The environmentalist rash is certainly flaring up. Whether it’s the trendy “Green” packaging (usually showing some type of little green leaf icon) of consumer products, the patronizing “why aren’t we just doing something about it?” commercials from the smugly confused energy corporations, or the silly news segments showing us all how to sacrifice for the greater good of mother earth - the barrage of green propaganda is hard to miss. ‘We are in a crisis’ they say, and only mouth-breathing, greedy, war-mongering, redneck, gluttons could think otherwise.

The latest man-hating charade was in the form of a solemn tribute called “Earth Hour”, where in the spirit of renouncing consumption, the symbolic act of going without carbon based energy for an hour was supposed to prove allegiance to the movement to save the earth. What exactly was this supposed to accomplish? What are the motivations of those playing along?

There are many who would surely love to see man and his innovation crumble back to the cave, or worse, who see humans as a disease that the planet must purge itself of. They envision what the world could be like without man. Unfortunately, those who crave destruction (or reduction) of human life, seem reluctant to lead by example.

I think these varmints only represent a small segment of the movement. Then there are those who still have managed to hold on to just a twinkling desire to live. They feel guilt of man’s sins against the earth, but enjoy the tangible results of the human mind. They are the ones who urge us to live a sort of “diet-life”. Basically, they think we should live, but we should devolve every innovation or luxury as a compromise. They regard them with the same pantomimic superficiality that they do their own life, where the facade is what should be valued, not the underlying reality. They think we should keep using light bulbs, just handicap them to near junk. We can still enjoy automobiles, just render them impractical and/or nearly unusable. We can still apply a protective finish to stringed instruments, just not as attractively or with as much protection.

Through sacrifice we can all exist and die at the same time, like zombies going through the motions of only a fraction of our potential lives. To them, a “diet-life” is the ideal compromise between life and death.

I suspect the rest being herded into this cause are nothing more than environmental poseurs. They have no intention of full compliance with the green code, they only seek the prestige of belonging to a cause, and will play along for the approval of others. Sure, they’ll play the game for an hour, but full devotion to the cause has never crossed their minds. They remind me of “Sunday Morning Christians”, those who put on the happy face, clean up their language, and code-switch into a religious devotee for an hour or two on Sunday morning; then resume their normal state of mind, and mode of operation until next week. I know this feeling well. They go through the motions and put on the mask when they feel the judgment of their peers. The reason they regard it as a mask is that they really don’t subscribe to the doctrine. They want to subscribe, and they want others to think they are “feelin’ it”, but it doesn’t feel natural or rewarding. They know their checkbook of reason doesn’t balance, but they’ve been lead to believe that it shouldn’t, or that faith demands they ignore it. They feel guilt for questioning it, shame for denying it, and fear embarrassment if they don’t project it.

The religious nature of environmentalism demands that we feel guilty for consumption, that utilizing natural and man-made resources in order to survive and enjoy our existence is evil. We should sacrifice our quality of life for the greater cause of not interfering with the natural balance of the earth. The premise is that the earth, a spinning ball of gas and dust, has a higher priority than man, a volitional being capable of reason, creativity and love.

This is a complete inversion of reality. Mans purpose is to live and be happy. The earth has no purpose. It is a random result of energy and matter that merely exists. It simply is. Sacrificing the living to the non-living isn’t justified or moral for any cause.

That’s how many we’d *need* if everyone lived like me. However, with altruism and barbaric faith being the prominent philosophical guidelines across the globe, I don’t think we have anything to worry about. In other words, while I wouldn’t consider myself wealthy, I maintain a quality of life that requires the denial of the destructive mindsets listed above.

So, onward my fellow greedy Americans! Let’s keep those carbon footprints growing!

Once again, life is all about trade-offs - adhering to the environmental mindset in exchange for comfort, prosperity, security and freedom are not ones I’m willing to make..