--- "K.Feete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Steve Sloan wrote:
> >For proof of that, just look at Green attitudes
> toward
> >genetic engineering and nuclear energy... ;-)
>
> Yeah, bit of a problem, that. <grin>
>
> Let me babble for a bit:
>
> On the one hand, we have science. Science is good.
> Science comes up with
> all kinds of neato stuff. Unfortunately, it
> generally takes years of
> study to understand anything more than the basics.
> If you intend to read
> and understand any scientific paper, you must either
> a) be unusually
> bright or b) have had at least four years' training
> for it outside of
> high school. At the very least you'll have to do
> tons and tons of
> self-education and research in whatever field it is
> you're trying to
> understand. Science is, therefore, not very
> accessible to the general
> public, most of whom did wimpy Humanities degrees if
> they went to college
> at all.
*
> Now, this is nothing new; the same thing applies to,
> say, law. However,
> science is a bit newer than law, and science has
> also had its real heyday
> in a time when people are feeling very, very
> independent and desiring
> very much to do things for themselves.
Certainly not historically in America. The people
enjoy a great deal less independence overall now than
they did 20, 50, 100, and 200 years ago.
Science is
> also having some
> massive and *extremely* public effects in the world,
> effects that aren't
> just things like noticing gravity, effects that, in
> essence, permeate
> every aspects of our lives. Most are good. Some are
> very, very scary.
I'm interested in hearing what you think is scary.
>
> The public doesn't understand science; they don't
> have the training for
> it, or the time for it, or the motivation for it-
> however you choose to
> put it. But, this being the information age,
> everybody's *heard* about
> it. And so we come to the crux of the problem:
>
> Does the public- which will be heavily affected if,
> say, GE turns out to
> be a flop- have a right to form an opinion on
> something which they are
> completely uninformed on?
>
> The scientists, by and large, say no. Greenpeace and
> the like say yes.
* I say that people need to educate themselves so they
can make informed decisions. The scientists here have
a point- would you protest against your professor if
he/she flunked you for not being informed about the
subject matter of your exams? IMO many things that we
face as a society today are no less important.
OTOH- if I were a big time Greenpeace guy, i'd want
lots of uninformed people that would just go along
with what I say is good, "cuz i know better" (or cuz I
said so). Lots more efficient that way, and why risk
the sheep being out of your control by them being well
informed? This is why i'm so fervent about the
necessity of individual strength, wisdom, and
intelligence. It's the best defense against
oppression, manipulation, and coercion in any form-
hands down. People rely too heavily on their
institutions and not enough on themselves.
<snip>
As an aside, if Greenpeace really wants to raise
environmental conciousness, they should channel their
funds into getting people to scuba dive.
dean
in a love/hate relationship with his fellow homo sapiens
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
