Geo-ethicists,
I fully agree with Peter. And I want to add some remarks. The problem
seems to be that some people think Greenpeace (GP) is behaving too
"capitalistic" or "market-like". However, the point is, how one gets a
message to people in the most effective way. GP uses techniques that are
quite effectful.
We had similar discussions about GP in Germany, where the GP chapter is
gaining a lot of support and a lot of money. Much more money than other
organizations that may be more "grass rooty".
However, as long as GP uses this money for ethical goals, i.e. focusing
the attention on Shell or other potentially dangerous multinationals, I
cannot see anything wrong in that.
Of course GP is selling something. GP sells, in my opinion, a good
conscience (if that is the right phrase, my English get worse,
unfortunately). What I mean is that people try to buy their way out of
ethical dilemmas by supporting GP. People drive big cars, fly across the
oceans, use electric appliances etc. At the same time, if they can afford
it, they support GP. There are, so to speak, different niches in the
market of eco-activist organizations. One is for "fundamentalists", who
prefer to lessen personal comfort for the purpose of living ecologically
correct (e.c. could stand also for ethically correct). Another niche is
for people who don't like to put a lot of personal effort in making their
lifes more ecologically correct. As I said, many of those like to buy
their way out of these ethical and ecological dilemmas.
In my opinion, this is better than doing nothing. And GP is better than
doing nothing. Whether or not GP shold receive a medal, I think, is
nonetheless debatable. Therefore, thanks to Paul for opening an
interesting debate.
Greetings,
Josef
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|