Urban Atheists Make Good
Read this link from the PERC website. Crichton is right on with his assesment of modern environmentalism as a manifestation of man's need for religion. Instead of cathedrals, though, we now build beautiful public schools in which to worship the environment...
posted by bob @ 9:07 PM
2 Comments:
This is an excellent piece, religions are based of an idea not solely a belief in an accepted daeity. That beliefs others than accepted religious can influence society on such a large scale. But whereas religious beliefs can be attacked easier these not normal religions are much more easily accpeted. these religions use a form of common sense, that is non sense but to most people sounds right, and since the public is rationally ignorant it is just accepted.
A point id like to make is we as humans considering rational ignorance accpet ideas that are in a spectrum we know little about with ease. So anything that uses a typ of simple logic can easily manipulate the populace. This is what these Eco groups use alot. Trust me you can convince alot of people that the moon is going to collide with the earth, if you talk as if your an expert, put facts in, and add some questions. (don't want to give away that you
know everyhting all the time)
This is a great speech. I loved the breakdown of religous tenents, and how environmentalism seems to fit each one. I agree with him that the environmental movement will be more effective if it's not conducted as a religion- I'm pretty resistant to religion myself. I also agree that policy should be based on sound scientific research. However, it takes time for research to be executed, compiled, peer-reveiwed, published, interpreted, debated, replicated, etc.... In the meanwhile, what's wrong with people/gevernment/industry attempting to simply lighten their impact on the planet?
A specific target level of reduction doesn't have to be identified, just the concept of improving. Continuous improvement is a powerful and effective method used in manufacturing, as a business implements one small, but highest priority, change at a time. It's the direction of change, not necessarily the final outcome of that change that matters.
As we've seen from discussing federalism, one of the reasons decentralization of authority can be so effective is that it allows flexibility to modify things as new understanding is gained. That's how continuous improvement works- you head off in the direction that's best, then assess and modify regularly along the way.
I guess I'm stuck on the idea that our powerful brains can do more than digest what others tell us, that we can intuit the appropriateness of not crapping in our own neighborhoods. People should care about these things, and naturally want to do it, without waiting for the gov't to tell us to do it. I know that's idealistic, I can admit it.
I have a couple problems with what Mr. Crichton says. First, regarding efforts to halt the rise of carbon dioxide: "nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time." How can efforts be a waste of time? If this is a situation worthy of investigation (and Crichton's not saying it isn't), then effort is justified. He's being a little two-faced here, where he criticizes the doomsday predictions of past generations, but doesn't acknowledge that maybe those predictions didn't come true because people actually adressed the impending problem.
He also says: "second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it." Well, it's hazardous to me. I hate getting a cloud of smoke in my face as it spews from the mouth of a smoker. The EPA site says this about it.
I don't have time to look up the DDT issue, but I guess it's not out of the realm of possibility that he's right on that one. I mean, the gov't has banned other perfectly useful, relatively harmless things for our own protection. It just seems like Crichtons' being sensationalist, trying to raise some ire. Makes for an effective speech, doesn't it?
Post a Comment
<< Home