Two thinkers who have had a vast effect on me were Ayn Rand and Ward   
   Churchill. Ayn Rand championed logic, reason and capitalism and saw nature as   
   there only as resources for human consumption. Ward Churchill, a Native   
   American professor at University of    
   Colorado, instead saw the Western civilization as psychopathic and championed   
   the beliefs of Native Americans, who favored co-existence with nature and   
   respectful treatment of the environment.   
      
   Neither one would have tolerated the other. Ayn Rand would have called Ward   
   Churchill a savage, and Ward Churchill would have called Ayn Rand a   
   psychopath. Both are part-right and part-wrong.   
      
   To Ward Churchill, I would say that if not for the Western civilization he   
   would not be a professor at University of Colorado. And to Ayn Rand, I would   
   say that she has not created nature and cannot re-create nature, and it is   
   morally wrong to plunder    
   what you cannot re-create.   
      
   But both also have a legitimate point. Both environment and the civilization   
   should be treated with respect. In case of nature, whether it is a creation of   
   God or a product of billions of years of evolution, it is something that   
   people have not created,    
   that possesses greater richness and complexity than anything that people have   
   ever created, and that as such is a greater masterpiece than anything that   
   people have ever been able to produce. And in case of the civilization, it has   
   created all sorts of    
   impressive achievements and conveniences and that, as such, likewise deserves   
   to be treated with respect.   
      
   Both nature and civilization are great achievements; and both should be valued.   
      
   On this there are four different possible scenarios. The worst scenario is   
   when people blindly plunder nature without contributing much to the   
   civilization, such as when Berbers deforested Northern Africa or when   
   Brazilian farmers burn down rainforest to    
   make ranches that turn into wasteland. There are two medium scenarios –   
   purely naturalistic lifestyle such as that of the Native Americans and the   
   purely technological lifestyle such as what we see in many cities and suburbs   
   of America.   
      
   The best scenario is when nature and civilization exist together, and where   
   people fulfil their material needs and wants in a way that is not ruinous to   
   nature.   
      
   I have seen this done to some extent in a number of places in contemporary   
   world. These include San Francisco, Melbourne, Seattle, and some smaller   
   places such as Boulder and the Magnetic Island. In these places, the people   
   take care of the environment    
   while also building advanced technological lifestyle where people live   
   prosperously and comfortably. These people are often derided as hypocrites.   
   No, they aren't. They have created livable situations in which people have the   
   benefits of the civilization    
   while taking care to tread lighter on treasures that they did not create.   
      
   Among the previous civilizations, the ones who did this best were the Incas.   
   They had advanced architecture and engineering and agriculture more efficient   
   than contemporary techniques. They also took the care to be minimally   
   obtrusive to nature. They    
   terraced the mountains in such a way as to prevent erosion. They also   
   considered the environment in their design. While most suburban houses look   
   completely out of synch with their environment, the Incan houses looked like   
   extensions of the mountains on    
   which they were built. Both the beauty of nature and intelligence of man found   
   ways to exist symbiotically. They respected nature, and they also built a   
   magnificent civilization.   
      
   I see no reason at all why the wisdom of the Incas should not be informative   
   today.   
      
   The solution in such situations is to maximize the constructive potentials   
   while minimizing the destructive potentials. It is to produce technologies   
   that are more brain-intensive and less resource-intensive. It is to make the   
   most of man as the creator,    
   and make the most of nature as something that man has not created and cannot   
   re-create. It is to tap into human intelligence. It is to do the most to   
   advance the benefits of the civilization, that man has created, and do the   
   least to destroy things that    
   man had not.   
      
   Now there are many situations in which the people involved in capitalism and   
   environmentalists clash. In fact, each represents exactly one-half the   
   equation. The first represents the civilization and the second represents   
   nature. Both are aspects of life    
   – the first as created by human beings and the second as not created by   
   human beings. There should be ways to advance both. There are.   
      
   The solution is neither to do away with civilization nor to blindly destroy   
   nature. The solution is to use human intelligence to create better   
   technologies that fulfil people's needs and wants in a less ruinous manner.   
   Hydrogen energy, water-based    
   engines, and similar technologies will do the task. This will serve life in   
   man-made aspect without destroying life in non-man-made aspect. And that will   
   make the most of both worlds.   
      
   Environmentalists and capitalists should be able to work together. Ultimately   
   the goal of both is to advance life. In the first case the life that gets   
   advanced is nature; in the second case the life that gets advanced is human   
   civilization. The two in    
   no way contradict one another. They can work together; they should work   
   together; and it is the task of human intelligence to make that possible.   
      
   https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)