A closer look at the roots of the environmentalist movement demonstrates its foundation is built around being 'anti-people.' The modern-day environmentalist is not truly eager to create a better environment. His secretive wish is to reduce the world's population. All fine and well ? sounds like a great idea to reduce the population, eh? But, who shall offer up his life in order to save the life of a seagull or spotted owl? Certainly not the environmentalist.

As magazine columnist Lowell Ponte wrote, ?For many political Leftists, environmentalism is merely a pretext through which private property and capitalism can be regulated, strangled, and finally replaced with totalitarian government ownership of everything.?

Is this far-fetched or a simplistic analysis of the environmental movement? Let's take one of David Brower's key philosophies. Brower had some very strong opinions about the family unit. One famous quote his fellow environmentalists probably wish Brower had never made was, ?Childbearing (should be) a punishable crime against society unless the parents hold a government license.? Brower didn't leave it at that, but insisted on taking his philosophy to the next level, ?All potential parents (should be) required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.?

It certainly wouldn't be the man in the family unit taking this antidote. In other words, Brower wanted women to take chemicals, which would prevent them from bearing children. A married woman would then be given an 'antidote' for those chemicals in order to become pregnant, but only if the 'State' issued her a license. Does this sound like Huxley's novel, Brave New World? This is pure totalitarianism. (By the way, Brower left three children behind and grandchildren. I guess his philosophy only applied to others, not himself.)

Some say Brower supported and advocated Marxist regimes. Brower's totalitarian spirit was embraced by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The Soviets used him for propaganda purposes during the tail end of the Cold War. Totalitarian politics welcome population reduction theories, especially when it comes to reducing the populations of an enemy's territory. Ehrlich's ?zero population? theory, which Brower encouraged Ehrlich to pursue, came from an 18th century mathematician.

Cambridge University professor Thomas Malthus was called ?Pop? by his students because he advocated population control. Malthus refused to have his portrait drawn, until the year before he died, because he'd spent his entire life feeling ugly ? he had a cleft palate and hare lip. It is interesting to note David Brower grew up being called ?the toothless boob.? Falling out of his carriage as an infant, he injured his baby teeth and damaged his gums. Not until he was eleven years old did his second set of teeth grow in. Brower told his biographer he grew up afraid to smile. No kidding. Perhaps being deformed and rejected by one's peers can engender a lifelong cynicism about people.

First published in 1798, Malthus' Essay on the Principle of Population predicted the world's population would outgrow its food supply. Malthus calculated the world's food supply would continue growing at an arithmetic rate unless geometric population growth was somehow controlled. Malthus solution was for the poor and working classes to stop, or postpone, their creation activities by marrying late in life and abstaining from sex until then. He believed certain 'positive checks' would help prevent excessive population growth. These included war, famine, infanticide, diseases and homosexuality.

As often happens, Malthus' essay was misinterpreted, in this case to blame the poor and working class for most of society's ills. But his admirers were worldwide and also continued into the next few centuries. One such fan, economist John Maynard Keynes, advocated government intervention in the financial markets (perhaps because he had nearly wiped out his entire fortune during the 1929 stock market crash). The basic premise of Keynesian economics is to ?reduce want.? This goes in hand with Keynes' most popular quote, ?In the long run, we are all dead.?

None of this implies that all environmentalists are bad people. However, you should be aware of the philosophies which have influenced the modern-day environmental movement and from whence they came. Over many long and philosophical telephone conversations with uranium insiders, we discovered many were more environmentally motivated than the radical rabble rousers living in urban DC, San Francisco or Santa Fe, New Mexico. Take for example Craig Bartels, president of HRI, a wholly owned subsidiary of Uranium Resources Inc. (OTC BB: UREE). He admitted he and his wife were both card-carrying environmentalists. He refused to become involved with the coal mining industry and admired the low-impact footprint of the environmentally friendly In Situ Recovery (ISR) method of uranium mining. This method is so low impact that many industry insiders believe it is not uranium mining. Instead, they refer to ISR facilities as 'water treatment plants.'

One benefit the radical environmentalist movement unintentionally brings to the uranium mining industry, and something we look forward to nearly every week, is the rising spot uranium price. As environmentalists pester uranium mining companies, they slow down the exploration, development and mining process. This helps create a perceived scarcity of available uranium for U.S. utilities and spot prices rise.

And rising uranium prices attracts a greater number of uranium exploration and development companies. This number has increased by 1000 percent over the past 36 months. Higher uranium prices, more mining companies and more production centers. And eventually this provides a source of more uranium to power the world's nuclear reactors.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. To receive free updates on uranium mining, nuclear energy, mining stocks, and other investment opportunities, please visit http://www.stockinterview.com