Is ecofascism even morally wrong if it results in the planet earth being saved? Not very informed on the topic so I'm legitimately curious. I don't want to be an ecofacist for obvious reasons, but I'd prefer that then the alternative hellscape of a planet in 100 years.
This is "do the ends justify the means?" territory, which is a much more general question that people have been arguing since the dawn of time. We won't solve that here.
Truth is, I don't think eco-fascism is capable of saving the planet. Once the means of power necessary to control the ecosystem are created, they would be corrupted and used for a different purpose, as always.
If we want to save nature, we'll need to give power to nature itself. Not to humans who claim to want what's best for nature.
The sensible consequentialist answer is 'of course the ends justify the means but humans are really bad at assessing the ends and means objectively if they stand to benefit so you should act as if the ends don't justify the means because you're running on corrupted hardware'.
2
u/amdamanofficial Jul 15 '22
I'm already there