requires a mastery of technical detailnalmost unimaginable forty years ago.nAs a liberal arts education has becomenever more nebulous, forestry (or agriculturenor mining, or any of a numbernof subjects) studies have become morentechnical, complex, and rigorous. It isnnot surprising, then, that environmentalistsnshould have very simplemindednnotions about how to manage endeavorsnlike forestry, nor is it remarkablenthat middle-class people in general,nthose who do not do the technical worknof the world, should be taken in soneasily by the crazy claims of environmentalists.nThis knowledge of Mike’s was anrevelation to me, and I stress it herenbecause I do not think it is widelynrecognized; I do not think we realizenthe degree of knowledge and competencenthat the farmer, the forester, thenfisherman, et al., in their millions mustnhave for society to function as smoothlynas it does. We are all familiar withnthe form of knowledge that lies behindnthis, theoretical science. We know thatnin certain highly complex affairs wenrequire expert guidance from men andnwomen who have worked long andnhard to acquire and develop knowledgenabout matter that is so abstruse andnabstract that it must be translated fornus. We value science, and despite somenambivalence, we trust scientists. Butnwe don’t know enough, we don’t appreciatenenough, the knowledge of thenmen and women who do the work ofnthe world.nI have laid so much emphasis on thenissue of knowledge because when I sawnhow it functioned in forestry, I rememberednan obvious truth that had beennsuppressed, even denied during mynenvironmentalist years: all civilizationnis ultimately based on our control andnmanipulation of nature. The story ofnmankind’s ascent from the cave can bentold in terms of that growing mastery.nIt is a truth just as obvious that nature isnso vast and so complex that whateverncontrol we achieve is always partial,nfeeble, tenuous. That control growsnout of knowledge, most broadly conceived,nand not confined to knowledge,nscientific or technical, that bears directlynon the physical world. Wishing alwaysnto improve our lives, to makenthem longer and healthier and freer,nless burdened by labor, even wiser, wenmust ever work for the knowledge thatnwill extend our control over nature.n”Control,” however, is not quite thenright word. The more we study cropsnand their pests, for instance, the morenrefined our methods become for promotingnthe crops and diminishing thenpests: we breed stronger, resistantncrops; we learn how to take advantagenof weather, of the enemies of pests, ofnthe biology of the pests themselves; ournintervention becomes more selectivenand effective. We may call that control,nbut it should be more precisely definednas increased knowledge enabling us tonwork more intelligently with nature.nPerhaps the best way to put it is to saynthat in struggling against entropy,nagainst the natural tendency to letnthings slide, in struggling for a morenordedy, more productive world, wenstrive against nature, but in the tactics,nthe details of how we go about it, wencan only work with nature.nWhen environmentalists demandnthat we remake our societies “in harmonynwith nature,” they reveal theirnown ignorance: everything we do is innharmony with nature — how could itnbe otherwise? What they want is thenabandonment of sophisticated knowledgenin favor of primitive forms.nPeople have short memories. Weneasily forget what life was like in thenrecent past, just as we quickly discountnthe material advances made in our ownnday. I live on an island where thenprincipal highways were not paved untilnthe 1950’s and 60’s, where phonesnand electricity were not ubiquitousnuntil thirty years ago, where untilnWorld War II most of the rural peoplenworked from before dawn until afterndark to gain a poor living from thin soilnin a harsh climate. That may sound likenparadise to environmentalists, but itntells me a different story: that withinnthe memory of living inhabitants peoplenhave looked on helplessly whilenmen bled to death in hay fields, whilenwomen died in lonely farmhouses fromnpuerperal fever, and that where life isnhard now, a short time ago it was muchnmuch harder.nOur lives are always constrained. Wenare nature’s creatures, after all, andncannot escape biology. But insofar asnmankind has knowledge, and thus anmeasure of power over the naturalnworld, to that degree is our constraintneased. Living on this island, where thenknowledge and the power came late, Innnhave seen what that means.nA couple of simple, obvious, basic,nbut neglected truths: life means changenand development, the incessant emergencenof problems (and opportunities)nthat are solved (and seized) and recreatednin new forms in the press ofnfurther change. Once we threw ourngarbage in the back of the cave, thennwe heaved it into the river, later wenhauled it to the town dump, and todaynwe burn it to generate electricity. Butnour choices and expectations are mainlyndetermined by our collective wealth;nin a nation where three square meals isna luxury, people will not be concernednabout elaborate garbage disposal systems.nThe wealth created in the Westnsince the end of Wodd War II hasnmade us care about clean air and water,nand it has also given us the means tonachieve such desires. This cannot benoverstressed. Knowledge, wealth, andnimproved practices go hand in hand.nReal environmentalism, the actual improvementsnin the environment, arensolely due to our growing affluence,nespecially in the last forty-five years.nWe may call this rational environmentalism:nthe wish for measures tonprotect or develop environmentalnamenities that promise tangible benefitsnat a reasonable cost.nThe environmental movement,nhowever, believes that wealth is thenproblem, not the solution. Greens takengreat solemn delight in telling us thatnthe only way we can save our “injurednplanet” in the short time left to us is bynlowering consumption, dismantlingnmodern industry, curbing if not eliminatingncapitalism, and slowing technologicalndevelopment. In other words, itnis only by reversing the flow of knowledgenand development, it is only bynbecoming poorer that we can live environmentallynpure lives. Astoundinglynstupid as this is, it is’typical of Greenismnin all its aspects. For instance, whynall the fuss about recycling? It only hasna point when it is commercially viable.nThere is, and always has been, a marketnfor various used materials, butnbeyond that recycling is counterproductivenbecause it creates costs for nonbenefits. Every idiot proclaims that henis saving trees by using recycled papern— what for? Trees will only die ifnthey’re not harvested, and contrary tonthe Green myths, the total forest inventorynin the United States has beennJANUARY 1992/41n