer” on the planet (*Science*, Vol. 121, No. 681, 5/13/1950).
Addressing environmental challenges requires solutions that prioritize human well-being over ideological goals. Nuclear power and hydraulic fracturing offer low-carbon energy options that ensure reliability and affordability. Nuclear energy, proven safe through natural reactors like Oklo that operated for millions of years, provides stable power, unlike the intermittent wind and solar often promoted by environmentalists. Hydraulic fracturing has unlocked vast oil and gas reserves, reducing emissions while supporting economic growth. Technological advancements, such as fiber-optic lines made from sand and efficient manufacturing, have further cut pollution without sacrificing progress, demonstrating that science can balance environmental care with human needs.
As a Deist, I believe in using reason and empirical science to understand the world, rejecting ideologies that elevate nature above humanity. Environmentalism’s anti-human strain, with its quasi-religious reverence for nature and socialist underpinnings, threatens both liberty and reason. Policies driven by this ideology impose unnecessary costs, as seen in Virginia, while ignoring the natural variability of climate—global temperatures have fluctuated for millennia, often without human influence. We must demand transparency in climate science, ensuring data and models are open to scrutiny, and focus on practical solutions that support human welfare, not undermine it.
Environmentalism should serve humanity, not diminish it. By rejecting anti-human ideologies and grounding our policies in empirical science, we can address environmental challenges without sacrificing liberty or well-being. Prof. Reisman’s warning from 1992 remains a call to action: we must prioritize reason over dogma, ensuring that our pursuit of a sustainable future places human life at its center.
Updated March 2025 by Lewis Loflin.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
Click to Visit!
