This is my opinion on the distinction of an environment which is changing.

I often discern the question of how much our ancestors may have understood their economy. I am not speaking of an economy of market, but rather of ecology. Taking what is necessary to sustain, and not from compulsion or over-harvesting–could tie in to how ancient farmers understood this dichotomy (of the relationship of nature and man) and hence would plant back into the earth–putting back what was taken–a demonstrable harmony between nature and creature. There is some evidence of the adverse change of this harmony. All one has to do is reflect on what our island and homes looked like prior to “modernization.” We all grow from our “healthy” economy. But our ecology suffers, therefore human kind suffers alongside. The understanding of new and deadlier diseases arising from the many conditions in which man is exposed to, reflect the pace in which humanity has sped up and away from the forest and into the concrete jungle. I for one agree that modernity to some extent helps keep the balance between nature and creature. But let us not confuse this with material goods as representative of being modern or being healthy.

While nature (by its nature) is sustainable, it seemingly offers enough for future harvesting, therefore, a place for future generations to continue to be as such. The justification of this notion could have been measured by the balance between what is in nature and whether humanity harvests from it, or the depletion of resources based upon an unnatural inclination to consume, thereby destroying one form of habit in relation to nature and its resources. It is a contrasting reminder of our predicament today. Small islands like those in the Marianas and the FSM demonstrate this point. The replacing of agricultural lands for residential and business provisions show the obvious warning signs between a developed property and what potential it has for the dollar and the eventual absence of a life sustaining plot of land where nature can flourish. Should there be a point where one has come to the realization that we are creating a future Easter Island for ourselves? I believe that nature will reclaim what was once hers. The human condition has seen much in its life as a creature hand in hand with nature. It will endure. But it will have to work harder to sustain itself once nature is gone. The replacement of nature’s place in relation to man’s desire to own some sense of “security” and the original place nature served man, will soon be buried under a new and improved paved highway. When and where do we start or stop?

Again one should read this opinion as simply that. But it does offer an interesting reflection of an economy of ecology of man and nature. Thank you for taking time to read this.