I agree with you up to a point, Cosmic.
We do indeed live in a man-made world full of man-made problems.
And if you have a coherent ethos which rejects the benefits as well as the burdens of that situation then yours is a position that I respect.
But it is not one that I share.
And nor, I think, is it one that the overwhelming majority of our fellow men share. They actively WANT all the benefits of the oil-based economy; and must therefore be prepared to accept the concomitant pollution, wildlife destruction etc. as the price of those benefits.
They WANT cheap food in the shops - and must therefore be prepared to accept all the ecological costs of farming in a manner that provides it as the price they must pay. And must also - as it seems to me - refrain from trying to dictate to farmers how they should go about their business if they are unwilling to bear the consequential costs of any change in farming practices.
Of course, you may object that most of these folk are not informed consumers making intelligent choices. I would not disagree with you; and am all in favour of the provision of proper information on these and similar issues.
My own choice, with the benefit of such information as I have, is in favour of the continuation of a man-managed environment rather than any attempt to return to nature. And in that context, I think one must always start by considering the world as it actually IS, not as one might like it to be.
We do indeed live in a man-made world full of man-made problems.
And if you have a coherent ethos which rejects the benefits as well as the burdens of that situation then yours is a position that I respect.
But it is not one that I share.
And nor, I think, is it one that the overwhelming majority of our fellow men share. They actively WANT all the benefits of the oil-based economy; and must therefore be prepared to accept the concomitant pollution, wildlife destruction etc. as the price of those benefits.
They WANT cheap food in the shops - and must therefore be prepared to accept all the ecological costs of farming in a manner that provides it as the price they must pay. And must also - as it seems to me - refrain from trying to dictate to farmers how they should go about their business if they are unwilling to bear the consequential costs of any change in farming practices.
Of course, you may object that most of these folk are not informed consumers making intelligent choices. I would not disagree with you; and am all in favour of the provision of proper information on these and similar issues.
My own choice, with the benefit of such information as I have, is in favour of the continuation of a man-managed environment rather than any attempt to return to nature. And in that context, I think one must always start by considering the world as it actually IS, not as one might like it to be.