By Luis Yerovi Jr.

"Man's heart away from nature, becomes hard; [the Lakota] knew that lack of respect for growing, living things soon led to a lack of respect for humans too." Luther Standing Bear (Lakota) (c.1868-1939)

Today [January 15, 2002] is an important day for me. Not only is it my birthday (and Martin Luther King's birthday), but today is also the day that Col. Lucio Gutierrez becomes the official, democratically elected President of Ecuador. The new regime brings high expectations amongst Ecuadorians tired of years of incompetence, corruption and general intellectual laziness. Like most of my countrymen, I hope beyond hope that his presidency will bring about a fundamental change in the course of Ecuadorian history.

It is from this hope that I have come to suspect that the only real chance for "success" for Ecuadorians, and the world for that matter, comes from a revolutionary change in direction in how we, as a community, look at life. Yes, a new philosophy for living is needed.

This essay is concerned with philosophical trends and their effect on history; specifically, how currently prevalent patterns of thought may have contributed to our turbulent "modern" times. A proposal is then made that the indigenous people of America, with their unique outlook on life, derived from an intimate relationship to the natural world, may have the intellectual key to a saner, truly sustainable world.

*****

Ayn Rand, a key founder of Objectivism and author of well-known novels such as Atlas Shrugged, proposes the idea that historical trends are the products of philosophy. In trying to deconstruct this premise, the first question that arises is, what are the dominant political and cultural trends and what are the philosophies from which they emerge?

The preeminent philosophies of the modern age are scientific process, individualism and Western monotheism. The main historical trends that they have given rise to are: technological progress, representative democracy, free market capitalism, including the neocolonialist process of globalization, and evangelism.

The second area of inquiry which arises concerns the relative "value" of the above mentioned historical trends and philosophies. Do they really benefit mankind, and, if so, how?

Let's start with democracy. As a way to avert tyranny and anarchy, democratic principles, as expounded by North America's founding fathers, seem to have a beneficial function for a society. Unfortunately, these principles, when actualized into modern practice, do not always benefit the sectors of society they were intended for. This shortcoming is a result of the colonialist history and racist nature which underlies most modern societies. Still, democratic principles are the best prescription we have at the moment and remain a beneficial historical trend.

What about free market capitalism and globalization? For a descriptive response, one would include the competing arguments proposed by the globalization clique and the anti-globalization crowd.

For globalizers, mankind reached the pinnacle of human economic philosophical thought with the invention of free market capitalism. Fundamentally, capitalists believe that free markets are the panacea to what ills our world. It is hard to argue with the spoils of capitalism: wealth, comfort, enlightenment, even beauty. All are addictive perks Lady Capitalism promises to its adherents. Anti-globalizers point out that these perks are but illusions that are, in any event, only available to a self selected few.

The dark side of capitalism--social isolation, cut throat competition, demeaning social values (i.e. everything is for sale) and environmental endangerment--are the real endpoints, the foes of globalization argue. Who's right? Probably both.

Let's move on to the influence of Western monotheistic religions on the historical trends of the modern world. In deconstructing these "Old Testament" religions, one can see a couple of trends emerging. First, from their inception, the Old Testament religions--Judaism and Christianity--offered their followers crucial and advantageous illusions--self-importance and the possibility of immortality. These illusions were a direct result of two astute decision made by Old Testament tribal leaders: one, they created God in the image of man, specifically "white man;" and, two, they promised eternal salvation in an after world (hence, not in this world and, conveniently, an improvable claim) as a reward for obedience to this God.

Second, insofar as the relationship of man to the natural world, the Old Testament declares that man is meant to rule over nature:

"And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the Earth" (Genesis 1:28)

A consequences of the hierarchical bend of Old Testament thought, however, was a tendency towards arrogance by its adherents in reference to the "other." This arrogance, coupled with Homo Sapiens social animal or tribalistic roots, has historically been acted out in behaviors such as evangelism, slavery, colonialism and rampant disrespect for the environment.