Modernization, the replacement of machines for muscle, is a universal social solvent. Even when resisted by traditional leaders, modernization erodes established social, economic patterns, and threatens ecosystems. As my friend Reverend Glover Wagner recently observed in another context, "The mind rebels at such a thought, but that's the way God wired the universe".

The reason is compelling and pervasive; peasants and tribal members ultimately succumb to mechanisms yielding enhanced productivity. They rapidly scrap traditional practices in favor of those more materially productive. Many greens argue the market process fosters these changes. They're correct. Hence, they insist, it must be stifled.

Here they are wrong. Given strong, nearly universal propensities toward improving material conditions, solutions to many environmental problems lie in fostering responsible wealth creation and broad distribution. Rich societies are cleaner, healthier, and ultimately greener.

The recent WTO meeting in Seattle was a reveling benchmark on this nascent but enduring conflict. As the Seattle meeting demonstrated, this transition toward modernity disturbs many people, especially deep greens. They are annoyed that so many people want what they consider the "wrong things", e.g., radios, motorized vehicles, refrigeration, hot water on demand, and TV.

Thio Bode, Executive Director of Greenpeace exemplified this position when he wrote that the modern economy is: "a fire-breathing vampire of petroleum which is slowly cooking our planet". He challenged the assertion that greater prosperity leads to environmental improvement. "The industrial revolution left London choking and buried beneath waste."

In the short run, he is often correct. Over the long term, however, his argument is both misanthropic and factually wrong. Modernization encourages international trade and trade fosters wealth. Even leaders of Greenpeace are seduced by the benefits of modernization and the luxury it offers.

Here's an ironic example. I travel enough to earn free upgrades to first class, a clear benefit when crossing the country. On a trip from New York to Seattle I was seated in 3B. While I read The Economist, the fellow next to me was studying computer generated nautical material, hardly exceptional when traveling to a major seaport.

I inquired of his profession and learned he was a ship's captain. " For whom", I asked. "Greenpeace", he answered. " Oh. Do Greenpeace officials usually fly up front?" "Hell no! We're very economy minded. I just upgraded."

"But couldn't you turn in your miles in for free tickets and use the savings to help your cause?" "Well, I suppose so, but I must travel so much that, that…well you know."

Indeed I do. The logic of improving one's circumstances applies universally, even to third world peasants. But Greenpeace, et. al, seek institutions which deny them these opportunities. Those poor souls in impoverished areas presumably should continue their lives enmeshed in involuntary simplicity, high infant mortality, disease, and, most importantly, constrained opportunities to improve their well being.

Modernization, however is a glacial like force. It produces massive dislocations and much sorrow among those displaced. I empathize, lamenting the loss of the West's agrarian culture and feeling uncomfortable with much of what replaces it. Alas, not all good things go together. Recognizing this fact is a mark of maturity and sanity.

I prefer low population densities (I don't live in Montana by accident.) and open spaces. But it would be folly to pretend away the inevitability of the forces producing modernization. Substantial change will occur regardless of the efforts of impassioned greens.

The practical challenge is to recognize these forces and reform political institutions. The responsible goal is to channel predictable human desires into paths less destructive to things we value. Constructive reform increases people's freedom to act while holding them accountable for results of their actions.

But what of the charge that things get progressively worse with modernization and wealth creation? Professor Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University asks, for what age should we feel environmental nostalgia?

1920 when coal provided three quarters of global energy?

1859 when thousands of whales were slaughtered to produce three million gallons of sperm oil for American lamps?

1830 when cholera epidemics decimated the populations which dumped untreated waste in waters they drank?

1700 when 100,000 mills dammed every stream in France?

ancient Greece when the forests of the Eastern Mediterranean were cleared?

The refusal to recognize progress, and act responsibly to foster it plagues many greens. This problem is theirs to address. Until they do so, they will generate mischief and great suffering among the world's most poor and cause third world practices to produce much unnecessary ecological damage.