Feed on

Reflect for a moment on the original state of man as God (or who or whatever you do or do not believe in) instituted it. Men are born with vastly varying degrees of attractiveness, strength, energy, intelligence, propensity for disease, and so on. Furthermore, man’s physical location across the globe has placed some at great advantage and others at great disadvantage in terms of the availability of natural materials to discover, work with and to be sustained by. In short, the “natural order,” if there is such a thing, in no way promotes anything resembling a state of equality. The state of nature is best characterized by one of dramatic inequality.

Indeed, much of what we find beautiful and compelling in nature is driven by differences. The deserts of central California are beautiful when standing in contrast to the lush forests nearby. The oceans would get rather boring for many if in fact all we did was see … oceans. Pigeons are not exactly viewed as precious birds, whereas the Condor sure does get a lot of respect.

The reason I mention this is that in reading lots of the ecological and environmental literature, I see many writers clamoring for a return to nature or something along those lines. It should also be noted that a good portion of these writers are communitarian at their mildest, and outright egalitarian socialists otherwise. But can it be the case that you wish for man to return to the state of nature, or for us to achieve a “proper balance” with nature, and then also try to command a society where all resources are shared equally? In the state of nature, the only resource which seemed to have been shared equally was air, and that is only because for all intents and purposes air is not very scarce. Otherwise, to return to the state of nature as the ecolocals would have us do would then be an admission that pre-existing and “natural” inequalities are acceptable and desirable. I doubt that the ecolocals would support such a claim, but it is sitting right there like an ugly zit on their faces when they tell us we need to go back to nature.

6 Responses to “As God and Nature Intended It”

  1. Speedmaster says:

    It’s been said that many in the environmental movement are “watermelons.” Green on the outside, but really red on the inside. 😉

  2. Harry says:

    Ha hah hah. Speedmaster, you are great.

    Of course some greenies are sincere, mistakenly.

    But many of the ones who dominate the public platform wish the workers to ride their bicycles from their equally-sized public housing units to their jobs, while the happy farmer-tenants fork the wheat onto the threshing floor. Lenin’s dream.

    Meanwhile, the nomenklatura can enjoy fishing in Jackson Hole.

    I know such comments might be construed as misanthropic.

    Great post, perfesser. Best regards, Speedmaster!

  3. Harry says:

    You ask some big questions here, perfesser. They are worthy of at least two undergraduate courses, many dissertations, and incalculable inquiry. It is so great you started your program at the U of R, and I am sure it will have good effect on many. Wish I were there.

  4. Bradley Calder says:

    Well written.

  5. Chris says:

    In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong. -John Kenneth Galbraith, economist (1908-2006)

  6. […] others from taking their time and talents or employing their time and talents against their will. A few days ago we explored the inconsistency in holding the two beliefs that we should “return to nature” and also […]

Leave a Reply