Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children's Hospital in
. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of "climate change delusion." Melbourne
In 2007, I wrote a post titled Theodicy related to the Virginia Tech massacre and followed up with this. My general point was that if bad philosophy is rampant in a society, the "tails of the distribution" will include more and more psychopathic behavior. In other words, say we had an extremely healthy, rational, society. The "average" person would be productive, happy, etc. Of course, there are always going to be nuts. However, it's likely that the nuts in a prosperous, rational society would be relatively benign. Now imagine a culture that is philosophically and morally bankrupt. Say, it is a culture steeped in nihilism, subjectivism and mysticism. What would the average person be like and what would a "nut" be like in this culture? We do not have to go far to know since we have such a culture. I submit that the "nuts" in this society would be a lot worse than the "nuts" in the healthy society. In other words, it's unlikely that in such a culture you would see madness everywhere, however, the general level of the culture would be bad, and it would certainly manifest itself at the extremes in terms of increasingly disturbing levels of psychosis.
The above is an example of my point. Students are being thoroughly immersed in environmentalist propaganda from a young age. They are taught that nature is intrinsically valuable, i.e., that nature is a value apart from man. Since man's nature requires him to transform nature if he is to survive, this doctrine regards man as inherently evil. This "original sin" concept is the essence of environmentalism which I have discussed many times [1, 2, 3, 4].
Such a philosophy has the same effect on a young mind as any form of religion. In other words, it is doubtful that such a philosophy will lead to complete madness on the part of those exposed to it from a young age. There will be exceptional students who are able to think independently enough to save themselves. The average student will buy into it, and it will affect them on some level, but they will carry on although with some extra burden of guilt and more prone to give in to absurdities like recycling in the same way many mindlessly trudge to church on Sunday's. However, the student who takes these ideas seriously or a student unstable under any conditions will certainly have to fight off some form of psychosis. Just as those indoctrinated into a cult, a religion, or any philosophy which holds that man is evil and that the standard of morality is sacrifice, the budding environmentalist will be racked with guilt, uncertainty, and fear.
If one takes the tenets of environmentalism seriously, every action by any man necessarily impinges on the intrinsic value of nature. The basics of life such as eating, drinking, and shelter require consumption of plants and animals and the procurement of materials drawn from nature. Even the act of exhaling results in the emission of the satanic carbon dioxide gas, not to mention the higher forms of technology which entail the burning of fossil fuels or the fission of atoms in a nuclear power generator. To such a mind, literally every form of human action would have to be regarded as evil. The cumulative emotional effect on such a mind must be devastating and can be observed in this case.
You might say that this man was actually concerned about humans dying and so that contradicts my claim regarding "intrinsic value." However, notice that in the case of religious altruists, they too claim to be concerned about the soul's of non-believers, i.e., they appear to be outwardly concerned about human life. However, they are only concerned in the context that they desire other humans to believe in and sacrifice to God. They are not concerned with human beings per se but with God's exhortation that they spread His message of worship and sacrifce.
Similarly, in the case of environmentalism, the essential message is that man is evil by nature and that he must sacrifice himself to Mother Earth. The alleged concern with human welfare is not real. Anyone concerned with human welfare would recognize that capitalism and technology has led to the greatest human progress in world history and would understand that freedom and human ingenuity enable man to adapt to virtually anything. In this sense, environmentalist "concerns" over man's well being should be regarded as equivalent to the concerns of anti-abortionists who kill doctors or the "concerns" of religious crusaders who barbarically kill non-believers. I am not saying this man was not concerned with human life. I do not really know or care. My point is that the essence of environmentalism is not concern over man's fate. The fact that they are not concerned about man is the real root of the psychosis.