However, I think the major opposition to ecology has deeper roots than mere economics; ecology threatens widely held values so fundamental that they must be called religious.

But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights.

Fundamentalists are panicked by the apparent disintegration of the family, the disappearance of certainty and the decay of morality. Fear leads them to ask, if we cannot trust the Bible, what can we trust?

The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them.

A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.

Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

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.

In a finite world this means that the per capita share of the world's goods must steadily decrease.

An attack on values is inevitably seen as an act of subversion.

Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution.

Why are ecologists and environmentalists so feared and hated? This is because in part what they have to say is new to the general public, and the new is always alarming.

A coldly rationalist individualist can deny that he has any obligation to make sacrifices for the future.

You cannot do only one thing.

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.

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.

Continuity is at the heart of conservatism: ecology serves that heart.

The social arrangements that produce responsibility are arrangements that create coercion, of some sort.

The optimum population is, then, less than the maximum.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else.

Incommensurables cannot be compared.

Of course, a positive growth rate might be taken as evidence that a population is below its optimum.

Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed.

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.

It is a mistake to think that we can control the breeding of mankind in the long run by an appeal to conscience.

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.

No one should be able to enter a wilderness by mechanical means.

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.

However, I think the major opposition to ecology has deeper roots than mere economics; ecology threatens widely held values so fundamental that they must be called religious.

Using the commons as a cesspool does not harm the general public under frontier conditions, because there is no public, the same behavior in a metropolis is unbearable.

The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.

Ecology is the overall science of which economics is a minor speciality.

Ecological differentiation is the necessary condition for coexistence.

Continuity is at the heart of conservatism ecology serves that heart.

The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.

There should be more attention paid to scientific research in the ecology area, and I think that such attention to proper environmental concerns would make the public feel much better about it.

I have a certain pool of subject matter that I like to write about, things that interest me: politics, religion, ecology, and relationships between men and women. And that's usually what I focus on.

The site I landed on feels much more isolated than it really is; it's almost magical. Within its limited radius, there was a whole range of the local ecology.

Well, I think I was always sort of reflecting where I was and my sense of surroundings and ecology, urban or country, or foreign, living in Europe, very affected by all of that.

I forced myself to think what is the new concept and it became clear to me that it was risk, not only in technology and ecology, but in life and employment, too.

Archeology and ecology can go hand in hand.

The best years of your life are the ones in which you decide your problems are your own. You do not blame them on your mother, the ecology, or the president. You realize that you control your own destiny.

Continuity is at the heart of conservatism: ecology serves that heart.

The first law of ecology is that everything is related to everything else.

However, I think the major opposition to ecology has deeper roots than mere economics; ecology threatens widely held values so fundamental that they must be called religious.

If a product is more expensive than another one, and more sustainable in ecology, consumers will not buy it.

Probably the most visible example of unintended consequences, is what happens every time humans try to change the natural ecology of a place.

Ecology and economy are becoming inextricably entwined, and the world is becoming more conscious of this fact.

If you can command a lot of attention, that's what is valuable, and many in the commercial ecology would like to have a piece of that attention.

The tragedy is that there is so much more incentive - money - to destroy the ecology than there is to preserve it.