4 ms·
Articles like this do no favors for the viewpoints they espouse. The author has no scientific credentials, and the piece is a mishmash of broad generalizations
by mycroftiv 16y ago
Articles like this do no favors for the viewpoints they espouse. The author has no scientific credentials, and the piece is a mishmash of broad generalizations from cultural history and questionable interpretations of scientific theories. This is not a rational, evidence-based argument on behalf of sane ecological priorities; it is a woolly, narrative-based claim that humans are naughty and will be punished by mother Earth.
What frustrates me is that I am a strong supporter of making mitigation of negative human impacts on the planet a top priority for civilization. I don't believe the best way to accomplish that goal is with the claim that we should go back to animist thinking about angry sea-gods.
- cema 16y agoI am concerned with the request for credentials. An argument should stand on its own, whether proposed by a credentialed person or not.
- masklinn 16y agoCredentials are still an indicator. Not of the intrinsic validity of the piece and its arguments, but of the author's standing and history. Can Joe Blow put forward a good argument on any subject? Absolutely. On the other hand, is it more likely you'll get a coherent (or even slightly relevant) argument on ecology from Joe Blow or from a trained biogeographer who's been working in the field for decades? It should not be used to dismiss the argument itself (if any was put forward), but if the article looks like a long rambling of generalizations, new-age insanity and groundless anthropomorphization... well in the second case you'll probably take a closer look to check if you've missed something (or if the author has gone completely off his rocker), whereas in the former you'll likely just drop the text and put the author on your blacklist.