Hi Inez, thank you. I had two sentences explaining this point but took them out - i should put them back in. Three reasons. First, ecological thinking historically has involved a shift from individual rights to the needs of the species, or race, or ecosystem as a whole. The rights or choices of individuals are considered secondary to the need of the whole. Thats the first reason.

Secondly, ecologists have tended to be Malthusians - they believe overpopulation is the principle cause of evil, suffering and ecological collapse. They historically tended to advocate top-down measures for population control, and sometimes these are enforced against other races or other classes, who are seen as being the principle culprits of over-population.

Third, ecological thinking from Malthus on tends to treat humans as an animal like any other - and therefore you should manage it as you would any other livestock, culling the sick and weak. That's why many pioneering ecological or environmental thinkers (like Haeckel , Madison Grant or Julian Huxley) also advocate eugenics.

There are of course plenty of ecologists who do not sign up to any of the above three beliefs. Im not saying ecological thinking is essentially authoritarian, just that it has a historical tendency to be so.