We have to decide, each of us, whether it is more important to grow at the expense of nature, or preserve nature at the expense of growth. The right seems to have a belligerent desire for the former and left a naive (if not vindictive) desire for the later.

The problem for the left is that you can’t ultimately preserve nature without everyone’s buy in. California enacting strict laws on pollution, recycling, etc will just drive business to other states. And if the U.S. enacts it, it will drive business to other countries.

As with most things it’s a balancing act. I am all in favor of zero population growth. But who’s going to go first?

But I’m looking at the timelines of this, and the crackpots I mention above were making quote like this before the movement really became populat (The late 80’s was the real surge of enviro-junkies in my lifetime.)

As for the secularity, It depends on your definition of secular.
I’ve heard two:
1) Non-Religious
2) Religous, but not quite.

I refer to the second definition. This belief of Gaia worship, which treats the planet as some sort of god, is what I’m referring to.

I guess my concern is, why did the human population do to these Sado-Environmentalists to make them hate us so much?

It’s the same with endagered species. Protecting the bald eagle when it was in danger of being extinct was a good cause I think (I’m sure legitimate arguments could be made against it, but for the sake of argument, give me this one). But it attracted those that are extreme to the point of wanting no animals killed ever. So now that there are plenty of bald eagles swooping around, pooping on your car, and scaring old ladies, it’s time to take them off the list. And reasonable people are ok with that. But the nuts you attracted to the cause because it was a way to preserve animal life at any cost, are not ready to let go.

Also, why do you refer to “save our planet” as a secular phrase?