Going trayless and brainless, April 3rd, 2009
The Daily Princetonian
Your article questions the motives of “green” measures pursued by Princeton University which call for more intense sacrifices than are commonly accepted. You conclude that such initiatives “are designed not with the true interest of the environment in mind, but rather to guilt any who disagrees with the ethos”. But in fact your “green” administrators are directly acting on the ethos demanded by environmentalism. Taking such extreme measures may seem like “ploys” or publicity stunts, but in reality, they are no different from other green sacrifices, since all “green” initiatives rest on the premise that the interests of man must be surrendered for the sake of nature. If it seems like sacrifices for the environment are never “sustainable” enough—regardless of their extent—it’s because under environmentalism they aren’t. So long as environmentalism holds as its fundamental premise that nature must be preserved free from the defilement of human existence we should expect the demands of “going green” to become increasingly intrusive. It’s not enough to question only the more absurd sacrifices required by your university, but the entire philosophy behind them. If we are being asked to protect nature, it must be for the sake of human existence, not to protect nature from humanity—humans are not the enemy.