Environmentalism Sucks

Environmentalism sucks.

Let me rephrase that. “Environmentalism” sucks. There, that’s better. Of course I will explain the difference, which is the purpose of this little essay. In a nutshell, the former is the real deal. It entails a view of life...oops. It entails a view of Life that is almost wholly unknown in the modern world, and is certainly disdained and even ridiculed by the dominant culture. Environmentalism embraces Life in a holistic manner, giving proper respect to all of it, not just the two-legged kind. It regards the ant, the spider, the eagle, the tree, the frog, the badger, the passenger pigeon all as having a voice, a will. Environmentalism allows all creatures an innate value, far more than the utilitarian “something to teach us”, which of course all those things have the ability to do (except the passenger pigeon in the former list, who can now only teach from the pulpit of memory). True Environmentalism, far more than “environmentalism”, acknowledges that these Beings are endowed with the same essence that animates man. The essence is Life; it is the will to live, to follow instinct. Animals do this to perfection, presumably, in the wild. They have married their instinct and their will, their Lives, perfectly. In a spiritual context, they are Whole. They do what their Spirits tell them to do. They operate flawlessly, all the time. It could be argued that of all the creatures on this planet, only mankind disobeys his own soul. Unless it is trained out of it, every other creature does exactly what it was created to do. They embody purity. They are one step removed from God.

Mankind, for many reasons that I will not get into just yet, has come to believe that all these others are to be subdued. This is far less true in cultures where it is important, a matter of survival, to live in harmony with the environment. In those cultures, when there is a conflict between instincts, man will use whatever tools he can to survive. The same can be said of man’s antagonist. For instance, a man walking through a Burmese jungle may stumble upon a tiger. The tiger’s instinct may well be to eat the man. That is his instinct. He is not evil for wanting to do this. On the other hand, he is the very definition of righteousness should he attempt to do so. It is the man’s instinct to fight; to use whatever means he has at his disposal to fend off this animal, to avoid being fed to the kittens in the tree. Man’s greatest tool in this case might be the wisdom to not go tramping through the jungle where a predator of this magnitude might exist in the first place. But if man indeed finds himself in this predicament, he is bound to follow his own instincts, his own Spirit, to also act in complete righteousness and attempt to drive off, or even kill, his attacker. But the difference is what happens after the encounter.

The dominant culture, those that created the false “environmentalism”, would take it a step further. It would begin to tell a story about the incident. The story would use another of the instincts that mankind has, but it would be used to pull others of mankind away from Life. The instinct is emotion. We know that many, perhaps all, other creatures on this planet emote. One only has to come home at the end of the day to a grinning dog to see that. But the man that has embraced the dominant culture may go back to those of his kind and tearfully tell of the terror of nearly being eaten. He may say that the children are not safe to play in the Burmese jungle, and that it is man’s right to be there. He may appeal to the economic sentiments of others like himself and say how the land has oil under it, or the view is great, or the surf is killer, or any number of reasons to displace the animal. Why? Because he can. At this point it is not about survival, but about something else; a resource to exploit. It is no longer about harmony, as far as Life (including the tiger) is concerned. One may argue that it is also mankind’s instinct to dominate and that mankind is therefore completely “righteous” by doing so. But one has only to study the indigenous cultures of the world to know that while survival of our species involves some type of domination due to our lack of fangs, claws and wings, it is western culture that has taken this domination to new levels, to making all of Life our slave, to be the Master of all “lesser” Beings. This could bring us to the Biblical account of the Creation and of The Fall, where in some versions God tells Adam that he is to “master” all of Creation. The indigenous explorer in our example, living in harmony with Life, may well learn from his near-death experience by staying away from dense jungles where sixteen-foot cats may prey upon him. He may even honor the now presumably dead creature with stories, songs, dances and feasts. He may be so in awe of the creature that he wears the teeth of the animal around his neck – maybe because the women just love it, but probably also because in the inconvenience of nearly being lunch, he experienced a type of power that reminds him of Life. That is how he “masters” his environment. He learns to survive with it, to move with it, to love it. It is not good or bad, it just is. In short he sees himself as part of it. Modern man, on the other hand, would rather raze the jungle and build a condo there. An “environmentally conscious” one, too. And an airport to service it.  

You see where I’m going?

Modern culture has misinterpreted the term, “master” and the command to do that to all of creation. Because of the stories we have told ourselves, we have changed the original meaning of the term for our own Convenience, which is the true God of modern culture (not the poor Nazarene who would likely be hated, mocked and ridiculed were he to appear as such by many of those that profess love for him). To “master” now means to annihilate, to extinction if necessary or Convenient, to mankind’s whim. We’ve become so powerful, so expert in the taking of life, that we now fight Life. What’s worse, according to the thriving doctrine of Manifest Destiny, the Creation that we are now to master includes those of our own species that may disagree. So we end up with barbaric cruelty perpetuated upon the native people of any “civilized” continent, as well as those in any dominate-able country that may attempt to stop oil drilling, tree killing, strip mining or diamond harvesting. The activists that dare to stop these activities and those like them have been given the name “terrorist”, and “terrorists” of these stripes are punished most gravely and mercilessly. And rather than celebrate Life with a feast, modern man celebrates Death. General Bill Harney at Sand Creek, after gunning down 300 mostly unarmed Cheyenne women and children (since the men were away on the seasonal hunts), and whose men cut off the genitals of women and children to adorn their uniforms afterwards, was given the honor by the US Government of the name of the highest peak in the spiritual heart of Sioux territory, Harney Peak. He has a county named after him in the State of Oregon. The dominant culture decorates soldiers for their killing, raises or lowers the flag to honor them. They are doing our work, the work of civilization, the work of increasing our convenience. Or Convenience.

So why does “environmentalism” suck, then?

“Environmentalism” sucks because it is a term given to us to lull us into further unconsciousness by the very death and convenience-worshipping culture that is in power now. It is a term given to us to either increase our unconsciousness or assuage our guilt over denying our deepest nature, which is to work in accordance with Life, in cooperation with Life. If we’re “environmentally friendly”, we’ve done our part, right? If I “reduce my carbon footprint” or recycle my glass bottles or go so far as to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a hybrid vehicle, I’m “green”, right? I’m doing my part, right? I’m good, right? No. You, green environmentalist, are missing the point. You’ve been lied to, used again as part of the marketing machine of modern culture. The point is this: until you return to the idea that this planet is not your plaything, that the manatee has as much to teach as the man, that your air conditioning is not as important as our air quality, that your biodiesel is still lethal, you are fighting Life. Until we, as a species, embrace the fact that conveniences are only that and learn that variations in temperature, temporary hunger and thirst, walking and fewer choices at the supermarket are great teachers in themselves (not the Essence of Evil), we will be living in conflict with other life forms. We will continue to insulate ourselves not only from inconvenience, but from Life. This unwillingness to suffer dreaded inconvenience brings death to other life forms, certainly. This can easily be illustrated. It happens constantly around us. But it can also be shown clearly that it will bring death to our own species and to this planet, which is the very nature of Life and Love.

Where do we draw the line then? Do we all start walking to work? Do we let those that do worship death and destruction rule over the walkers and in-season vegetable eaters? Now that is a good question, and I don’t have the answer. All I suggest in this little essay is that we each examine ourselves, but not for our “greenness” or even our “carbon footprint”. Those are too rife with the values of the liars, bottom-line worshippers and propagandists to be of any real use. Instead, we should look at our addiction to convenience, from our shoes to our cars, from the food we choose to eat to the temperatures we keep our homes, from the electrical appliances we use to the music we listen to and begin to make choices; choices that seem untoward, that seem incongruous with modern life, for they will be. They will be more, but only a step more, congruous with Life. I submit that when we miss a meal because there are no vegetables conveniently located that have been grown nearby, we will appreciate the vegetables more when we get them, which the vegetables deserve because their life-force has been cut off for our benefit. We will be more attached to Life. Better yet, in that situation we will have sacrificed our Convenience for Life, a worthy trade and a step in the right direction. A major benefit of this is that we will value the vegetable more. We will understand on a deeper level that it sustained us. We know that it was grown from soil, not concrete. Therefore, to protect the vegetable and hence ourselves, we must preserve the soil, and we will be able to do this from a deeper knowing than we experienced before we traded Convenience for Life. Another example would be for those of us who are meat-eaters. We insulate ourselves from the process of death. It is “gross”, or it is “inconvenient”. Yes, you’re right. I retch when I gut a deer, I have to admit. I disdain the death dance of a chicken. But for an omnivore, the visceral part of the obtaining of meat should be a part of life because that creature’s death is a part of Life. And the deer and the chicken, the goose, duck and rabbit should all be honored for the giving of their lives. Part of this respect is not insulating ourselves from the process, for convenience sake.

The bottom line is that truly engaging in Life is the true Environmentalism. It is devoid of slick marketing, high-rise offices or income statements. It doesn’t care about your mpg. True Environmentalism doesn’t suck. It serves. It lives. And it is the only thing that will save us with any grace at all.