Save the Humans!

"Ecology as a social principle...condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men's return to 'nature,' to the state of grunting sub-animals digging the soil with their bare hands." - Ayn Rand

There would be no individual, no "self", if there was no world to live in. The problem with Rand's philosophy on Environmentalism is that she completely ignores the fact that many of the issues environmentalists focus on are for the betterment of mankind. She chooses to condemn those that fight for causes like protecting the whales, saving trees, and protecting endangered species but she completely ignores pushes for clean water for man to drink and clean air for man to breathe. Her philosophy is narrow minded and purposefully ignores the things that are for the betterment of the human race. She condemns all of those that fight to save the environment even those that fight to save the environment for the sake of man. There would be no man if there was no environment, no world to live in. There are many resources on this earth that man needs to survive and many of them are in limited supply. Once they are gone, they're gone for good. Are these resources  not something that should be protected? Because a select few see it as idiotic to fight for those things that cannot fight for themselves should we disregard any attempt to save precious resources that man needs to survive? Her very absolutist view is way off on this topic. There would be no culture, no cities, not industry, no technology if there was no earth, no habitable environment. Environmentalism can coexist with these things for the betterment of mankind, they are not antitheses as she so boldly suggests.