Judging by the many battles over the past few months on the web (especially on Twitter) environmentalism (in the sense of a political ideology) is staking its claim a little more every day. These days it is not just about limiting technological developments, it is an outright matter of influence and controlling individual behaviour. In pursuit of this end, all means are justified, including taking on the major life stages.
Taking aim at the cradle and the grave
It was in the Autumn of 2018 that this outlandish idea came to light again, unveiled by AFP, which broadcast an infographic which told us that having one less child would be the most effective way to fight global warming. This letter from Wynes and Kimberly, which was originally intended to raise awareness among young Canadians, came out in 2017, just after the last alarmist IPCC report. As Jean De Kervasdoué notes: “The idea of the non-existence of the last child embodies the very essence of Malthusianism. It is odd that it should appear in Canada, which is not lacking in space, but in people!” Awareness-raising campaigns about personal choices promoted as examples, are only a step away from huge reinforcement with wide dissemination on social networks. For example, Leilani Munter, an environmental activist (and former racing driver) says in a video for “Brut nature”: “I have decided not to have children to safeguard the future of our planet. This has a far greater impact than any other gesture. No matter how green you are and how much you respect the planet (…), the best way for us to reduce (our carbon footprint) is to have fewer children or no children“. These ideas are not new; they are inspired by early environmental theorists, and also by the Club of Rome report.
But why stop at birth? Environmentalism also has solutions for the end of life, and wants to control the nitty gritty of that too. For example, a Belgian company is campaigning for human composting to be allowed. An RTL news item reported on how “human composting is a new concept in funerals. The idea is to immerse the remains in compost so that they decompose naturally. The process takes 12 months, after which all you have to do is recover the bones and teeth, or any artificial parts of the body (pacemaker, prostheses…). The advantages of this process: there is no pollution, instead it creates a compost that can be used for crops, tree plantations and so on. It is true that current funeral practices are very polluting. Incineration generates air pollution and fossil fuel consumption. Burial creates soil pollution. The body does not decompose so well, and neither do coffins.”
These trends are clear indications that the whole life cycle is being targeted. Old age is not yet under attack. Not yet… Not long ago, a Dutch MP launched the debate on “Should we continue to treat the elderly after the age of 70? ” This uncomfortable question is at present motivated by a desire to avoid unnecessary treatment, and keep down social security costs, but how long will it be before environmentalism starts to ask the question…? Because it seems that nothing is exempt from this remorseless logic. How did it come to this?
Collapsology continues to undermine
As we have seen on several occasions, these theories are based on that of collapsology and argue everything is worse than before, contrary to the claims of defenders of the philosophy of enlightenment, such as Steven Pinker or Richard Dawkins. . These latter take as a real success the fact that average life expectancy has now risen to over 71; we have better health, we are better able to sustain our food needs, and while 10% of the world’s population still lives in extreme poverty, for the record 90% of the population lived in extreme poverty in 1820… In short, all the instruments have positive readings. But instead, for collapsologists the readings are all in the danger zone, and they are looking at one variable and one only: CO2 consumption. As we also mentioned recently, this variable takes on a universal significance Every aspect of life is affected by it. As a result, it is clear that the problem goes far beyond a purely scientific view.
Some considerations: materialism vs. finalism
In our opinion, the debate between ideological environmentalism supported by collapsology, and the other schools of thought they oppose is plainly situated at a philosophical level. Because it is no longer a question of simply saying whether science and reason will be able to help humanity to live better, it is clearly a question of rethinking the nature of humanity by linking its destiny to that of the implacable mechanics of CO2 emissions, and therefore to a destiny from which it cannot escape whatever it does, because whatever happens it will continue to emit CO2. This vision can only be the inevitable outcome of an exacerbated form of materialism that seeks to eliminate all possibility of choice for man and reduce him and his actions to a single variable. This is why the proponents of this theory are taking aim at the beginning and end of the life cycle. It is about reducing the symbolic force of life and death to mere parameters of our lives, reduced to CO2 adjustment variables…. Of course there is an alternative to this unfortunate fate… Giving up political environmentalism in favour of a return to scientific environmentalism.
(This last paragraph is a discussion point that we will have the opportunity to come back to)
 “Having a child damages the planet: when environmentalism goes wrong”, http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/societe/2018/10/10/31003-20181010ARTFIG00336-avoir-un-enfant-nuit-a-la-planete-quand-l-ecologie-deraille.php
 As Drieu Godefridi points out, in the new totalitarian environmentalism, in a chapter entitled “A child = 58.6 tons of CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) per year, an intellectual of the stature of Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb”, stated in Life magazine as long ago as 1970 that “The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children”