4 ms·

I really appreciate many points in this article, especially showing that people in the 60s thought that they were in just as much of a decline as we do now. Bu

I really appreciate many points in this article, especially showing that people in the 60s thought that they were in just as much of a decline as we do now. But there's also a weird anti-environmentalism threaded through the article. Toward the end, the author lists things that we now think are bad, as an example of how we've become pessimistic. Including: "New subdivisions represented a threat to the landscape rather than the promise of the good life. [...] Insecticides harmed eagles’ eggs." Those are and were legitimate concerns! Just because we are correctly critical of some aspects of technological process doesn't mean we have become a bunch of petty pessimists who are just trying to make everyone feel bad.

autokad 12y ago
-Just because we are correctly critical of some aspects of technological process doesn't mean we have become a bunch of petty pessimists who are just trying to make everyone feel bad. maybe you stop at those things, i doubt thats the case but lets assume you do. you think these ideas are a tree with the wind of truth and reason blowing through your leaves. however its a tree in a forest of never ending complaining, negativity, and loathing on every step of progress. things like zoos are torturing animals into slavery, panning for gold is made illegal because it might disturb the fish - and they cant take it, companies like monsanato dont produce science and research into better crops to stop famine, they are an evil empire destroying the ecology and sapping humanity for all its worth. space program? forget it, why spend on wasteful things like that when we can spend more money on health and education. the spit and the acid that people around me say towards those who choose to live in rural or suburban areas astounds me. although i do find it amusing, they live in their concrete cities that destroyed all the ecology around them, but somehow believe they have special knowledge to tell people (who did not destroy the ecology around them) how they should live with regards to environmentalism.
- couchand 12y ago
  Perhaps you missed it when the GP made the point that "Just because we are correctly critical of some aspects of technological process doesn't mean we have become a bunch of petty pessimists who are just trying to make everyone feel bad."
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  If Monsanto are a paragon of virtue and want better crops, what's up with the sterile seeds and lawsuits over people selling legitimately obtained seeds?
  - Vraxx 12y ago
    This is a valid complaint about Monsanto and it is one that I have myself, but it is also not the complaint that was being referenced. GMOs (not necessarily Monsanto) have great potential, yet just the words "non-GMO" printed on a package are enough to convince people of one brand over another. The fact that GMOs are a political issue in the US is more proof that there is resistance to progress, at least in this particular respect.
    - rabbyte 12y ago
      Resistance or reluctance? In keeping with the article, it would be less about the GMO vs non-GMO debate and more about uncertainty in how we agree on whether something ought to be or if it will cause more problems than it solves. The fear of progress in this case may be rooted in sound reasoning as a reaction to past advances that have wreaked havoc in other areas. The impulse is to treat it as an ideological difference when it actually should be looked at as a breaking down of trust and an inability to discern foolishness from genius.
skybrian 12y ago
I didn't read it that way. I think her point was that we have a lot of good reasons to look at the possible downsides of potential advances, rather than naively assuming they won't have side effects.

autokad 12y ago

-Just because we are correctly critical of some aspects of technological process doesn't mean we have become a bunch of petty pessimists who are just trying to make everyone feel bad. maybe you stop at those things, i doubt thats the case but lets assume you do. you think these ideas are a tree with the wind of truth and reason blowing through your leaves. however its a tree in a forest of never ending complaining, negativity, and loathing on every step of progress. things like zoos are torturing animals into slavery, panning for gold is made illegal because it might disturb the fish - and they cant take it, companies like monsanato dont produce science and research into better crops to stop famine, they are an evil empire destroying the ecology and sapping humanity for all its worth. space program? forget it, why spend on wasteful things like that when we can spend more money on health and education. the spit and the acid that people around me say towards those who choose to live in rural or suburban areas astounds me. although i do find it amusing, they live in their concrete cities that destroyed all the ecology around them, but somehow believe they have special knowledge to tell people (who did not destroy the ecology around them) how they should live with regards to environmentalism.

couchand 12y ago
Perhaps you missed it when the GP made the point that "Just because we are correctly critical of some aspects of technological process doesn't mean we have become a bunch of petty pessimists who are just trying to make everyone feel bad."
JetSpiegel 12y ago
If Monsanto are a paragon of virtue and want better crops, what's up with the sterile seeds and lawsuits over people selling legitimately obtained seeds?
- Vraxx 12y ago
  This is a valid complaint about Monsanto and it is one that I have myself, but it is also not the complaint that was being referenced. GMOs (not necessarily Monsanto) have great potential, yet just the words "non-GMO" printed on a package are enough to convince people of one brand over another. The fact that GMOs are a political issue in the US is more proof that there is resistance to progress, at least in this particular respect.
  - rabbyte 12y ago
    Resistance or reluctance? In keeping with the article, it would be less about the GMO vs non-GMO debate and more about uncertainty in how we agree on whether something ought to be or if it will cause more problems than it solves. The fear of progress in this case may be rooted in sound reasoning as a reaction to past advances that have wreaked havoc in other areas. The impulse is to treat it as an ideological difference when it actually should be looked at as a breaking down of trust and an inability to discern foolishness from genius.

skybrian 12y ago

I didn't read it that way. I think her point was that we have a lot of good reasons to look at the possible downsides of potential advances, rather than naively assuming they won't have side effects.