From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Why do they hate us?
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 07:46:54 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec15.135124.1011@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu writes:

 > I wouldn't call myself right-wing, nor do I hate democracy (I think).
 >  
 > I abhor environmentalism because it is not based on science, like it 
 > should be, but rather on faith, guilt, and emotion.
 >  
 > From a scientific standpoint, many environmental groups (GP included) are
 > a "frightening laughingstock". Their methods rely on fear, guilt, and 
 > emotion.  Admit it (they themselves do), scaring the shit out of
 > people is a lot more effective than showing them figures and tables.

I do think the issue here is based less on a notion of "science" (a
*lot* of bad science around, as there is bad anthropology, biology,
law, politics) than on the quality of evidence presented. While it
appears popular to berate the discipline involved with the Arts and
the Humanities, it remains that the acceptability of evidence among
scientists and scholars together is of a quite different order than
that accepted among lawyers, activists and politicians.

Reasonably, scientists and scholars while not being able to claim a
substantial "objectivity", of course, nevertheless remain impartial
and to a considerable extent indifferent to whatever politics are
going on around them. That is not the case with lawyers and activists
whose explicit role is to persuade and convert people to their way of
thinking; what McGowen refers to "raising consciousness" as if the
troup had not a brain to share among them.

 > Though they might not want to admit it, our standard of living is based on
 > our technology.  It sounds romantic, but solar cookers aren't going to 
 > replace a big power plant anytime soon, nor is the world going to become a 
 > seething pot of fire and brimstone.

Here I do differ; our standard of living is based on our civilised
conduct, which is not always pursued by technology. There is nothing
at all either admirable or edifying about machines and gadgets. Even
Idi Amin had the latest technology the West had to offer, and he *ate*
his political opponents.

Nor do I find such silly reference to the unlikelihood of some sort of
putative doomsday an adequate criticism of environmental activism. For
one claiming to be a scientist one would expect a more reliable insight
into the actual state of the world, and what might be done to manage it
better, than such arbitrary tossing into the arena of biblical images
of apocolypse.

 > I hate it when a law is passed that is completely without scientific basis
 > due to public fear. For example, are "nuclear-free" cities allowed to have
 > hospitals in them? Not according to the law...

Hm, yes, I wonder who among the proponents of nuclear power are also
against suburban light rail systems? Even among the "scientists" self-
contradictory goobledegook can be sprouted, when standing back to take
an overview of whole systems toward developing effective management
strategies at an interdisciplinary and cross-cultural level seems to
me a far more appropriate activity for us to engage here.

But again, the matter at hand is on the acceptability of evidence,
yes?

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                  Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment