TheyLovedBloodand Soil but Not the Mind 215Thatenvironmentalregulationand governisteugenicsreceivedsupportfromthe same
early-twentieth-centuryfiguresis noteworthy.RecallErnstHaeckel,the Germanwhose
writingsdeeplyinfluencedthe ThirdReich’s policieson botheugenicsand environmen-
talism.JonathanPeterSpiropointsout thatit wasHaeckelwhocoinedthe wordecolo-
gy.^105 Likewiserememberanothereugenicsadvocate,MadisonGrant,whowasthe one
Americanto receivefan lettersfrombothTheodoreRooseveltand AdolfHitler.Madison
Grant,too, pioneeredin environmentalconservation.^106 The mainaspectsof this wilder-
ness-exaltingdogma—sharedby Nazisandmuch-less-murderousmodernenvironmen-
talistsalike—arosefroma rejectionof the ethicalnotionthata human’s life, particularly
one’s ownlife,is the standardwherebyeveryvalueis generated.InsteadNazisand
environmentalistsclingto the suppositionthatmanis not a partof nature,but an alien
blighton it.
Thiscomesfromthe environmentalists’ acceptanceof the bromidethat moralityarises
not fromeudaemonicself-interest,but fromthe ethicaldutyto sacrificeone’s ownwell-
beingfor others.Theother, in this situation,alludesto everyaspectof the naturalrealm
thatis nonhuman.Universityof WisconsinpoliticalscienceprofessorJonathanOlsen
explains,“Accordingto the nationalsocialistideology,an anthropocentricviewof na-
ture—that manstandsabove” the non-sapientwilderness “wasto be decisively re-
jected.”^107
Himmlersummarizedthe Nazioutlookas “manis nothingspecial.. .”^108 The Nazis
consequentlypassedlawsviolatingthe actualprivatepropertyrightsof humanbeingsin
orderto protect,allegedly,someanimalor wildernessarea.Speakingfor them,Nazi
environmentalistOskarKarpapronounced,“... the rightof privatepropertyonlyhas
validityinsofaras it doesnot violatethe well-beingof the generalpublic,” withnon-
humanentitiescountingas partof the generalpublic.^109 Likewise,in 1940the anthroposo-
phistArminSüßenguthproclaimed,“Ordinarymaterialism”—thatis, observation-based
rationality—“is diggingits owngrave:the cowis not a milkfactory,the hen is not an egg-
layingmachine,the soil is not a chemicallaboratory,as the Jew-professorswouldhaveus
believe.”^110 Environmentalismwasnot an ideato whichNazissimplygavelip service,
PeterStaudenmaierremindsus. Rather,the Nazisgenuinelybelievedin the doctrine:“...
Naziinitiativesaroundenvironmentallysensitivepublicworks,organicagriculture,habi-
tat protection,andrelatedmattersare perhapsbetterseennot as merecamouflageor
peculiardeviationsfromthe destructivepathof the Nazijuggernaut.”^111
I hopethat at this pointit shouldbe easyto understandwhyno non-sapientorganism
has actualLockeanrights.Rights are not intrinsicistPlatonicabsolutesthatare “just
there.” Nay,theyare contextualabsolutesthatapplyto the day-to-daydealingsthat
sapientbeingshavewithone another,applyingto sapientorganismsalonedueto the
natureof theirsapience.Rightscan belongto—and be respectedby—no sort of organism
otherthanthatwhichbelongsto a speciesbiologicallycapableof volitionalconceptual
consciousness.Nonhumanmammalsevinceperceptualconsciousness,but not conceptual
consciousness.The absenceof conceptualconsciousnessis apparentin as sophisticateda
familyas the greatapes.Thatis notwithstandingthe fact that primates’ memories,symbol
recognitionability,andpeer-mimickingabilitieswerenecessarypreconditionsto the
eventualevolutionof man’s conceptualconsciousness.
As Lockeanrightsare a complexconcept,theycannotbe consistentlyapplied—either
practicedby or practicedupon—anyorganismsexceptin the contextof oneconcept-
holdingbeingwithanotherconcept-holdingbeing.Lionshuntafterzebrasand eat them,
and neitherlion nor zebrahaveany conceptualvolitionalchoicein the matter.Werewe to
engagein seriouseffortsto applythe conceptsof Lockeanrightsto non-sapientanimals,
we wouldhaveto imprisonlionsfor murderingthe zebras.Yet thatmass-scalecaptivity
for animalswouldbe contraryto whatPETAactuallyfavors.^112 ThoughBookOnecites