Notes On: The Pagan Religion Of "Environmentalism".

WE NEED TO LIVE BY A STORY — A NARRATIVE.

What seems increasingly clear to me is that we as sapiens need to live by a story: namely, a hierarchy consisting of a primary moral objective in which we are aiming towards.

As sapiens, we can choose to live or life by either a pro human story, or an anti-humanistic story.

For example, in the case of animal testing, we as sapiens can take a pro human moral stance on this and recognise that to ensure that flourishing of the human species – human flourishing being at the top of the moral hierarchy – then, to do this, we must accept animal testing, and recognise the value within testing animals, when it comes to human flourishing.

The point being is that most people take a pro humanin stance, and therefore recognise that through testing on animals, we prioritise the countless lives that animal testing saves.

This is because, once again just to reiterate, our primary moral goal in this context is some version of “advancing human flourishing” – increasing the ability of human beings to live ling, healthy, fulfilling lives.

But note that whilst many and most support animal testing for medical research, many millions of people worldwide evaluate as immoral any kind of testing on animals.

There are even scientists who believe that animal testing is immoral, even through they recognise and know the benefits this practice brings to human life.

Why?

Well because, they believe that a higher moral goal and standard than saving the life of human beings from disease is the moral goal and standard of animal equality.

The basic idea of this notion of animal equality is that it is morally wrong for human beings to interfere with and above all, to kill other animals.

If one's primary moral goal is animal equality, one will be morally drive to eliminate all human impacts on animals, including human benefiting impacts such as the use of animals for medical research.

The lesson here is that an anti human goal and standard can cause people to pursue anti human policies – even when they have the factual and methodological knowledge to know that they are pursing anti human policies.

This – I believe – explains why throughout history, many human beings and knowledge systems – who should have known better, instead supported and enacted horrible anti humanistic policies. This included that of slavery, racism and Nazism.

The point that I am making is the following, namely that the knowledge system of today when it comes to climate change, is operating under an anti-humanistic stance.

This story in which they have created – at the top – places the Virgin Like Planet as a delicate nurturer, in which has been exploited and ruined by the parasitical, evil, white, male dominated, racist, and capitalistic system.

So, within their religious pseudo ideologue, they view the earth as an untouched and delicate Virgin, equating this to a God Like Status.

And, the evil, capitalistic, patriarchal, and parasitical male dominated system – this is the evil.

The point being is that, when it comes to radical environmentalism, their true moral objective is to eliminate all human impact upon the Virgin Like Planet.

You may think at first glance that the true moral objective of environmentalism is the “eliminate all CO2”. But, this is not true at all.

If this were the case, why wouldn’t the environmentalists be in advocation for nuclear energy – in which emits no C02, and is by far the safest form of energy we have today – plus is cost effective on a scale in which is analogous to that of fossil fuels.

Surely if the true moral objective of climate environmentalism is to eliminate C02 – in which in itself is debated as to if this is wise to do so – surely if this is the true moral objective, then surely environmentalists would be in advocation for nuclear energy which emits no C02?

This tells you everything you need to know. The true objective of environmentalism is not to eliminate C02. It is to eliminate all human impact upon the pseudo religious, virgin like, delicate planet.

People such as Paul Ehrlich, and Al Gore – these individuals are consciously in advocation for very disturbing environmental policies: the most famous being the “population bomb”.

Paul warned of the perils of overpopulation: mass starvation, societal upheaval, environmental deterioration. In fact, Paul went so far to state and advocated for depopulation plans, in an attempt to mitigate against the dangers of overpopulation in which he believed would destroy the Virgin Like Planet.

Basically, Paul believed, that in order to save the Virgin Planet from supposed disaster, we must depopulate the world immediately.

Once again – proving my point right – that humans within the environmentalism narrative, are comparable to parasites upon the earth. This, obviously being an increasingly disturbing story.

GOD IS DEAD, WHAT SHALL REPLACE THE VOID?

One aspect I've been contemplating is Nietzsche's concept of "The Death of God" and its manifestation in contemporary culture, which subsequently leads to the adoption of secular deities. An example of this phenomenon is the reverence for the concept of Gaia in what could be described as a pseudo-religious manner.

Nietzsche grappled with the profound transformations occurring within Western culture during an era marked by the burgeoning influence of Enlightenment ideals and the seismic shifts of the Industrial Revolution.

These forces were rapidly dismantling traditional societal and religious frameworks. Consequently, his declaration emerges as one of the most recognized and contentious articulations of this period of radical transition.

Nietzsche's pronouncement must be situated within its philosophical and historical milieu; it is not merely a straightforward assertion regarding the existence or non-existence of a deity.

Rather, it is a profound reflection on the evolving cultural tableau and the consequential effects this evolution may exert on human values and the search for significance

Nietzsche's assertion "God is dead" should not be interpreted as the literal demise of a deity but rather as emblematic of a substantial transformation within Western culture and societal norms, especially pertaining to the domain of spirituality and ethical principles.

Nietzsche witnessed the gradual erosion of conventional religious values and, despite his critique of them, was equally taken aback by the nature of their displacement.

The Christian worldview, with its distinctive perspectives on morality and societal order, was dissipating swiftly, and there was no comparable paradigm emerging to fill the void.

On the other side, Nietzsche recognized that science, reason, and secularism were all gaining in prominence. Traditional religious beliefs were therefore losing their monopoly on people’s minds and on their ability to shape the way people behave.

In the past, religion had played a central role in providing meaning, purpose, and moral guidelines for individuals and society.

It was a store of meaning, and touched almost every part of peoples’ lives profoundly. It served as the foundation for a shared understanding of the world and the place of humans within it.

However, Nietzsche believed that with the decline of religious belief, there was a danger of a moral and existential vacuum.

Without the guidance of a transcendent deity or a divine order, people might face a crisis of values and meaning

In Nietzsche's discourse, the phrase "God is dead" serves as a metaphorical expression for the dissolution of absolute moral truths and the disintegration of conventional religious authority.

Far from exulting in this 'death,' Nietzsche sounded an alarm about the possible repercussions for a society left without a solid ethical bedrock.

His concern was that the erosion of established religious values might give rise to nihilism, an existential void where life is regarded as lacking inherent meaning or worth.

And this, leads me onto the latter point; namely, the Nietzschean notion of “Will-To-Power”.

Nietzsche’s position on the erosion of Western Values in Western culture is actually ambiguous – even he doesn’t appear to be completely certain about all of the implications of this dramatic shift.

On the one hand, the challenge of religion’s decreasing value is also an opportunity. It is an opportunity for individuals to create their own values, to embrace the “Will to Power” (their fundamental drive to be autonomous) and to affirm life on their own terms.

Therefore, a key argument I wish to present is that, echoing Nietzsche's philosophy of the "Death of God," the absence of a shared Judeo-Christian God from our collective culture creates a void. However, this void does not remain empty and present;

rather, the absence of a unified deity manifests itself in alternative forms. Instead of coalescing into a single collective entity – namely the Juado-Christian-God, the dispersion and manifestation of this void occurs through more fragmented and individualized pathways.

Consequently, stemming from the implications of the Will to Power, the decline of previously mentioned religious values culminates in the elevation of the self to the status of an "absolute deity“, perhaps referred to as “pride”.

This denotes a scenario where the desires of the self – the individual – are fulfilled without any introspection of one's actions, devoid of any moral framework. As a result, society becomes increasingly individualistic, motivated by superficial standards of "hedonism," "freedom," or the conventional pursuit of "happiness.“

Alternately, relevant to this discussion, the conceptualisation of “God” as the “Virgin Like Planet”, or the “Gaia”, thus manifests itself, therefore acting as one's fundamental form of orientation within the world.

We are fundamentally religious creatures; we are not merely creatures of hedonism, consumption, and production – to the latter. We are fundamentally creatures of spirituality – and we must not forget this.

And thus, to reiterate the prior point; in light of this religious structure that is prevalent within the framework of environmentalism, this is why the policy errors have become staggeringly irrational.

The structure of the enviromentalistic movement is as follows:

1. Virgin Planet as the Gaia

2. Humans analogous to exploitative parasites who are ravaging the Virgin-Like-Planet

3. And thus, a total and utter disregard for any pro-humanistic-forms of climate flourishing.

Thus, stagnation at the expensive of all!