Via the article “Three Myths About Oil” by Alex Epstein
“Loose talk of a “climate change catastrophe” evades the fact that industrial energy protects us from climate challenges and makes catastrophes noncatastrophic.”
I liked the way this sentence puts things in perspective. Because I think many people are confused about being green and being environmentally friendly. The word “green” is sometimes used to describe action that is simple common sense money saving. And sometimes used to describe destructive action. ie: Most people haven’t fully grasped that being “environmentally friendly” or “green” in reality means human sacrifice and nihilism due to treating the Earth as a higher power worthy of human sacrifice.
eg/ When you switch off a light in an unused room to save money, this is a good thing. By saving, you are increasing (in a small way) your efficiancy and productivity because you’re going to use that money in another way of higher value to you in the future. However the green religion is opposed to human productivity and normal human action per se. eg/extending the quantity and quality of our lives by using the best energy technology available.
As Epstein explains:
“Fossil fuels supply 86% of the world’s energy–the energy that makes the difference between 40-year life expectancies in undeveloped countries and 80-year life expectancies in industrialized countries.”
The green ideology preaches that humanity is a blight on the planet. As such, the logical conclusion is that humans should lower their productivity and prosperity. This means living unhappier and shorter lives. Some readers may be fine with this and like many religious people may believe human sacrifice is a virtue. These people should perhaps join the Voluntary human extinction movement. Or they could kill themselves I suppose, although most religions forbid this. (Don’t get me wrong, I think suicide is horrible and usually tragic). Personally, I believe any human sacrifice to higher powers is simply evil.