Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone
Over the last few years I've found myself increasingly at odds with most of my same aged peers over the subject of Environmentalism. In general, I'd like to pose a question to you guys: Are certain strands of Environmentalism standing in the way of technological progress? Are radical environmentalists today like the machine breaking Luddites of the 19th century?
In particular, I find two trends distressing:
1. Purist attitudes to technology and industry.
2. Negative attitudes to man's role within the environment.
Th first is a problem as it limits the ways we can solve real world problems. For instance, the push for organic farming denies all the potential for chemicals, GMOs and pesticides to end hunger in large parts of the earth, increase yields and farm more efficiently with less damage to the environment. It's a dogmatic view of how to solve problems.
The second is broader, where there's a narrative that puts humans as the villain within an environmental story, and if not humanity in general, then at least some subset like multinational corporations, farmers, loggers, etc. I think it's quite simplistic to view things that way.
I'd like to hear all your comments before I ramble more  . |
I don't think the issue is quite as simple. Just like saying bankers are lowlife blood sucker who wash their clothes with children tears, and so on
On the GM issues for example. The GM anti-crowd generally comprises of several main groups as:
- The "it's unnatural/ not created by God" group
- The "it works but has been under terrible practice by big corporations" group
- And finally the "there has not been enough study to identify its negative effect" group
I kinda agree with the last, 50% on the second, but not the former. So see i still can agree that "GMOs and pesticides can end hunger in large parts of the earth". But i believe that there are better alternatives out there, or GM as solution is just a mask on top of real problems (global food distribution system)