From: ibshambat@gmail.com   
      
   My former friend Robert, who is an astrologer and a former hippie, was writing   
   against life in the metropolitan area. A man named Max told him that the   
   people who believed what he believed were acting like spoiled children, and   
   that the metropolitan area    
   was the only environment in which they could survive.   
      
   That is not strictly true. There have been many hippies who moved to the   
   country and survived, giving birth to the organic farming industry. More went   
   back to the civilization, where they used their intellect and creative   
   thinking to create the computer    
   industry and the Wall Street boom.   
      
   The reason for the hippies’ move-back-to-the-land idea was the idea in   
   Romanticism that scientific civilization alienated people from nature, and   
   that denied them their humanity. They wanted to move back into the country to   
   regain what they saw as    
   their lost humanity. They were not spoiled children; they were people who had   
   a meaningful disagreement with the civilization as it was being practiced at   
   the time. Most of them decided later that life in the civilization was not so   
   bad after all. They    
   did what the people who remained hippies said was sell out. However I regard   
   them as making the better choice. They contributed to the civilization,   
   resulting in benefit for many people. Computer industry has done more for the   
   world than has the organic    
   farming industry.   
      
   Ayn Rand said on the contrary that man’s nature is to be a rational creator,   
   and that civilization was the fulfillment of true humanity. She thought that   
   the meaning of life was man and his work. She had a dismissive attitude toward   
   environmentalism    
   and saw nature as only resources for human consumption.   
      
   I believe that both were part-right. There is the natural aspect, and there is   
   the intellectual-volitional aspect. I want to see coming from that the best of   
   all worlds.   
      
   Specifically, I want to see both nature and civilization being in the best   
   shape that they can be. Both are major parts of human reality. Both are   
   equally real and equally important. I believe in contributing to civilization   
   and being good to nature at    
   the same time.   
      
   Of ancient civilizations, the ones that did this the best were the Incas. They   
   had an advanced civilization; they also took care of nature. While   
   contemporary suburban houses look completely out of synch with their   
   environment, the Incan houses looked    
   like extensions on mountains on which they were built. They terraced mountains   
   in a way such as to prevent erosion. I see no reason why the wisdom of Incas   
   should not be pertinent today.   
      
   In contemporary society, I’ve seen this done best at the Burningman festival   
   in Nevada. There, people were in their natural state – often naked – while   
   enjoying the benefits of technology. There were benefits of both naturality   
   and civilization.    
   Burningman is the proof that nature and civilization do not have to be forces   
   contrary to one another. They can also feed into one another to achieve   
   heights that neither can by itself.   
      
   Now there are many people who, when dealing with different forces, want to   
   find balance between them. I don’t want to see balance; I want to see a   
   positive synthesis. Positive synthesis is when forces feed into each other and   
   achieve what neither can    
   achieve by itself. Thus, people build an advanced civilization while taking   
   care to be more responsible to nature, and people have the benefit of both   
   nature and civilization. Which worlds then feed into each other to make the   
   most of human existence and    
   humanity as such.   
      
   I have seen some encouraging signs toward that effect. There are more people   
   using solar panels and driving electric or hybrid cars, especially in places   
   such as California. Some people consider these to be hypocrites for espousing   
   environmentalism while    
   benefiting from technology. That is completely wrong. There is no reason why   
   the two should conflict. It is possible to have advanced technological   
   civilization and take care of nature.   
      
   Incas knew this long before there was California. Their wisdom should be   
   informative today. It should be possible to have both nature and civilization   
   and for people to be both their natural selves and their intelle   
   tual-volitional selves. Then both the    
   aspects of human nature championed by Romantics and the aspects of human   
   nature championed by the rationalists will rise to completeness, and their   
   positive synthesis will improve the world.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)