I read that Asian civilizations developed because of rice cultivation that required large amounts of cooperation and organization. In turn rice cultivation led to greater increases of population so labor was plentiful. Western civilizations rose from smaller agricultural settlements that still depended on hunting and gathering. In European countries the populations never got as large as in Asia and labor wasn't plentiful so there was an emphasis on developing better ways to get and develop resources through trade, warfare and eventually industrialization. Those things were present in Asia but the push for them was lessened as long as cheap and plentiful labor could fulfill most needs. While the Chinese and Indians made great developments in conquest, trade and science those things were only important to a point because their societies could still survive well without them. So the Asians ended up developing cultures and religions more focussed on collective internal ideals while Europe stressed individual and externally oriented ideas. I know I'm simplifying here but throwing that out for discussion.
Albert seems to assume that nature has an inherent beauty and nobility. Some might see nature as cruel and pitiless and by setting our consciousness apart and restricting ourselves to our personal desires, we can limit the hopelessness our our existence. After all, a delusional reality is no less real to one experiencing it. If that weren't true why would so many human beings so fervently adopt a belief in the unknowable. It's the hope that an existence outside of our present physical existence is somehow better than what we can hope for in this life that fuels almost all religions. Beliving in the unknowable is delusional. So is debating with Albert Einstein.
