Ah-HA! I do believe Burnett has GOT it! The question is, if there is an
"anti-intellectual society," does it not follow that there must be an
"intellectual society?" But then, what exactly IS "intellectual?" And, for
that matter, what exactly is a "society?"
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Burnett" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Intellectual and anti-intellectual society
Could someone please explain what exactly is meant by an intellectual
society? This idea seems fairly ambiguous and abstract.
EAB
----- Original Message -----
From: "malcolm McCallum" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:32:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Intellectual and anti-intellectual society
There is an intellectual society somewhere? Please tell me where!
Our society is so anti-intellectual it is scary. I blame this on the
dumbing down of the American curriculum (K-College).
Malcolm McCallum
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote:
Honorable Forum:
In a recent post, the author expressed concern about our anti-intellectual
society--". . . our anti-intellectual society would find it very difficult
to appreciate . . ."
There can be little doubt that our society is replete with
anti-intellectualism. Ecology and ecologists (ecology, in particular, has
gotten pretty bad treatment from popular culture, as "eco-" has become a
prefix for almost everthing, from selling soap to weight-loss nostrums and
cosmetics, ad nauseam) as well as other scientists, not to mention other
academicians, scholars, and those who dare to advance questions about
cultural norms or differ from common presumption, are derided by those who
consider anyone who ventures beyond the bounds of "popular culture,"
whatever that is, to be effete intellectual snobs. This phenomenon affects
elections, and ultimately, funding for intellectual activity. To
paraphrase Rodney What's-his-name, "I[ntellectuals] don't get no
[appreciation]."
In difficult times especially, competition increases for scarcer and
scarcer funds, and support for intellectuals, scientists in particular,
seems to decline, even in relative terms, as the pork gets sliced thinner
and thinner. Beyond howling in the wilderness, is there anything anyone
can do about this?
Anti-intellectuals, by definition, are not only unlikely to do anything
except make the situation worse. That leaves, I suggest, intellectuals. If
that's the case, the choices are to take action or to take no action. If
ecologists want to take action, what should that action be?
I have a suggestion as to form. If every concerned intellectual on this
list--say 10,000--met with four other intellectuals and listed five
actions, and each of those five met with an additional four, tthe list
would grow impressively large very quickly. A list of potential actions
could then be assembled and prioritized by frequency.
Or any more efficient alternative?
WT
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
Allan Nation
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3300 - Release Date: 12/06/10
07:34:00