Social harmony versus soulless individualism

Daniel Todes ascribes the initial rejection of Darwin's ideas by some Russian commentators to a cultural reaction to the metaphor of the struggle for existence.

Russia's economy, political structure and culture also contrasted sharply with those in the United Kingdom. Capitalism was only weakly developed and political supporters of the two most important classes, rich landlords and peasants, spoke the language of communalism — stressing not individual initiative and struggle, but the importance of cooperation within social groups and the virtues of social harmony. Russian political commentators of the left, right and centre reviled Malthus as an apologist for predatory capitalism and soulless individualism.

Those comfortable with tyrannical systems have long been fond of equating more freedom with less soul and less harmony.

A list of ecosystem services

I copy and paste the whole contents of a box from the latest issue of Nature:

Published online 18 November 2009 | Nature 462, 270-271 (2009) | doi:10.1038/462270a

Box: Ready to serve

From the article:
Biodiversity: Putting a price on nature [a profile of Gretchen Daily]

A selection of nature's 'services':

Provisioning: timber, fish, wild game, fruit and fungus, even moss and foliage for floral arrangements.
Regulating: water filtration and capture, flood protection, carbon sequestration.
Cultural: recreation, education, aesthetic and spiritual contemplation.

I don't know what spiritual contemplation is. Apart from this, it seems to me that we can get all of these services by artificial means, including intensely managed ecosystems. Will these means be more expensive than "nature"?