No way! It just encourages them to keep eating.

Observations on the totalitarian environmentalist left from Alex Berezow.

"Should We Feed Hungry People, Even If It's Bad For The Environment?"

When it comes to saving human life or destroying the environment, I pick saving human life."


That seemingly innocuous comment I gave at an informal talk elicited a few gasps from my environmentally sensitive Seattle audience. Unintentionally, I exposed in a mere utterance everything that was wrong with the modern environmental movement.

My discussion was on the benefits of genetically modified organisms. Most of the questions I received were typical for an organic-friendly city. Are GMOs safe? Is organic food better for the environment? Everything was going as expected, until I got this question: "Are we solving our population problem by creating ways to increase our population?"


Weird. What exactly was she asking? I pressed for an explanation. A friend of hers elaborated, "Aren't we just artificially increasing the carrying capacity of the world?"

Ah. Now it was crystal clear. Their concern was human overpopulation. By finding ways to generate more food, we were simply "feeding a monster" (her words, not mine)--a vicious cycle in which making more food has the unpleasant side effect of allowing poor people to procreate, creating more hungry children. The implication was slap-in-the-face obvious: Maybe we shouldn't feed so many people.

I was stunned that someone could think like that. Actually, I was stunned that two people in the same room could think like that and have the audacity to express those beliefs out loud. On videotape. Do they really represent how modern environmentalists think?

So, why do so many Humanists hate actual humans?