This ecology is a pendulum reaction to the other extreme of human exceptionalism. Not only does it not recognize any value to man over the other species, but it considers it a pest to be eliminated, or at least drastically contained. Taking Malthusian or alarmist approaches such as those of the Club of Rome, it affirms that the human population has exceeded the planet’s capacity to sustain itself, and that due to the exploitative tendencies of man, it threatens countless species and even the proper balance of ecosystems. But, all the catastrophic predictions indicating the date of the debacle, until today, have never come to pass, with their consequent discredit.

This is paradoxical. If man were just one more species, the ‘natural’ and inevitable process would be for him to follow his course and survive the other species proving himself the fittest, or to self-exterminate by destroying his own habitat. It is neither possible nor consistent, to appeal to an examination of conscience or purpose of amendment, nor do we ask it to the insect pests that sometimes devastate other species. It would be “unnatural,” a suicide of the human species.

If we appeal to the conscience and morals of the human being, for him to change his behavior, procreate less, and be more austere and responsible in his use of what is created, it is because we assume that he is capable of it: to repent and change. We do not expect anything similar from any other species and this already makes us recognize the essential difference of man: being capable of being aware, evaluating possible behaviors and choosing those he considers good or better.

Anti-human ecology validly aspires to a world of harmony, peace, and stable balance. Metaphors such as ‘mother earth’, ‘Gaia’ and ‘spaceship earth’ underline the unity and interdependence of everything created, but they do not replace the key element that is the responsible decision of the human being. This is his misery and greatness; the reason for his worth and dignity. To invite him to eliminate himself is to no longer believe in his capacity for nobility, but only in his perversity. Those who do, could be consistent and start with themselves. Unless they consider themselves, unlike the rest, as a ‘purified’ and enlightened humanity, as exempt from being that ‘plague’ in a kind of ecological self-righteousness. It makes one think of the oddity that someone would stand as a judge of who are the “bad guys” to be eliminated, exempting himself.

It is more difficult, but more realistic, to assume the responsibility that falls to us, in changing ourselves and our culture, to live in harmony with the environment.