While growing, I learned that human have 3 basic needs: meal, cloth and a house. If we look at the history, the basic needs sound reasonable. Nowadays, these basic needs has been transformed into desire of luxury and lavishness for human society, irrespective of their purchasing power. While searching for temporal joy and artificial peace, we, human badly ruined the nature including species, water resource and earth’s atmosphere. The question is, what if human, one day achieve all the luxury but, left with unclean air to breathe and dirty water to drink, what cost can be paid for making these resources useful. Isn’t seems that in those circumstances, the definition of basic need will change to clean water and pure air.
The wording of your question makes it a little difficult to answer.
Basically, you claim that food, clothing and homes have traditionally been equated with quality of life. Though obviously important, clean air and water have long been taken for granted because of their sheer abundance.
But the importance of clear air and water is beginning to register as they become more scarce.
The crux of your question appears to be either 1) Is there a tradeoff? or 2) If so, what is the tradeoff?
There clearly is a tradeoff, and it's staggering; the very survival of humanity is increasingly in jeopardy. Even if we survive, the quality of life will continue to spiral downward.
A capitalist would say that a resource becomes more valuable (in financial terms) as it becomes more scarce. Simple common sense dictates that clean air and water (along with other environmental things) are becoming more valuable in more than economic terms.
The fact that many nations have created national parks and reserves, regulated the harvesting of natural resources and supported the Kyoto Protocol (all but the U.S., I believe) bears this out.
But this is the statement that confuses me:
The question is, what if human, one day achieve all the luxury but, left with unclean air to breathe and dirty water to drink, what cost can be paid for making these resources useful.
First, we can never achieve "all the luxury." The world's billionaires already have more luxury than they need, but even their quality of life index is diminishing. There are millions of poor people who can't get enough to eat, let alone luxuries.
But I'm not sure what you mean by "What cost can be paid for making these resources useful."
I assume the resources you're referring to are (clean) air and water. But what do you mean by making them useful? They're already useful. Or are you asking about the cost of restoring or purifying them?
And what do you mean by "What cost..."? Are you asking how much it will cost to clean up the environment?