I still thing he was having a go at the aesthetes - rather than those
environmentalists who come from a sophisticated perspective of ecology and
environmental history (not to mention accommodating human society and the
realities of commerce).  Check out his opening paragraph of the opening
chapter "good poetry, bad science".  When someone bewails you for your lack
of spirituality and lack of "right on man" connection to the earth mother or
something, for killing a cabbage, it is hard not to see that he has a point.

Anyway that is how I read it - but I am biased of course, being an evil
forester (which I have been accused of before by the same aesthetes).  He
provides the background in ecology and human environmental history to debunk
the simplistic "environmentalism" - though I don't think aesthetic
environmentalism even deserves that title.  I think "environmentalist"
ought to be reserved for those whose perspective goes beyond the aesthetic
and takes on board the ecology and environmental history.  Only a broader
perspective can SEE and work toward solutions - the aesthetes just bemoan
the "problems" - some of which are not even problems.

No doubt this will upset some people - so I'll shut up now.

Chris Perley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Maria Stella
> Sent: Thursday, 20 July 2000 12:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Budianski
>
>
> >
> > So Maria-Stella . . . my advice is: don't listen to all those meddling
> > Buttinsky's who want to tell you what Budiansky either is or is not as a
> > person.  Read the man's book, then decide for yourself whether
> his actual
> > ideas and arguments make sense or not.
> >
> > Jim T.
>
> Thanks, i agree, but he is a mathematician and my knowledge of maths is
> not so good to judge him. The other problem is that i don't know if he is
> selective to his SCIENTIFIC arguments. You know perhaps better than me
> that nowadays there are arguments to support just anything. There are also
> falsified experimental results, etc etc. So my conclusion about all i read
> is that
> 1) both parties will be biased
> 2) one will accuse the other for being politically biased
> 3) some third persons will have to be very brave to stand in the middle
> and nobody will believe them for doing so.
> 4) They will ALL seem persuasive, because they use a different perspective
> of the truth, different sources of iformation etc.
> 5) If none is really biased, that's the first think that any serious
> opponent has to consider AND USE anyway, preparing at the same time
> her/his appology for the same accusation against herself/himself.
>
> Budianski obviously accuses 'environmentalists' as
> politically biased, thus he does expect an ad hominem argument calling him
> biased. So i am looking where his bias is:
> Even if he is *scientifically* -say- correct, when i see his arguments
> about Hitler etc, I am not persuaded that he does not take the matter to
> extremes for political reasons himself. Perhaps (I don't know) he is true
> to say that Hitler took the 'love for the land' to extremes, but this does
> not help anyhow his arguments against romantic environmentalists. By
> referring to Hitler, he commits an indirect AD HOMINEM assault to the rest
> of environmentalists, irrelevant to Hitler (I SAID IT I SAID IT I SAID IT,
> AD HOMINEM, AD HOMINEM, AD HOMINEM!).
>    er... what was i saying?
> Ah, yes, so isn't it this a suspicious think for Budiansky to do?
> (I am half way through the book, so stay with us till the next session).
>
> Maria_Stella
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%