4 ms·

You seem to throw everything associated with the green movement into the same lump of bad things (judging from the tone of your comment). What could be so bad a

by geoka9 10y ago

You seem to throw everything associated with the green movement into the same lump of bad things (judging from the tone of your comment). What could be so bad about recycling that you dislike the idea? Is there a logical explanation or maybe it's based on religious beliefs? I'm genuinely curious.

zo1 10y ago
I wasn't trying to portray those items as bad. The thing that is bad is when those things are pushed on children. They're the least likely to question things told to them by authority figures such as teachers. Then again, I probably have a very narrow view of what should be taught to children by educators. Simple facts and techniques, that's all. Otherwise, the classroom is just another battle front that opinionated teachers can use to push their version of politicized topics that haven't been agreed upon completely by the scientific community. E.g. religion, evolution, climate-change, etc.
- rybosome 10y ago
  You include several things in the list of questionable, politicized content that are cold, hard facts. The amount of pollution produced, the effects of this pollution and the rate of extinction of species are not liberal propaganda. The scientific community is in agreement that we are in the anthropocene, or in other words that humans are having such a massive effect on the environment that this geological era is dominated by our influence over that of any other single factor.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- chillwaves 10y ago
  In the context of what is being taught in schools and how our education currently exists, there should be no issue with teaching ecological principles, which as noted elsewhere, are as firmly rooted in science as evolution. This is not a matter of pushing politics. > the classroom is just another battle front that opinionated teachers can use to push their version of politicized topics that haven't been agreed upon completely by the scientific community. E.g. religion, evolution, climate-change, etc. One of these things is not like the other. It does however explain your bizarre mindset that teaching basic facts of ecology is some kind of politicization of children. I would think of all populations, children have the most stake in the future of the planet.
  - zo1 10y ago
    >"there should be no issue with teaching ecological principles, which as noted elsewhere, are as firmly rooted in science as evolution. This is not a matter of pushing politics." Sure, teaching ecological principles as facts and history, yes. I would agree with your wholeheartedly there. But that is not how it's presented in the classrooms of younger-grades. It is loaded with guilt and fear, along with suggestions/instructions about what must be done. At least in the case of global-warming, desertification, deforestation, pollution, ozone-layer depletion, etc. It's the ever-present boogey-man of society's bad choices. That's not teaching. Perhaps young children are simply not ready to hear some of these things, and know of the possibly impending disasters that humanity as a whole is causing. Almost entirely out of the child's control. >"I would think of all populations, children have the most stake in the future of the planet." Just as much as the parents, I would argue. They want what's best for their children. Still, doesn't mean you need to burden the children with thoughts/worries of such things.

by geoka9 10y ago

zo1 10y ago

I wasn't trying to portray those items as bad. The thing that is bad is when those things are pushed on children. They're the least likely to question things told to them by authority figures such as teachers. Then again, I probably have a very narrow view of what should be taught to children by educators. Simple facts and techniques, that's all. Otherwise, the classroom is just another battle front that opinionated teachers can use to push their version of politicized topics that haven't been agreed upon completely by the scientific community. E.g. religion, evolution, climate-change, etc.

rybosome 10y ago
You include several things in the list of questionable, politicized content that are cold, hard facts. The amount of pollution produced, the effects of this pollution and the rate of extinction of species are not liberal propaganda. The scientific community is in agreement that we are in the anthropocene, or in other words that humans are having such a massive effect on the environment that this geological era is dominated by our influence over that of any other single factor.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chillwaves 10y ago
In the context of what is being taught in schools and how our education currently exists, there should be no issue with teaching ecological principles, which as noted elsewhere, are as firmly rooted in science as evolution. This is not a matter of pushing politics. > the classroom is just another battle front that opinionated teachers can use to push their version of politicized topics that haven't been agreed upon completely by the scientific community. E.g. religion, evolution, climate-change, etc. One of these things is not like the other. It does however explain your bizarre mindset that teaching basic facts of ecology is some kind of politicization of children. I would think of all populations, children have the most stake in the future of the planet.
- zo1 10y ago
  >"there should be no issue with teaching ecological principles, which as noted elsewhere, are as firmly rooted in science as evolution. This is not a matter of pushing politics." Sure, teaching ecological principles as facts and history, yes. I would agree with your wholeheartedly there. But that is not how it's presented in the classrooms of younger-grades. It is loaded with guilt and fear, along with suggestions/instructions about what must be done. At least in the case of global-warming, desertification, deforestation, pollution, ozone-layer depletion, etc. It's the ever-present boogey-man of society's bad choices. That's not teaching. Perhaps young children are simply not ready to hear some of these things, and know of the possibly impending disasters that humanity as a whole is causing. Almost entirely out of the child's control. >"I would think of all populations, children have the most stake in the future of the planet." Just as much as the parents, I would argue. They want what's best for their children. Still, doesn't mean you need to burden the children with thoughts/worries of such things.