in human morals and compassion and advertising designed to convincesimple minds that they should become poor and unhealthy by buying theproducts advertised.Not eggplants, no. But television is doing its best to bring human intelligencedown to the level close to at least a smart eggplant. When the computer isthe entertainment of choice, we have YouTube to show us that many peoplehave reached that level of intelligence already.Ursula Le Guin seems to live in a world protected from the realities of entertainment by the average person. For one thing, she reads, which givesher perspectives that non-readers never experience. Reading stimulates theimagination as television, the internet, movies and video games never can.She can't conceive of people not having an imagination. She is sadlymistaken.As an educator who has taught young children as well as older ones, I cantell you that imagination has been all but eliminated (at least channeled) inmany of them before they leave primary school. As I classroom teacher Ifound it hard to stimulate children to be creative in non-traditional ways.As for ecology, Le Guin is correct that the universe is in equilibrium.However, she is dead wrong that nothing should change. Nature itself is thegreatest force for change.When one factor changes or many change as a result of natural disaster orhuman tragedy, nature regroups and establishes a new equilibrium.Look what happened after the disaster 65 million years ago when thedinosaurs disappeared. Whether an asteroid struck our planet or climatechange eliminated the food dinosaurs ate matters little now. What matters isthat mammals succeeded them, and here we are.Look what happened 225 million years ago when as much as 97 percent of life on land and 85 percent of life in the oceans were wiped out.Nature adjusts. The universe establishes equilibrium with whateverconditions exist at the time. No matter if we destroyed ourselves, naturewould adjust to a new equilibrium.When Le Guin recommends that we "must not change one thing" for fear of upsetting the equilibrium she fails to understand the concept. In fact, wemust change what we do that is destructive, at the least.