Four thousand years ago, more or less, we humans so polluted the environment that God sent a flood to clear away all the polluters and save the one righteous man, his family, and a bunch of innocent flora and fauna.
Four years ago, more or less, the environmental priests of the world in Kyoto assembled declared that Gaia was being offended by the sins of the world and that the consequent global warming would cause a great flood that would inundate the low lying areas of the world. The priests called upon the righteous to turn the evil hearts of the corporations and repent.
It’s lucky that our global media does not call environmentalism a religion. Because then it might feel obliged to be more skeptical of the movement’s claims. For the rest of us, we are bound to observe that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
The Daily Telegraph’s Charles Moore is not amused.
[T]he beauty of it is that everything can come under the rubric of "saving the planet". Whether it's speed limits or disposable nappies or second homes or cheap flights or old fridges or how many babies you have, you can be told not to do whatever it is you are doing. And if you complain, you can be marked out as a selfish pig.
When you don’t have a real religion, such as that one with a lover God who wants you to love him back, then you have to invent one. And the chances are it’s not going to measure up to the ones already on offer.
And there’s another thing. One of the keys of a successful religion, you may have noticed, is that it insists that the faithful go out and multiply. It’s an insurance policy to make sure that there are plenty of believers in the next generation.
Our new red-green socialist-environmentalist religion seems to have slipped up on that one. It’s a mistake that could be fatal.
No comments:
Post a Comment