Nature and Civilization - Both have one a part of the image.

Nature, Environment and Civilization

Nature and Civilization

One marked complement of life is nature and civilization. On this, there are two major schools of thought on what it's that life is.

One - seen in both capitalism and socialism - cares with adding the foremost to the human-made world of civilization.

The other - environmentalism - cares about accepting and protecting the natural environment and in experiencing fully the natural aspect of life.

Both have one a part of the image, and it’s time to ascertain the entire picture and to constructively work with it.

There is a world of life that's not human-made, referred to as nature. There is also a world that's human-made, referred to as civilization. In addition, within the person itself, there's the natural aspect - the aspect that's shared with other life forms which basically follows the principles of nature - and therefore the uniquely human aspect:

The aspect of choice and volition, during which one directs one's actions consistent with one's own knowledge and beliefs.

While many of these who value the previous the foremost see the civilization as being harsh and rapacious, many of these who value the latter the foremost see nature as only resources or made to serve. But the 2 worlds not only exist within the selves; they also exist in the person, with each person possessing both the natural aspect of physicality and therefore the uniquely human capacity of directed choice. The first aspect is of an equivalent character as what's nature - the physical aspect that's of nature which is directed by its workings. The second aspect is of an equivalent character as what created the human-made world - the volitional aspect that deliberately directs, creates, and forms.

There is no inherent antagonism between the planet of nature and therefore the world of human creation, any longer than there's inherent bitterness between the directed and therefore the directing aspects of the human beings. Both are aspects of the world, and both exist in humanity and in everyone.

Difference between Nature and Civilization

The difference is that while one world isn't made by humanity, the opposite is formed by humanity; and while the primary reflects natural laws, the second reflects people's choices. Creating an optimal outcome consists of allowing people the fullest experience of both aspects, both within themselves and without, also because the greatest contribution to, and minimal damage to, both worlds.

 

For this reason, it merits to acknowledge the person as a being of nature and of the human-made world and aims to form the foremost of both - the foremost of the experience of both and therefore the most of contribution to both. That is the case both within the person, in both their natural and deliberate-choice aspects, and in human being's interaction with both worlds. That means that creating the foremost of life during this matter consists of making the foremost of human being's possession and orientation toward both non-human-forged life and human-forged life and to make the foremost of both aspects and of their interaction. It means affirming both nature and civilization and using human intelligence to form ongoing growth and improvement of civilization while making the burden lighter on nature. It means to permit people to possess full experience of both nature and civilization and to not only interact with both but to possess the fullest representation of both within themselves. It means, thus, to allows a person to be both a being of nature and a being of civilization and to contribute to both while taking advantage of both.

There are some belief systems that see nature as mere resources, or merely there to serve people. To these, this question is posed: are you able to recreate Amazonian rainforest or create anything approaching it in complexity? There are others that see nature as sacrosanct - and to them are often posed the question, how sacred is that the AIDS virus, and does it love you as much as you love it? The world isn't improved, and life isn't improved, either within the present or in the long-term aspect, by destroying rich, vibrant environments like the Amazonian rainforest so as to clear land that will not be usable in two years. Nor is it improved by denying people the advantages of technology or medicine or scientific and technical innovation.

People have right to guard themselves against viruses and harmful bacteria, to supply and luxuriate in wealth, and to advance and apply scientific and technological knowledge. Similarly, people concerned for the well-being of the earth have the right to guard natural treasures against blind and irreversible destruction.

According to the philosophy of libertarian capitalism, the property is defined as "nature converted into productive use." But therein definition, no value is seen for nature. That is a serious downfall within the philosophy of libertarian capitalism, and that we are presently seeing the consequences of that downfall all around the world.

The economic equations don't compute the long-term value of nature, which is that the worst downfall of free enterprise is constituted at this point. It fails to put a price on natural treasures and thus runs roughshod over them with no eye to the future.

This is truth source of antagonism between business and environment-conscious people; and it's only the worth of those treasures are computed and put into the economic calculus that can be reduced the blind destruction of nature by human economic activity - and human economic activity, stripped of its worst downfall and therefore the greatest error within it can fully work in the interests of humanity both briefly and future because the market theory supposes that it does. Since the natural inputs aren't valued, and therefore the pollution and environment destruction isn't quantified, the economic equations omit environmental damage. If such are valued and quantified, economic equations will reflect the full reality of economic activity on Earth. 

The economic calculus in decisions regarding nature must be the following:

Is what's created of greater richness and long-term value than what's destroyed?

Can you recreate anything on the brink of what you're consuming?

And is what coming out better, richer, more intricate, than what it takes to provide it, or is it worse?

The woman Rand was right when she said that civilization should be developed on nature and not poverty on nature. For GDP to actually be a measure of benefit realized, it must include in itself the environmental factor. In the computation of economic benefit must be included the natural factor - whether what's produced is superior to what had to be destroyed so as for it to have been produced. A computer is superior to the metal, the silicon and therefore the oil that it took to make it, and is thus an improvement upon what it took to make it. A ranch within the Amazon isn't superior to the rainforest that its creation required to destroy. A calculus that has the price of nature will minimize the blind and short-sighted kinds of economic activity, while maximizing genuine technological progress and innovation, with intelligence being applied to create genuinely innovative solutions that make it possible for people to maximize wealth while treading more lightly on Earth. The computation useful of nature within economic equation will end in technological progress and creation of wealth also as preservation of nature, with an incentive being in place for caution and ingenuity in what's created by humanity - and a disincentive against the destruction of natural treasures that humanity cannot recreate.

The result's this:

Benefiting and blossoming of life, both in its non-human-made aspect that's nature and in its human-made aspect that's the civilization.

It is the valuation of both, allowing both to realize and to enhance. It is people having the ability to profit both from nature and from civilization. And its incentive for positive contribution toward both and disincentive for what's blind, brainless, and destructive to every world.

To show how far the failure to compute nature into economic equations has gone in its effects on people's thinking, it's now common for people to ask the socio-economic system as "reality" or "real world," without giving a second thought as to the greater reality in which this system exists - the reality of the planet. The failure to compute the earth, its nature, its climate, and therefore the needs of its inhabitants, both the currently living ones and their descendants, has now caused a global climatic catastrophe. People have denied the truth of nature and its effect upon it for many years, and now, this reality is becoming more and more unpreventable. It is only both nature and therefore the human world are seen as real and computed into economic equations that economic activity is often incentivized toward what's genuinely ingenious and productive and disincentivized from blind, short-sighted and ignorant practices that leave the planet for the longer term generations during a worse shape than one during which one has found it and poorer for one having been in it.

►► If you like this article, Don't forget to share it with your family and friends.