Conclusionof Trilogy 333ascensionto dictatorialsupremacy,andwhostudiedRousseau’sDiscourseon Political
Economy. On Thursday,July30, 1936,Klempererwrotein his diarythat “wholepassages”
of Rousseau’s work“couldbe fromHitler’s speeches.”^7
As I statedin thistrilogy’s chapterof inception,Rousseauspokeof the supposedly
pro-privatizationSocialContractas if it wereOriginalSin,^8 despiteRousseau’s owndeni-
al of the OriginalSin toutedin ChristianitysinceAugustine’s day.Rousseauevidently
thoughta newsocialistSocialContractwouldbe mankind’s redemption.A gaggleof
environmentalistsappearto sharein the assessmentthatthe adventof privateproperty,
agribusiness,and industrializationwasthe OriginalSin, and thathumanitywill be smit-
ten for this by meansof an ecologicalJudgmentDay.As an example,I offerDavidM.
Graberof the NationalParksService.In an adulatoryreviewof environmentalistBill
McKibben’s bookThe End of Nature, Graberarguesthat the ascentof capitalismwas man’s
greatinitialbetrayalof everythingsacred.He proclaimsthatanthropogenicclimatedis-
ruptionhas beenthe mostsignificant“sideeffectof the IndustrialRevolutionpractically
uponits birth.” ThenGraberdeliversoneof the strangestinvocationsof the Social
ContracttheoryI haveheard.Notsurprisingfor a politicallycorrectGreen,he employs
the wordnatureas a synonymforwilderness, whereasI refertonatureas the constant
principlesof scientificallyvalidatedreality.Grabercongratulateshimselffor beingamong
thosewho“valuewildernessfor its ownsake,not for whatvalueit confersuponman-
kind.” We radicalenvironmentalists“are not interestedin the utilityof a particularspe-
cies,or free-flowingriver,or ecosystem,to mankind.Theyhaveintrinsicvalue,more
value—to me—thananotherhumanbody,or a billionof them.Humanhappiness,and
certainlyhumanfecundity,are not as importantas a wildandhealthyplanet.I know
socialscientistswhoremindme thatpeopleare partof nature,but it isn’t true.Some-
wherealongthe line—at abouta billionyearsago,maybehalfthat”—we humans“quit
the contractand becamea cancer.” Pardonme, but quitwhatcontract?Thisis a contract
withwhom?Nonhumananimalsthatare not contractuallycompetent?Thisis evidently
Graber’s ownvariantof SocialContracttheory.
Grabercontinues,“We havebecomea plagueuponourselvesand uponthe Earth.It is
cosmicallyunlikelythatthe developedworldwillchooseto endits orgyof fossil-fuel
consumption,and the ThirdWorldis suicidalconsumptionof landscape.Untilsuchtime
as Homosapiensshoulddecideto rejoinnature,someof us can onlyhopefor the right
virusto comealong.”^9 Notethatthesewordswerenot publishedin someunderground
hippie‘zine,but in the mainstreamLos AngelesTimesBookReview. Accordingto Graber’s
analysis,the firstact we mustperformto be savedfromecologicalcataclysmis to repent
for our self-interestedutilizationof Earth’s resources.Thenwe mustpledgeeternalalle-
gianceto a higherpower.Thathigherpoweris a collectivistgovernmentalauthority,
legislatingoverwhichtechnologiesand economicinstitutionsare permissibleand which
are not.
Noris Graberalonein suchsentiments.Despitehis ownsympathiesfor environmen-
talism,U.C.SantaBarbaraecologistDanielBotkinconcedesthat muchof the environmen-
tal movement’s presumptionsaboutthe inherentsinfulnessof reshapingthe wildernessis
a retreadof OriginalSin. Thosewhosay youshouldexperienceremorseoverindustrial
productionandcommercialconsumption,notesBotkin,are “castingup fromthe sea of
Judeo-Christiantraditionthe beliefthatmanis a sinner,boundto sin; thatmostrecently
we havesinnedagainstnature,andwe are beingpunishedfor it (as we shouldbe) by
MotherNature... Thereforewe mustdo penance,sufferfor our sins,whichin this case
meanslivingminimally,usingonlyenoughenergyto providethe barenecessitiesof life
and disallowingus enoughenergyto be creative,to developmorescienceand technolo-
gy.. .; nor shouldwe, by implication(perhapsunintentionally)haveenoughenergyto be
otherwisecreative.. .”^10 Giventhe outlookof Graberand the advocatesof deepecology,