I just felt compelled to respond to the contribution from Ronise
Nepomuceno, since in her own words it was a bit "straightforward".

Maybe, this might put the issue to bed. Perhaps in view of her comments and
what I offer here, any further philosophical debate will be directed to the
artecology, or other list. Or perhaps people on this list will feel free to
respond. Whatever, but I think i'll have had my say here on this issue,
time to get back to concrete issues for me.

I agree with some things she points out in the first half of her reply
"Environmental problems are not simple problems". I also agree that
spouting on about "the existence of flying saucers" wont bring about
"concrete solutions for environmental and social problems".
I regard myself as a "serious environmentalist" and I am currently employed
in a practical sense in the field of Industrial Ecology. I did however
contribute to the "religious" debate. I chipped in to offer a small
countering view on dogma.

I wish to respond to Ronise's tough, but fair enough response briefly just
to offer a few thoughts. I for one have never found the urge to contribute
to any such "religious" debate before. In fact, this instance was the first
time I had felt like chipping in to this mailbase and I am not involved in
any other list. I firmly agree that there is of course a desperate need for
more and more practical and technological environmentalism to bring about
more change fast.
I am, I think, like many ecologist/environmentalist 'types', - caught up in
the small, practical stuff of technofixes and building those concrete
solutions - and more often than not, like others perhaps, I am well wary of
saying anything 'tree-huggy' or 'new agey' or 'religous' to anybody, be
they peers in my field or 'normal' people in the mainstream of society.
I for one believe that somehow we have to be able to share our views beyond
technocracy and not always deny them for fear of being barked at. I am not
into middle class bullshitism, but I do believe it is fine to quote
enlightened people in order to share wisdom. Why in fact should wisdom be
"old hat" if it was first developed as recently as the 1970's? We all
consume so much of everything now (including 'newer', 'better' wisdom) that
we seem to occasionally loose touch with roots of thought in the unending
quest for new gurus, new ideas etc. I also feel increasingly that in order
to bring about real social and environmental change we do need to achieve
that oft quoted paradigm shift in societal thought. To do that we need
surely to flex our philosophical viewpoints and those within the
environmental field shouldn't be scared off doing just that now and again,
in amongst our work to build those concrete solutions.

If the majority of people on the Industrial Ecology mailbase do want only
to talk about the nuts and bolts of environmentalism and never occasionally
drift into sharing philosophical thought. To discuss were society might go
and might find itself in a more profound sense, in order to then keep a
clean technology world ticking, then perhaps the mailbase organiser should
separate the Ind Ecology list from the artecology list, since both seem to
be connected in some way?

As a final thought, Ronise is right in that serious environmentalists do
have to contain those tree-huggy tendencies in order to deal now with a
World dominated by corporate culture. Thats fine, its the way we must work,
and fast, to fix things. But surely, amongst ourselves at least, we can let
our guard drop occasionally and dare to discuss wider philosophical issues.
If that involves quoting "old fashioned slogans" that too should be fine on
two counts:
1- Old wisdom is worth keeping alive, Schumacher for example is just as
powerful now and in fact seems to be increasingly re-quoted, even amongst
the serious technofixers in environmentalism.
2- As the environmental movement continues to grow in influence and as a
discipline, for many among us, old wisdom is of course bound to be new to
them. It therefore needs to be reiterated in order that its value is kept
alive.
I not at all sure what Ronise means by "Its no longer a case of Reds versus
Blues", but why divide ourselves so readily into "serious environmentalist
and others, as in flying saucer spotters? It is no way near to being as
simple, or as black and white as that. The search for a way to bring about
environmental and social change has to embrace philosophical thought and
the sharing of wisdom. Shouldn't we here be involved in sparking that sort
of thought off now and again without crushing it as flying saucer
orientated bullshit too rapidly?
----------
> From: Ronise Nepomuceno <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Let's keep to the point
> Date: 30 May 2000 02:08
>
>
> There is one thing that really irritates me in Environmental
discussions.
> It seems that there is always this ridiculous tendency to take the
subject
> to the sphere of mysticism, cheap emotionalism and old cliches. This is
one
> of the things that really ruined the Forum of NGO's during the "Earth
> Summit" in 1992 and has been creating a very bad image for serious
> environmentalists. Let's keep to the point please. As someone said before
> this is an industrial-ecology list. With all my respect, I think that
those
> who want to discuss the relationship between environment and religion,
new
> age stuff, the existence of flying saucers and so on and on, should
create
> their own list. Get real! We are not in the 70s any more and repeating
> enlightened words that were copied from some book, does not make anyone
as
> enlightened as the author's of the nice words. We need ideas that would
> bring concrete solutions for environmental and social problems (and
fast),
> not middle-class bulshitism. Environmental problems are not simple
problems
> that can be summarized in old fashion slogans. It is not longer a case of
> Reds against Blues.
>
> Apologies for being so straightforward.
>
> By the way, I am starting a research on solutions for the Environmental
> impacts caused by air traffic. (noise, energy waste, etc) I would be
> grateful if anyone could share some information with me.
>
> Thanks
>


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