**1. Introduction**

We live in the shadow of the coming crisis. However, this crisis will be di fferent from all the previous ones, for it will cover all spheres of life and will be total in its nature. It is a crisis of paradigms; the paradigms, like anthropocentrism or dichotomism, that for centuries, brought forth achievements of our civilization. These paradigms, however, have eventually led to the threat of self-destruction.

In 1962, Rachel Carson emphasized the need for attention to the emerging ecological crisis, by describing the impact of insecticides (such as DDT or aldrin) on the natural environment and the life support system over the longer term [1]. According to Carson, the greed and egoism of the lethal pesticide industry cannot be easily stopped, just as it is the case with the pursuit of technological progress that has become a permanent element of the post-war world. Therefore, the natural world, and consequently, human beings, are in mortal danger, and this cannot be easily reversed. Many ecological thinkers, such as Clarence Morris, Lynna White, and Christopher Stone followed this way of thinking, as well as numerous radical environmental and animal-rights organizations (Earth First!, Earth Liberation Front, and Animal Liberation Front).

British scientist James Lovelock presented a slightly di fferent vision of the catastrophe (disaster) in his Gaia hypothesis in the early 1970s [2]. According to this hypothesis, the Earth is not merely a collection of living and inanimate entities, but a living superorganism that manipulates the Earth's atmosphere for its benefit, and strives for optimal harmony that promotes the development of life [2]. It is in Gaia's interest to keep all life on Earth in the state of dynamic balance (homeostasis). When this balance is disturbed, e.g., due to pollution or collision with a meteorite, it usually leads to the extinction of species, but not necessarily to the disappearance of life on Earth. The reason might be the fact that the earth will be able to adapt to new conditions and will survive; however, this adaptability may not necessarily be applied to its individual parts that have not developed such capabilities.

Although both concepts di ffer in the way that they see the future of the ecological system (according to the first, it will degrade, while the second states that it will cope), there is something that undoubtedly links them together, namely the belief that a catastrophe caused by humanity will destroy the foundations of its existence, and thus the whole species. Indeed, the changes that have been taking place in the world do not engender optimism. The surface temperature of our planet has risen by 1 ◦C over the past 150 years [3]. The e ffects of global warming include climatic anomalies such as floods, drought, desertification, cyclones, and hurricanes. In many regions of the world, progressive soil degradation occurs, which is manifested by erosion, loss of organic components, desertification, acidification, salinity or alkalization (excessive accumulation of sodium compounds). The increased emission of sulfur oxide (SO2) contributes to the formation of acid rain, which then cause the degradation of forests, vegetation, and diseases of animals and people [4]. As many as 50% of the animals that once shared the Earth with us have already disappeared. A significant population decrease has been observed in another 30% of species. In recent years, most of them have lost over 40% of their natural habitat area, and almost half of them have lost more than 80% of their areas of occurrence in 1900–2015 [3]. Modern meat production, mass-scale fishing, and modern chemistry-based agriculture destroy the natural environment, and in moral terms, they bring forth the death and su ffering of millions of animals. All these changes are brought forth because of human activity. Unfortunately, that is not all. Mass deforestation and the destruction of meadows destroy habitats of wild animals that massively move near human homes. This, in turn, results in the occurrence of numerous zoonoses, such as Spanish flu, AIDS, measles, Nipah disease, Ebola hemorrhagic fever, swine flu, SARS, MERS or COVID-19 [5].

Radical ecologists believe that humans are destructive beings, who use and misuse nature in the process of satisfying their non-vital needs. Being part of nature, they, of course, are entitled to protection, but as misusers, they deserve condemnation, and perhaps even exclusion from the biological community. The aim of this paper is to discuss the risks posed by eco-terrorism, and to investigate which branch of the ecological movement will radicalize and hence create new threats.

It should be noted that many researchers have doubts regarding the usage of the term "terrorism" concerning radical animal rights and environmental groups. Among such scholars, there is, for example, Christopher C. Harmon, according to whom activists whose actions are motivated by the will to protect animals and natural environment do not usually have an inclination towards acts that could be described as "terrorist." This means that they do not seek to destroy the social order, and are usually opposed to all forms of bodily integrity violations. Their goal is not to generate a sense of threat, but to stop the activities of certain classes of people (vivisectors, entrepreneurs, foresters). It is in this narrow-range mode of operation that they try to influence the policy of a given country or region [6]. A similar opinion is expressed by Leonard Weinberg and Paul Davis [7] or Bron Taylor, according to whom "despite the frequent use of revolutionary and martial rhetoric by participants in these movements, they have not, as yet, intended to inflict grea<sup>t</sup> bodily harm or death" [8].

Of course, environmental activists, who construct their conceptual framework on a di fferent philosophical basis than their opponents, do not accept the term "terrorism" to be used to describe their actions. They argue, taking a completely "non-anthropocentric" position (egalitarian in relation to sentient beings or holistic in relation to the natural world), that the use of the term "terrorism" to denote activities that do not target natural (the environmentalist perspective) or sentient beings (the animal-rights perspective) is an abuse originating from the traditional (anthropocentric) moral perspective. This perspective leads to the erroneous perception of violence and terrorism as something that can occur only in relation to human beings and their property, and not in relation to other

non-human beings. If we abandon this erroneous factor, which is based on our harmful habits of thought and perspective, we will have to recognize that the "real terrorists" are not those who fight for "oppressed beings" (animal and natural), but rather those "that promote or defend the exploitation of the natural world" [9].

The term "terrorism" is not neutral. This word has strong negative connotations and is associated with the need to take decisive defense measures to combat it. Therefore, even if we do not revise our conceptual framework and do not take the non-anthropocentric position, we will have to recognize that using this term to refer to groups that operate according to the non-violence principle must give rise to a feeling of inadequacy, or even injustice. It is especially so when we compare their "violent" actions with the activities of such groups as the Islamist Al-Qaeda or the anti-abortion Army of God, which are undoubtedly much more brutal. Moreover, the radicalism of the animal-rights and natural environment defenders is not particularly "impressive" when compared to other types of radicalism born in Western civilization (e.g., religious, nationalist, single issue, far right, and far left), both in terms of the numbers and violent nature of attacks [10].

At this point, it should be noted that the environmental activists are often the target of "terrorist" attacks. According to David Helvarg, the author of *The War Against the Greens*, some of these attacks in the US are organized by the robust Wise Use movement, that gathers farmers, property developers, hunters, SUV users, miners, free-market advocates, and religious fundamentalists. This movement, in Helvarg's opinion, is, in fact, not a grassroots campaign, but a kind of "astroturf", behind which big business hides [11], as well as those who are responsible for a series of acts of violence, such as intimidation, arson, assault, rape, and even murder towards people involved in the environmental movement [11]. Carl Deal, in his book *The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations*, expresses a similar opinion [12]. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) that studies and analyzes the actions of Wise Use, lists on its websites a number of acts of violence perpetrated by supporters of the Wise Use ideology, among which there are shooting at buildings, beating and intimidating, and planting bombs [13–15].
