Maybe he's being a little provocative by using the word "arrogant",
and by not saying something about why people believe that stasis is
better than change, but fundamentally I think he's making a valuable
point. Science and scientists should tell us about facts, and as an
aside about their personal opinions and values, but in a democratic
society it is not scientists who should decide for the rest of us
what's worth having and what's not worth having.
And this cuts both ways. It's fair enough for economists to talk about
carbon taxes, but how much people wish to value polar bears or the
fate of developing countries, or how high we judge the likelihood of
continued economic growth / poverty / war over the next 100 years, is
something they can maybe describe, but shouldn't attempt to
proscribe / decide for the rest of us.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
