2015-02-07 05:28:29 UTC
The worst approach to the matter of nature and civilization is found in some strands of Islam and Christianity that militate against both nature and civilization. These people see nature as sinful or evil, and they see the civilization - its science, technology, business and arts - as hubris or "Babylon." They seek to deny people the right to enjoy the benefits of both nature and civilization and want people to live in an all-consuming darkness. I call this arrangement the necrophilic arrangement - necrophilic meaning, death-seeking and negating of life.
To this necrophilic arrangement there are two semi-solutions. One - seen in Ayn Rand among others - is to fully embrace the civilization in its business, science, technology and the arts, while seeing nature as only resources or as only there to serve man. Another semi-solution - seen in radical environmentalism - is to fully embrace nature and man's natural aspect while militating against business and technology.
There is a full solution, and that is: To affirm both nature and civilization and take the activity into the direction of making the most of both worlds.
Both nature and civilization have every right to exist. The rational person would support both. He would embrace, and contribute to, the civilization in its aspect of science, business, technology and the arts, while taking care to tread lighter on nature. Technologically, he will strive for solutions that provide people the convenience that they seek while taking care not to destroy what people have not created and cannot recreate. He will support solutions such as the Hydrogen Transmission Network (http://htnresearch.com) and confront brainless practices such as burning the Amazonian rainforest or flooding the atmosphere with CO2. He will encourage intelligence, creativity and productivity while reminding people that they have not created nature and have no business destroying what they have not created and cannot conceivably recreate.
This, I regard as the biophilic (life-affirming) solution.
The living things are the only beings with any kind of interest; which means that ethical choice is about this: What adds to life. Both nature and civilization add to life, and it becomes the moral duty of human being to make sure that both worlds are in the best shape that they can be. People should be able to have the benefits of both nature and civilization, and they should do what they can to support and add to both. One should not be only in favor of civilization, and one should not be only in favor of nature. One should be in favor of both nature and civilization and make sure that both worlds are the best that they can be.
There is possibility for a better future than Armageddon in our lifetime, and there are functional ways to make it so. Supporting, and adding to, both nature and civilization, has the possibility of making human existence far better.
It is toward that direction that people of principle should strive.