fallacies of radical environmentalism.rnEarthkeeping notes how our appreciationrnof the natural world has paradoxicallyrnincreased together with our abilityrnto destroy it; Lewis argues that, havingrncome this far in both environmental destructionrnand technological development,rnonly further scientific discoveryrnand technical advancement can rescuernnature (and ourselves) from destruction.rnHe also insists that capitalism alonernamong competing systems is both efficientrnand productive enough to deliverrnthat advancement, while socialism’s environmentalrnrecord is even more dismalrnthan its economic one. (There is norntalk of stewardship, incidentally, in atheisticrnsocieties.) “Back to the Pleistocene!”rnis neither a feasible nor a desirablernalternative: “seeking to dismantlernmodern civilization . . . has the potentialrnto destroy the very foundations onrnwhich a new and ecologically sane orderrnmust be built.” As a sensiblerncounter to the fantasies of radical environmentalism,rnLewis proposes “What Irncall a Promethean environmentalism,rnone that embraces the wildly creative,rnif at times wildly destructive, course ofrnhuman ascent. Our future lies not inrnabandoning technology, but in harmonizingrnit to a new environmental vision.”rnThis vision would rest onrnthe belief that only by disengagingrnour economy from the naturalrnworld can we allow adequaternspace for nature itself. ThernPromethean perspective adoptedrnhere advocates a form of environmentalrnprotection that green extremistsrnwould consider utterlyrnheretical. Where they seek to reconstructrnhumanity with nature, Irncounter that human societyrnshould strive to separate itself asrnmuch as possible from the naturalrnworld, a notion that has aptlyrnbeen labeled “decoupling” by therngeographer Simmons. To advocaterndecoupling is to reject bothrnthe instrumentalist claim—thatrnnature should be used merely forrnhuman ends—and the greenrncounterargument—that humanityrnis, or should be, just anotherrnspecies in nature. . . . In arnPromethean environmental future,rnhumans would accentuaternthe gulf that sets us apart fromrnthe rest of the natural world—rnprecisely in order to preserve andrnenjoy nature at a somewhat distantrnremove. Our alternative is torncontinue to struggle within nature,rnand in so doing to distort itsrnforms by our inescapable unnaturalrnpresence. . . . Technologies,rnnot natural resources, provide thernessential motor of economicrnprogress.rnThe obvious weakness of this argumentrnhas to do with the blurry formulation,rn”at a somewhat distant remove.”rnWhat is Mr. Lewis trying to get at here?rnDoes he imagine humanity eventuallyrnexisting in something like the biospheresrndesigned for human habitation on thernmoon or on Mars? Does he envisionrnhundreds of millions of people gatheredrnout of the suburbs and countryside intornself-contained megalopoli hermeticallyrnsealed away from the seashores, valleys,rnmountains, and plains to which theyrnwould be allowed regulated access (perhapsrnby lottery ticket), monitored carefullyrnby futuristic rangers to preventrnthem from stepping on the grass or wadingrnin the shallow waters of a creek? Ifrnso, he needs to take into account thatrnwhile man’s Pleistocene instincts arernprobably lost to him forever, his needrnfor contact with nature seems undiminished,rnin some ways stronger than severalrncenturies ago—a direct result perhapsrnof his increasing physical estrangementrnfrom it. Will men and women of thernfuture really be content to “separaternthemselves as much as possible from thernnatural world”? Surely all signs point tornthe opposite conclusion, which is thernmain reason why the environmentalistrnmovement exists in the first place.rnLewis’s proposition is as likely to be perceivedrnas “heretical” by Wendell Berry,rnthe poet-farmer, as it would have beenrnby Edward Abbey, the desert rat and inventorrnof monkeywrenching.rnBut maybe it is later than we think—rnperhaps there is simply no choice, orrnanyway few alternatives. This apparentlyrnis the conclusion of Clive Pouting in ArnGreen History of the World: The Environmentrnand the Collapse of Great Givilizations,rnwhich ends with the statement,rn”Past human actions have leftrncontemporary societies with an almostrninsuperably difficult set of problems tornsolve.” This is the sort of talk that heatsrnBen Wattenberg’s and Julian Simon’srnconcrete-encased brains to meltdownrntemperatures and goads solid conservativesrnlike the editors of National Reviewrnto dismissive sarcasm: hysterical doomsayingrnis exactly what they expect fromrnpeople silly enough to take seriously theoriesrnconcerning the greenhouse effectrnand the destruction of the ozone layer.rnBut.. . could these theories have a basisrnin fact?rnWhile ecological catastrophe may orrnmay not impend, surely the inability (orrnthe refusal) to entertain its possibility isrnstill another example of that abstractionrnof mind, the determined separation ofrnmind and matter, quantity and value,rnnumber and experience, that has beenrnthe determining element in Westernrnhistory since the close of the MiddlernAges; if the environmentalists’ warningsrnturn out to have been well-founded, historiansrn(if there are any) of the futurernwill probably identify it as the fatal element.rnOn the other hand, a certain degreernof fatalism—what Christendomrncalled trust in Providence—is probablyrnessential to a realistic attitude. ThernQueen Mary required ten miles tornachieve full stop after the hard-asternrncommand was given, the equivalent tornstopping on a dime by comparison withrnmodern civilization and the distance—rnor time—necessary to slacken its momentumrnor change its course appreciably.rnHistorically speaking, few “problems”rnhave ever been “solved”; insteadrnthey have been outgrown, and there isrnlittle reason to believe that environmentalrnones will end differently, whetherrnthrough Promethean genius, pandemicrnwarfare, or mass starvation.rnOne aspect, though, of possible environmentalrncrisis needs to be consideredrnby anti-environmentalists whoserntraditionalist habits of mind extend torna continued commitment to quaintrnnotions like nationalism, limited government,rnand personal freedom: environmentalismrnis the most powerfulrnrationale yet invented for globalism, thernerosion of national sovereignty, statism,rnand the wholesale curtailment of individualrnliberties. If humanity really is inrnfor a counterassault by Magna Mater,rnGaia, or simply by the thwarted naturalrnforces we have hitherto succeeded inrnmanipulating to our benefit, we needrnto be thinking about the social and politicalrnas well as the scientific implicationsrnas far in advance as possible.rnShort-term goals like electing a RepublicanrnPresident, saving Ford and GeneralrnMotors, and appeasing Wall Streetrnand the U.S. Chamber of Commercernare all expendable. ?rn30/CHRONICLESrnrnrn