By Lewis Loflin | Published May 27, 2025
Environmentalism often claims to protect the planet, but some leaders prioritize “pristine” nature over human welfare, revealing an anti-human bias. A 2022 Nature study (Carl et al., 2022) notes scientists’ progressive leanings, which align with ideologies that dismiss human flourishing. Figures like Amory Lovins ignore the human and environmental costs of “green” technologies while pushing policies that could harm billions. Equal funding for human-centered science could counter this science-industrial complex and restore reason.
Amory Lovins, a prominent energy theorist since the 1970s, has predicted ecological disaster and energy scarcity—claims often disproven. His 1976 assertion of a “wholly solar economy” (Foreign Affairs, 1976) remains unfulfilled despite billions in subsidies. While Lovins advised mining companies and conducted MIT research, his focus on unaltered nature over human welfare reveals an anti-human agenda. As Alex Epstein argues in The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (2014), “If your standard of value is unaltered nature… transforming nature is our means to survival and flourishing. To the anti-humanist, that is precisely the problem.”
Windmills, a cornerstone of “green” energy, rely on rare-earth magnets (neodymium, dysprosium), mined mostly in China, producing 2000 tons of toxic waste per ton of neodymium (The Guardian, 2011). These elements, often found with radioactive thorium, are processed with acids, creating environmental devastation hidden from Western consumers. Solar panel production in China faces similar issues. Lovins suggests using less efficient ceramic or electromagnets, but rare-earth magnets are five times more efficient, making wind power—already costly—viable. Windmills require 542 tons of steel per megawatt (vs. 5.2 for gas), consume vast resources (copper, aluminum, concrete), and kill millions of birds, impacts Lovins sidesteps.
Environmentalists like Lovins oppose technologies that benefit humanity. Nuclear power, safer than coal and low-CO2, is dismissed, despite thorium’s potential for cleaner energy. GMOs, deemed safe by the National Academy of Sciences, and Golden Rice, which combats vitamin deficiencies, are rejected by groups like Greenpeace. Lovins’ 1977 claim that “we have twice as much electricity as we can use” (Mother Earth News) ignored developing nations’ needs. His 1984 statement, “Complex technology… is an assault on human dignity,” reveals a rejection of progress that prioritizes nature over people.
The Nature study’s progressive bias (60-70% liberal academics, Gross & Simmons, 2014) fuels a science-industrial complex, akin to Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex, where funding ($190 billion in R&D, 2023) rewards anti-human narratives. Neo-Malthusian voices like Bill McKibben, whose The End of Nature (1989) falsely predicted doom, and David Graber, who hoped for a “virus” to curb humanity, expose this ideology. Prince Philip’s similar remarks (1987) underscore a disregard for human life. While not advocating violence, these views risk harmful outcomes if enacted, prioritizing a mythical “pristine” environment over human survival.
| Environmentalist Claim | Human-Centered Critique |
|---|---|
| Windmills are sustainable | Rare-earth mining creates toxic waste; high resource costs (542 tons steel/MW). |
| Nuclear power is dangerous | Safer than coal; thorium offers clean energy potential. |
| GMOs harm the environment | Safe per NAS; Golden Rice aids human health. |
One-sided funding perpetuates anti-human narratives. Equal funding for human-centered science—supporting nuclear power, GMOs, and cost-effective energy—could disrupt this complex. Scientists would be forced to:
Environmentalism’s anti-human bias, exemplified by Lovins and others, threatens progress by ignoring human welfare and environmental costs of “green” technologies. The science-industrial complex, fueled by progressive ideology, rewards these narratives. Equal funding for human-centered science could restore reason, ensuring science serves humanity, not a mythical Gaia, through transparent, evidence-based solutions.
Media bias and closed discussions: