It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Modern Environmental Movement: Romantics Vs. Scientists (moved from ATSNN)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Stewart Brand opines in the May 2005 issue of Technology Review.com that there are two kinds of people in the environmental movement: romantics and scientists. This dichotomy leads to many conflicts, some of which may not be productive for the overall environmental movement.
 



www.technologyreview.com
The success of the environmental movement is driven by two powerful forces—romanticism and science—that are often in opposition. The romantics identify with natural systems; the scientists study natural systems. The romantics are moralistic, rebellious against the perceived dominant power, and combative against any who appear to stray from the true path. They hate to admit mistakes or change direction. The scientists are ethicalistic, rebellious against any perceived dominant paradigm, and combative against each other. For them, admitting mistakes is what science is.

There are a great many more environmental romantics than there are scientists. That’s fortunate, since their inspiration means that most people in developed socie­ties see themselves as environmentalists. But it also means that scientific perceptions are always a minority view, easily ignored, suppressed, or demonized if they don’t fit the consensus story line.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I've long felt that many (not all) radical environmentalists are divorced from reality. Mainstream scientists will produce study after study that opposes the "conventional wisdom" of the radical environmental movement only to be accused of bias, fraud, or worse. Worse, some of the more extreme elements will participate in acts of civil disobedience, violence, and vandalism to support their point of view.

Don't get me wrong, I think that reality checks could be used by both sides of most environmental issues - it's just that it's rare to read someone decrying the fallacies of the radical environmentalist movement.

edit: less inflammatory title.

[edit on 4/25/2005 by ChemicalLaser]

[edit on 4/25/2005 by ChemicalLaser]

[edit on 4/25/2005 by ChemicalLaser]

[edit on 4/25/2005 by ChemicalLaser]




posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I agree with your conclusions. Many of these people have turned their radical views on the environment into practically a dogmatic religion. They fight against resource husbandry such as controlled burns and limited logging even if it is scientifically shown to be healthier than total conservation.



new topics
 
0

log in

join