Three days ago I put up a post about a show I watched. The program refuted the idea that there’s a balance in nature, and I was puzzled. I don’t see enduring balance in nature. I don’t think there is an argument to refute.

But there’s something. I call it arrogance. We people sometimes fall into the myth that we know what we’re doing.

The reason to refrain from clear-cutting forests or burning now the carbon that was buried eons ago is not about upsetting some comprehensive balance. Instead, it’s about acknowledging that we know not what we’re about to do.

I understand that we’re an impulsive species and culture, but the best way to make a choice when you don’t have enough data is to refrain from choosing as long as you can.

The reason to not degrade an environment is we don’t understand enough about the consequences of that strategy.

It’s similar to why you should avoid the doctor. He knows a lot but not enough. He’s more likely to interfere with your body’s own wisdom and slow things down or complicate them, than he is to cure you.

The reason to avoid dietary supplements is we don’t know enough about how the ingredients work and about what other elements should be present to make them work best.

The reason to resist the death penalty is we don’t know enough, really, about the witnesses, about the convicted, about the future.

The reason to be a nonviolent anarchist is because we need to view laws like they’re necessary evils, or lucky charms that have perverse effects, and limit them as often and as seriously as possible.

This is not about balance. It’s about the appropriate, literal humility that comes with having our feet on this earth.