A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.
Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons.
But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights.
No one should be able to enter a wilderness by mechanical means.
Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution.
Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
Continuity is at the heart of conservatism: ecology serves that heart.
It is a mistake to think that we can control the breeding of mankind in the long run by an appeal to conscience.
To say that we mutually agree to coercion is not to say that we are required to enjoy it, or even to pretend we enjoy it.
A coldly rationalist individualist can deny that he has any obligation to make sacrifices for the future.
In a finite world this means that the per capita share of the world's goods must steadily decrease.
A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality.
In an approximate way, the logic of commons has been understood for a long time, perhaps since the discovery of agriculture or the invention of private property in real estate.
But it is no good using the tongs of reason to pull the Fundamentalists' chestnuts out of the fire of contradiction. Their real troubles lie elsewhere.
Moreover, the practical recommendations deduced from ecological principles threaten the vested interests of commerce; it is hardly surprising that the financial and political power created by these investments should be used sometimes to suppress environmental impact studies.
For un-subscribe please check the mail footer.