Having trouble to convince your relatives, friends and family, about how accurate and to-the-point LaRouche’s solutions are to cope with the present crisis?

If you are a French national steeped in the tradition of Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum claiming that man above all is defined by reason, you might exclaim: “Explore Mars between now and 2050, as proposes Lyndon LaRouche is not very different than sending the Apollo mission to the Moon in 1968! But people tell me I’m insane, while everybody holds Kennedy in great esteem! How comes people get so irrational?”

Beyond the very real problem of stupidity and ignorance, most of us fail recognizing the crux of the matter respecting the real motives that brings our contemporaries, including many youth, to drop the idea of progress. That motive is not the result of ignorance, but of a powerful comeback, dissimulated behind a green mask, of a pseudo-spirituality of a feudal nature.

Capri, c’est fini

Let me elaborate by starting with an anecdote. Some twenty years ago, this writer occasionally met in Paris a high level official of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Isle of Capri. Putting aside political activity as meaningless, this honorable father shamelessly told me that all of humanity’s current problems were nothing but the consequence of one particular historical period: Europe’s “Golden Renaissance”! Why? The Renaissance, “first of all,” he said with great conviction, was “a terrible error… Man imagined he could substitute faith by reason, i.e. replacing the faith in God by a blind confidence in mankind. As a result, society was now collapsing overwhelmed by its own sins: financial speculation, materialist greed, destruction of the environment, useless wars, etc.” However, he continued, “the good news is that a new Dark Age will put an end to all of this and convince the mortals that his power of reason is worthless. As a result, man will return to God!” In all Aristotelian logic, for this fanatic, any effort aiming to prevent, delay or overturn the current collapse of civilization was not only “impossible, but contrary to the Devine plan!”

Oh Lord! Does that mean that all religious convictions are not of equal merit? Yes. In fact, between the Promethean and optimist conception a man created with reason in the living image of the Creator, as defended by Nicolas of Cusa, and the pessimist obscurantism of some misanthropic monks of the desert, there exists quite a gap. On the one side, the founding figure of the XVth century’s golden Renaissance, for whom man is a creator in the image of the creator and for whom each human individual possesses the inalienable right of full development ; on the other side those longing for personal salvation by “going green” without producing any fruits of human labor.

For the giant financial cartels we call here the British Empire, man is nothing but a miserable animal, fatally obliged to burn the fixed resources of the universe it is depleting. This Empire, akin to the Nazi SS elite for whom the extermination of those races supposed inferior was considered a “necessary evil” to be organized in the least painful conditions, today, by its economic and environmental policies, aims at reducing the world population from the currently 6.7 billion persons to merely 2 billion people.

Quite a program! How can this be imposed while a vast majority of the world population takes pleasure in living, loves children, and desires to progress, to feed and cloth itself and educate its youthful generations? Since any open outside pressure would immediately raise strong opposition to such its genocide scheme, the Empire prefers convincing its victims, in the name of an ideology or a belief, to submit to voluntary servitude. It is by this ruse that the oligarchy, at a moment it considers « End Times » hopes imposing its eternal rule.

Prince Philip of Edinburgh

Let’s take a look at the global offensive on this front launched since years by the husband of Queen Elisabeth II of Britain, Prince Philip of Edinburgh. Taking as a pretext the defense of the Environment, the raving Malthusian and eugenicist Sir Julian Huxley created in 1946 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). In 1961, to make that operation more efficient, he added to the IUCN, the World Wildlife Fund, co-founded by former Reiter SS member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Prince Philip of Edinburgh.

Philip recently complained that “The world population 60 years ago was just over 2 billion and it's now more than 6 billion. This huge increase - an explosion really - has probably done more harm to the environment than anything else.”

Already in his foreword to If I Were an Animal (United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986) wrote: “I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist.... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.”

But he defends himself of being an extremist: “When you start talking about the human population some people think that you want to control it. I don't want to control it: I want people to control it themselves for their own good reasons. Those reasons may be put to them by their religions, by their scientific understanding or simply because of their intelligence. But we are not going to be able to survive on this limited planet if the population keeps on growing: there isn't going to be anything left.”

Prince Charles

Philip’s son, Prince Charles is part of his father’s crusade. Charles is backing two major political figures: Tony Blair and Al Gore. While Philip fronts to be an Anglican, Charles himself got “converted” by author James Lovelock who promoted the Gaia theory, the cult of Mother Earth, recently promoted under the cover of “global warming”. Both Gore and Charles had a common mentor: US oil magnate Armand Hammer who founded Occidental Petroleum. If Hammer introduced Gore father to many high placed political leaders in the United States and abroad, Prince Charles’ esteem for Hammer was so high that he convinced Hammer to be one of the godfathers of Charles son, Prince William.

Mistakenly considered a weak figure lacking any real influence, in reality Charles is quite active behind the scenes. In April 1991, one year before the Rio de Janeiro’s Summit of the Earth, Charles organized a get together to prepare the summit on the royal yacht the Britannia with then senator Al Gore and the top executives of British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, the leading NGO’s, the UN and the World Bank.

In July 2010, in an interview with The Ecologist, the magazine founded by the reactionary billionaire Teddy Goldsmith, Tony Blair’s former minister of Education Michael Meacher, another follower of Gaia, when asked if humans will destroy themselves as they destroy the environment responded: “I think James Lovelock's idea - that when an alien virus invades the human body it fights back and usually manages to surround and destroy the alien - is more likely. Earth will do everything it can to survive with us being the virus it is trying to destroy. Climate change is one way it is doing it. It is changing the climate - the atmosphere, temperature, ocean acidity and sea levels - all massive changes cumulatively saying to us that we cannot go on as we are. And we cannot go on as we are because we will lose the basic resources which are essential to our survival.”

Contrary to Genesis

Most humanist religions and philosophies, and most explicitly the Judeo-Christian ethic, completely oppose this insane Malthusianism. Read again Genesis of the St James version starting at 1:26:

“God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”

First, for Philip, changing religious beliefs is crucial. At a Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the ``Caring for Creation'' conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990, Philip stated that “It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.”

Therefore, to overturn this crucial conception defining the difference between man and beast, Prince Philip launched a vast offensive to recruit religious dignitaries to his green crusade. Why? According to his own words:“In the 1980s WWF International was trying to do three things around the world: raise money, develop conservation projects and educate the public. The first two things were fine, but the last one had real difficulties. I argued that the kind of education we were doing through articles and lectures and books and films and things of that sort only reached the educated and probably only the middle classes in the various countries. The people that we needed to get to were the ones who lived in the areas of greatest risk, and the areas where the potential for biological diversity was highest. It occurred to me that the people who could most easily communicate with them were their religious leaders. They are in touch with their local population more than anyone else. And if we could get the local leaders to appreciate their responsibility for the environment then they would be able to explain that responsibility to the people of their faith.”

1986, Assisi

It was from this standpoint that Philip decided to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the creation of the WWF in the Italian city of Assisi, using the image of Saint Francis as the Saint “of wild animals”. Five religious leaders representing Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism were invited and finished “recognizing” their responsibility for the environment. Philip took great care of not looking too managing and said: “We don't want to be ecumenical; we don’t want a paper that has been agreed by everybody. Instead we want each of you to say what is relevant to you and your tradition”. To give more substance to this initially formal “Holy” alliance, Philip created in 1995 the Alliance for Religion and Conservation (ARC), a new movement located at the Royal castle of Windsor.

To demonstrate how this strategy aims freezing great projects and human development, it is sufficient to look at the “Sacred Soil” campaign launched by the ARC and the WWF with the backing of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the number two man of the Anglican Church after the Queen herself. The idea of the sacred soil campaign is to get official recognition, both in the UK as elsewhere in the entire world, of certain natural sites (a tree, a forest, a lake, a river, a desert, a marshland, etc.) as a “religious site” and to be kept unchanged for exactly that purpose. In 1997, ARC published for that aim the book titled Sacred Britain listing all these sites in Britain, followed by Beyond Belief in 2005 for the rest of the planet.

ARC director, theologian Martin Palmer, speaking in November 2010 in Rand Paul’s state Kentucky at the “Sacred Soil Festival of Faiths”, reminded the world that it was faiths which pulled humanity out of ecological crisis provoked by the Roman Empire but didn’t seem to acknowledge that Rome collapsed because it adopted slavery rather then the use of horse power in agriculture.

But for Palmer, “at the end of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, 90% of all farmland was owned by three agribusinesses … The grain fields of Egypt once fed two million people in Rome but they degraded the land so badly that the grain fields collapsed, Rome died because it could no longer be fed and the Sahara advanced into Egypt.” For Palmer, of course, “it was [not Charlemagne, but] the Benedictines which pulled Europe out of the ecological collapse of the Roman Empire and they did it by working with the soil and by building communities … They re-introduced composting and the tradition of letting the land rest, they dug water courses and planted trees.”

Katmandu and 3IG

Also noteworthy was the ARC’s November 15, 2000 event in Katmandu, Nepal, where a dozen of religious dignitaries offered 26 “Sacred gifts for a Living Planet” during a ceremony organized by the ARC and the WWF in presence of Prince Philip.

On 15 November 2000, organized by the WWF and the ARC, representatives of the religions of Baha’ism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Islam, Sikh¬ism, Shintoism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism, in presence of Prince Philip, met in Katmandu, Nepal, to reveal their ‘Sacred Gifts for a Living Planet’—that is, their initiatives to preserve the environment and mother earth. Christians were represented in Katmandu by Anglicans, Lutherans, Maronites, Roman Catholics, and, Greek Orthodox ecumenists Patriarch Bartholomew, who was one of the prin¬cipal speakers at the event.

Reacting to the event, Greek Professor Chres¬tos Yannaras has denounced in no uncertain terms the “self-serving expedien¬cy” with which “reli¬gion is being used today to enforce an ecological morality.” In our days, it is “environmental threats which justi¬fy the cooperation of religions in dealing with these threats.” “Religions have the feeling of being useful once more: ecology ‘sells,’ and concern for the environment guarantees good public relations and international publicity.”
Among these supposedly exemplary engagements, one can find as well the commitment of the Buddhists of Mongolia to reintroduce traditional bans on hunting as the financial commitment of the Methodist Church of the United States to transfer the totality of its funds to a “green” “faith-consistent” investment fund! During the Katmandu event, the idea emerged to create, on the model of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) in the United States, a new larger fund, called the International Interfaith Investment Group (3IG) which officially took of in 2005 in London.
3IG was founded by Buddhist, Christian, Taoist, Jewish, Muslim; Druze, Zoroastrian and Sikh officials working together “to invest their financial assets, land assets, educational and media networks in ways that bring in high returns, both financially and socially, in line with the values of each faith.”
The ARC’s own website underlines that “Socially responsible investment (SRI) is not charity. The great faiths are in the business of religion – they run for example 60% of all medical care in Africa and 40% of all schools on the continent; they manage 70% of all tourist sites around the world; they own 7% of the habitable land surface of the planet and they administer literally millions of buildings, community facilities, welfare networks, youth clubs, employment projects etc. This is largely funded through their historically accrued stocks, shares and land assets. Therefore, they want and need a good return, and now they are actively seeking how that can also be because they have invested in good businesses.”

Among the supporting networks, one finds the World Council of Churches and the Alliance Inter Monastères which runs the world’s Benedictines, about which we will say more later. Among its founding members the Vasteras Diocese of the Church of Sweden which owns vast forest in that country, and the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, USA, whose funds are in the range of 40 billion dollars. Among the “secular advisors” of 3IG, one finds Citigroup, the bank that spent 100 million dollars to bribe the US Congress to abrogate Glass-Steagall, and also the Dutch Rabobank, the World Bank, Innovest and the WWF International.

The Copenhagen summit

The ARC’s operations in wake of the Copenhagen summit are a perfect example of how this strategy operates. In November 2009, i.e. one month before the Copenhagen summit on the global warming scam, Prince Philip’s ARC, with the UN’s Ban Khi-Moon as an official partner organized a three days seminar to “Celebrate the environment and religions; Many Heavens, One Earth:Faith Commitments for a Living Planet” at the Royal Castle of Windsor in an ultimate attempt to convince emerging nations of the south to give up their legitimate demand for industrial development. Among the key sponsors of the event: St. James’s Place Wealth Management Group, formerly Jacob Rothschild Assurance Holdings. Also the Financial Times, the City’s mouthpiece, offered a one page add, worth 28,000 pounds, to announce the event.

“The world's faiths joined together in this cause – if viewed in terms of sheer numbers of people – could become the planet’s largest civil society movement for change. With their unparalleled presence throughout the world, the world’s religions could be the decisive force that helps top the scales in favor of a world of climate safety and justice for future generations... this event will be one for the history books,” said UNDP Assistant Secretary-General Olav Kjorven about the event that concluded with a vegan banquet.

The communiqué of the event underlined again the importance of faiths: “Most people around the world adhere to a religion – the faiths reach out to 85 per cent of the world’s 6.79 billion people. There are 2.1 billion Christians worldwide; 1.34 billion Muslims; more than 950 million Hindus; 50-70 million Daoists; 24 million Sikhs and 13 million Jews. So what the faiths do or don’t do with their assets and their influence matters a great deal.” The faiths, “are major land owners – they own 7-8 per cent of the habitable land surface of the planet; have vast media networks; are major providers of health and education – they are involved in more than half of all schools worldwide; control more than 7 % of international financial investments; are often trusted where government and military leaders are not.”

Fortunately, nations of the South and Asia courageously stood up and opposed the follies of Copenhagen once they realized the evil nature of its intent.

In France

The French branch of the WWF of course wanted to get engaged in the same process. After an initial encounter, in October 2001, at the Orthodox Monastery of Solan, linked to Mount Athos, the WWF France organized in April 2003 a seminar “Ecologies and Spiritualities” at the prestigious site of the Mont Saint-Michel.

Daniel Richard, at that time the head of WWF France, underlined in his introduction to the program of the event that the “WWF considers… that spiritual traditions are allies and have to take part in the creation of a general awareness of the growing environmental problems”. Together, the issue is to “give a new meaning” to the world. Jean-Marie Pelt, the founder of Metz-based European Institute for Ecology introduced and moderated the event, followed by the Belgian father Martin Neyt, a Benedictine monk of the Saint-André de Clerlande monastery in Belgium, also a teacher of African Arts at the Catholic University of Leuven and the head of the Alliance Inter-Monastères (AIM). It has to be noted here that the Benedictine order has in principle no central leadership organ but operates as a confederation. However, AIM is in charge of “promoting the relationships” among Benedictine monasteries worldwide.

Fully complicit with WWF brainwashing, AIM sent in 2002 a list of questions elaborated by the WWF to 140 monastic communities that are members of the French network “Monastic”. The list aimed to “censor actions in favor if the environment of monasteries, such as the protection of natural sites, biological agriculture, the reduction of water and energy consumption and the use of renewable energies, waste recycling or education campaigns on environmental issues.”

To remain polite, the least one can say is that certain Benedictines didn’t wait the arrival of Prince Philip to oppose a promethean and optimist conception of man capable of creative reason in the image of the creator, a conception they consider as an extreme form of arrogance. It was the Benedictines that fought the first Carolingian Renaissance initiated by Charlemagne.

Denis de Rougemont

This vision of a feudal form of spirituality is largely coherent with the ideas and action of the Swiss reactionary intellectual Denis de Rougemont who presided over the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) and was the intellectual godfather of the current head of the EU Commission Barroso. De Rougemont, without any consideration of political regimes, was a virulent hater of the modern Nation-State concept which he sees as the cause for most human alienations. In his book L’Avenir est notre affaire (p. 90), De Rougemont wrote that the Nation-States “have managed and destroyed the resources [of the planet] for the mere sake of their power and prestige; for the sake of war out of which all of them [the Nation-States] were born”. In Ecrits sur l’Europe (p. 231), De Rougemont emphasizes that “[supranational] federalism is in line with Christian thought, while nationalism is clearly pagan… and anti-Christian. The very idea of a nation is foreign to the Christian dogma and faith.”

For De Rougemont and his ilk, to save humanity, nation-states have to be uprooted using the concept of “person” as opposed to the idea of “individual” or citizen. A “person,” claims De Rougemont, is part of a set of relationships, while the abstract concept of man does not exist. And this network of relationships is society. In line with Aristotle’s Politics, Denis de Rougemont sees the human couple as the basis of everything. From there starts the family, then follows small communities to which one can be freely a part today and then follows the regions which federate together to form an Empire. Specifically, Denis de Rougemont envisioned a plan splitting up France in a dozen of language-based entities (Alsace, Brittany, Corsica, etc.) whose submission to the Empire offered them “the right” to maintain their local habits, language and traditions.

1976, Ecoropa

To fight nuclear energy, not as a science but specifically as a “platform” representing a phase of development of a nation-state, de Rougemont, together with some 30 intellectuals, initiated in 1976 the association called Ecoropa (contraction of Ecology and Europe), one of the mother organization of the entire European green movement. Among the co-founders Jean-Marie Domenach, at that time the chief editor of the personalist review Esprit; Jacques Ellul, who inspired José Bové, the British billionaire Teddy Goldsmith and Jean-Marie Pelt which we discovered with the WWF at the Mont Saint-Michel conference. Ecoropa, at that time, said it wanted to build the “Europe of the people and the real countries, not those that remained connected to nation states of another epoch”.

Even more telling is the fact that, if we have to belief Bernard Charbonneau, one of the founding members of Ecoropa, it was the Bordeaux wine producer Edouard Kressmann that created Ecoropa during a secret meeting at the Benedictine monastery of En Calcat, located some 70 km from Toulouse!

The Benedictine temptation of Pope Benedict XVI

Nicknamed “The Green Pope” by Newsweek, Benedict XVI also seems to suffer from some sort of Benedictine temptation. During the Christmas mass celebration of 2007, the pope said: “The [Christmas] cowshed represents the ill-treated Earth… resulting from the abusive use of its resources and their egoistical exploitation without precaution.” At his January 2008 peace message, Benedict declared that “countries technologically advanced have to reconsider their exaggerated habits in terms of energy consumption associated with their current model of development.”

In 2007, a “Vatican climate forest” in Hungary was donated to the Pope by a carbon offsetting company. The Vatican's acceptance of the offer, at a ceremony on July 5, 2007, was reported as being “purely symbolic” and a way to encourage Catholics to do more to safeguard the planet. In so doing, the Vatican announced, it would become the world’s first carbon-neutral state. “As the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, recently stated, the international community needs to respect and encourage a green culture,” said Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, who took part in a ceremony marking the event at the Vatican.

On November 26, 2008, the Vatican placed into service 2400 solar panels installed on the large roof of the Paul VI Audience Hall. The German conference of Bishops, which met in Fulda recently, called for sustainable energy production and declared that “it is not of the nature of nuclear energy to give us the energy we need in the long term.”

One month after the British Empire’s failure to impose green fascism at the Copenhagen summit, Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech to ambassadors accredited to the Vatican, denounced the failure of world leaders to agree to a new climate change treaty saying world peace depended on safeguarding God’s creation.

The medieval thinking of Cameron and Obama

To measure to what extent this spiritual/environmental “revolution” penetrates the political domain, it is sufficient to take a closer look at David Cameron, the new British Prime Minister’s speech of March 31. Cameron, already in his election campaign, pleads for a “Big Society” while calling for unprecedented austerity. To reduce the UK’s deficit, Cameron decided to reduce public employment and state services that go with it. Michael Gove, the UK’s minister of Education and a member of the neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society, announced earlier this year that the planned 838 million Euros for new schools would be scrapped. For Cameron, new schools are considered a waste of money. “That might be true,” wrote ironically The Independent, since “nobody finds a job anyway when leaving school”. Cameron also decided to stop teaching swimming in schools. “One wastes money teaching them to swim, but that’s not a problem, since there are no more swimming pools neither” wrote the paper.

Months before extreme elements as Rand Paul of the Republican or Tea Party in the US, David Cameron called for the systematic downscaling of the State by transferring national responsibilities to lower levels of decision, in line with Denis de Rougemonts use of the principle of “subsidiarity”, meaning each level of social responsibility (family, village, region, empire) defines the nature of the problems it can take care off. In reality, to impose the takedown of the nation-state, Cameron calls private citizens, communities and political and religious communities to run, of course on a voluntary basis, public services. Local groups will take in charge post offices, public libraries and even public transportation systems. In one of the target regions of Cameron’s Big Society campaign, an association bought the local pub to give a new impulse to the area while another group of volunteers will allow extending opening hours of the local museum, etc.

The Big Society idea, which is provoking quite some anger of the public sector trade-unions, came out of the brain of Phillip Blond, a theology expert of the British Fabian Society which created his own think-tank called ResPublica to work for the Conservatives. The Anglican Blond claims to be inspired by the catholic tradition and pretends to have positive backing from Pope Benedict XVI. At war with bureaucracy, Blond, also in line with De Rougemont, calls for a return to small communities and self managed cooperatives. In a September 2008 article, published by The Guardian under the title Medieval Thinking, Blond starts by nostalgically praising feudalism saying that “the late middle ages especially were marked by a vast plurality of horizontal relationships, often overlapping, and a myriad of reciprocal and mutual duties and responsibilities. Likewise it is right that a medieval network of a predominantly horizontal communal and social order, exemplified by the church but also including guilds and agrarian communities organised around differential property relationships, was destroyed by the new vertical "secular monarchs". From the 14th century on, they asserted their power and corrupted a pre-existing highly plural and reciprocal community with demands for top-down allegiance, authority and control.”

Today, says Blond, “Updating and recovering this earlier medieval model for the modern age is of course the task. But it remains an urgent one as Leadbeater (previously advisor to Tony Blair's policy unit) reminded us that all the evidence shows that self-organised groups with delegated budgets making their own informed choices invariably delivered a better service for themselves at lower cost and to everyone's greater satisfaction. It's worth making this point, as many on the left fear that the new localism is just covert Thatcherism, ideological cover for worsening services at lower cost, and that it really constitutes nothing more than state abandonment of the poor.”

Contrary to his lies, this is “covert Thatcherism”, since nation-state responsibility, guaranteed by well paid professionals, is handed over to volunteer community workers, for the big benefit of the financial oligarchs exploiting “charity” for their own greed. At the lowest level, the “green ideology” becomes a fascist “collaboration” with a feudal austerity. In the UK, the same Cameron which calls on citizens to be more involved in the society, announced a 60 % cut of all subsidies to the same associations he desires to be in charge! Cameron’s model? Barack Obama’s “Community organizing” when he was a social worker in Chicago!

As demonstrated in this report, the conjunction of pessimism, pagan green “spirituality” and radical Malthusian depopulation policies is creating a potentially fatal situation.

Starting from an opposite standpoint, for us, as for the great scientist Vladimir Vernadsky, man has to be the engineer of the biosphere, responsible for all and everything. In stead of capitulating to a cult of limits, an attitude which would be contrary to both nature and the Creator, man, as the self-conscious principle of life, has to broaden and increase all the possibilities of the living and the creation. All those that operate, by their acts of acts of omission, to the contrary, do commit a grave sin against man and nature. While ceasing creation, by adapting to the smallest common denominator, they turn irresponsible and destructive.