My understanding is that anything we humans do that disturbs the balance of Nature must be discarded from our way of life. We do not have to give up agriculture just the type that promotes the killing of other creatures, that pollutes the environment, and that produces more than we need. We do not have to give up technology completely just technology that is not in accord with Nature’s Constructive Principle.

The “balance of nature” (using quote marks to indicate that this is your concept, not mine) is FOREVER being disturbed. It became disturbed when mammals appeared. It became disturbed when primates appeared. It became disturbed when humans appeared. Disturbance of the “balance of nature” is the driving force of evolution. It is what makes evolution occur. We wouldn’t be here (indeed life itself wouldn’t be here) if the “balance of nature” had remained undisturbed. SO—adopting the nondisturbance of the “balance of nature” as a policy makes no sense to me. Or to put it another way, anyone who thinks I’m saying that we must not disturb the “balance of nature” is simply mistaken.

Your understanding of what I’m saying about agriculture is, I think, a bit closer to the mark. (Though I’m not sure what you mean by agriculture that “promotes the killing of other creatures.” If you mean “promotes the extinction of other creatures,” then I’d agree. But if you mean “uses other creatures as food,” then I wouldn’t agree. There is nothing BUT other creatures to use as food; the entire biological community is an economy of food.)

I’ve nowhere said that we have to give up technology that is “not in accord with Nature’s Constructive Principle.” I have no idea what Nature’s Constructive Principle might be. The fact is, I try to discourage people from thinking in ANY terms of “giving up” things. Nothing less than a new vision is going to save us, and vision is NEVER about “giving up” things.

ID: 135

UPDATE: Feb 22, 1998