between ecological questions and social answers
Why? Why is there such a debeate about the right questions and the correct answers between environmental activists and the representatives of Business, Politics and the discipline of Economics?
The environmental facts are mostly recognised, although the urgency remains debatable and some people are even making na´ve statements about abundant resources that would last for centuries.
Social class does not explain the mismatch between the the ecological questions and the answers given both by opinion leaders and the general public.
The Mismatch is often produced by defensive reactions, a tendency to give socio-economic answers to replace scientific debate, and a lack of factual knowledge.
Upbringing seems to produce a tendency to obey authorities, which replaces the innate curiosity and development to independece at maturity.
The ecological statement "Growth must end because the planet is finite and we have overshot the earth carrying capacity" is met by socio-economic answers such as
a. We need growth to lift people out of poverty,
b. People will never accept to ...,
c. Our economic system requires growth,
d. We are converting to a service economy,
e. We are changing towards a green economy,
The ecological statement "It will be impossible to feed more and more people" is met by replies such as:
f. You cannot start killing people, or You're a Malthusian,
g. We need genetically modified organisms to feed future populations,
h. Innovation and technologies will surely produce solutions.
i. We have to be optimistic.
Compare: A extensive list of arguments to maintain the growth paradigmn
Under construction - feedback
Also compare: |
Technology, Money, Optimism, and Hope
The quartet that is killing humankind
Director-General of the World Trade Organisation,
and "Mea Culpa"