Commerce and Nature

by Don Boudreaux on April 12, 2008

in Environment, Standard of Living

Over at Say Anything Blog I find this wonderful quotation from the late science-fiction master Robert Heinlein:

There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people
who “love Nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man
has spoiled Nature.” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of
words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of
“Nature"-but beavers and their dams are.  But the contradictions go
deeper than this prima-facie absurdity.  In declaring his love for a
beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers’ purposes) and hatred of
dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the “Naturist” reveals
his hatred for his own race-i.e., his own self hatred.

In the case of “Naturists” such self-hatred is understandable; they
are such a sorry lot.  But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel
toward them; pity and contempt are the most at any rate.

Reading this Heinlein quotation — which, because I’ve never developed a taste for reading science fiction, I’ve not encountered before today — reminds me of one of my favorite passages from Thomas Babington Macaulay’s History of England.  I re-run Macaulay’s passage below (I’ve run it before), for it is both eloquent and wise — and should be reflected upon deeply by all, especially by those persons who profess to love nature and who worry about commerce and civilization spoiling nature:

Indeed, law and police, trade and industry, have done far more than
people of romantic dispositions will readily admit, to develop in our
minds a sense of the wilder beauties of nature. A traveller must be
freed from all apprehension of being murdered or starved before he can
be charmed by the bold outlines and rich tints of the hills. He is not
likely to be thrown into ecstasies by the abruptness of a precipice
from which he is in imminent danger of falling two thousand feet
perpendicular; by the boiling waves of a torrent which suddenly whirls
away his baggage and forces him to run for his life; by the gloomy
grandeur of a pass where he finds a corpse which marauders have just
stripped and mangled; or by the screams of those eagles whose next meal
may probably be on his own eyes. . . .

It was not till roads had been cut out of the rocks, till bridges
had been flung over the courses of the rivulets, till inns had
succeeded to dens of robbers . . . that strangers could be enchanted by
the blue dimples of lakes and by the rainbows which overhung the
waterfalls, and could derive a solemn pleasure even from the clouds and
tempests which lowered on the mountain tops.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Great point Don. Trust me, when the Hutchings clan crossed from Philadelphia to Los Angeles in the mid 1800s, and one of them got scalped and stopped in Utah, I'm quite sure they'd have been happier to get tickets on JetBlue or even Frontier with a plane switch in Denver.

  • I highly recommend you read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" even if you are not a Sci-Fi fan. The story is compelling for anyone who believes in freedom.

  • The Macaulay quotation suggests that aggregate utility has been increased by "law and police, trade and industry"; I don't think that anyone argues against that.


    But it probably is the case that the one or two people looking for the MOST "romantic" things have been starved of their pleasure.

  • LowcountryJoe

    Never read Heinlein, Don? Wy Knott?


    I've got to agree with the recommendation above to read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I, too, have not acquired a taste for science fiction but I purchased an audio book and listened to it based on someone else's recommendation. It took me a little over two weeks to finally finish it...I even put EconTalk on hold for two successive Mondays!


    A very good book with some provocative quotes and a heavy libertarian slant, it is a book that I'm sure you'd appreciate, Don.


    To anyone else who has read (or re-read it) recently: isn't it odd that Heinlein named the computer that developed the consciousness Mycroft. Or maybe it is stranger [in a strange land kind of way] that Bill Gates named his computer operating sytem software commpany, MicroSoft.


  • MyCroft was the name of Sherlock Holmes' older and more brilliant brother in the original Conan Doyle stories.


    He spent his days in his club, had never even left London, yet knew everything there was to know about the world. Helped Sherlock solve a few cases while sitting in his comfy chair.


    The name Mycroft was actually quite appropriate for the Lunar Authority Computer.


    I think Microsoft had nothing to do with Mycroft either. My understanding of Bill Gates is that he is in the middle of the cluster of engineers with social-democratic views on politics. I don't think he is a fan of Robert Heinlein or of Arthur Conan Doyle.


    The name probably has to do with Microsoft's original target market, writing software for microcomputers (what are known today as Desktop systems).

  • Martin Brock

    I wonder why libertarians seem often to have been Sherlockians and Heinlein fans in childhood. I also fit the profile.


    Still, the Heinlein quote impresses me less. Hatred of the artificial is misanthropic practically by definition, but distinguishing the artificial from the natural is not unreasonable. Man is a natural creature in a broader sense, but "artificial" describes man and his effects by definition, and "natural" (distinguished from "artificial") essentially describes existence minus man similarly. It's a linguistic convention, not a scientific or moral absolute, but it's a useful convention.


    Man is plainly the dominant creature on Earth and has uniquely profound effects on his environment, and these effects can be either positive or negative in terms of sustaining human life. We can't calculate an "optimal" human population a century hence for all the reasons Don suggests. I'm also a technological optimist, but optimism is not a law of nature. Eight billion could an absurdly low estimate of Earth's capacity to sustain humanity, but it could also be too high.


    Maybe the current human population is already unsustainable. Maybe the Peak Oil Apocalypse scenario is right, and we won't find effective substitutes for fossil fuels before supply peaks and then declines. Maybe we'll finally go to hell in a hand basket as various Malthusians have long imagined. Maybe instead of driving cars on air, we'll learn to build small, cheap nuclear weapons, and petty political disputes will escalate into thermonuclear catastrophes.


    I doubt it, but I don't deny the possibility. Recognizing the potential of humanity to spoil its natural inheritance is not self-hatred. It's self-awareness. Fear of this outcome shouldn't paralyze us, but we shouldn't be blissfully ignorant of the possibility either. Proving the next Ehrlich wrong is a fine occupation, and it's still a good occupational bet in my opinion, but noting that Ehrlich was wrong and why he was wrong is not this proof.


  • I wonder why libertarians seem often to have been Sherlockians and Heinlein fans in childhood. I also fit the profile.

    And I wonder what stopped their development into Democrats. They were so close . . . to have them slip into the hands of Moriarty.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: