Save the Nukes!
Old and busted environmentalism: Save the Whales!; New hotness: Save the Nukes! Anyone got a problem with that? Apparently so.
And therefore Mark Lynas is having a bad time lately. Who's Mark Lynas? Oh he's some British Greenie who achieved some notoriety for trying to silence Bjørn Lomborg by throwing a pie in his face when he gave a public reading from his book," The Skeptical Environmentalist." But that's not important right now.
What's important is that Mark isn't being treated very fairly by his fellow Greens.
See, he went and did some research to help him remember why all good Greens hate nuclear power. And to his surprise he discovered there really didn't seem to be a good basis for it. That sounded great to him, because it could help generate plenty of power without contributing any of that awful carbon which all good Greens know causes Global Warming.
Mark went merrily back to report the good news to Green Nation and encountered a snag: They didn't care what his research showed. Nukes are bad, mmkay? "But I checked the science, and there's really nothing to worry about from nuclear energy," said Mark. "Shut up," explained his environmentalist fellows.
But Mark decided not to be deterred. So he's taken to the press to protest this attempted silencing. "If only we were allowed to discuss [eco-myths] without being flayed for heresy," says Mark.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Of course Mark, who, just to remind you, achieved some notoriety for trying to silence Bjørn Lomborg by throwing a pie in his face when he gave a public reading from his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," might have a tiny problem in making his case. I mean, just hypothetically, let's say someone parted ways with Greens on some other issue. Let's say, for example, they agreed with all the man-made Global Warming stuff, but didn't think it was quite as big a catastrophe as Mark thinks it is. Say such a person wrote a book with that thesis. Say that person tried to give a public reading of such a book.
Oh wait... that actually happened. His name was Bjørn Lomborg. Mark threw a pie at him.
Indeed, except for in the area where Mark himself parts from Green orthodoxy, he hasn't had much trouble persecuting the very kind of "heresy" he now wants the latitude to practice. I'm sure somewhere in his complicated reasoning he reconciles this in some manner, but my point is that it isn't immediately obvious to the casual observer what's so different about Mark's favored heresy du jour. Why should they listen to a guy pleading for an allowance for open discussion from someone who flings pies at other people for doing the same sort of thing?
It doesn't seem consistent, is my point. But it does suggest a workable compromise.
Rather than admit error, perhaps the Green movement, using Mark's example, should open itself up for a bit of debate once in a while over potentially heretical things... maybe it's alright to own a toilet with serious flushing power... maybe there is some benefit to genetically engineered crops... maybe capitalism isn't always wrong... I'm just spit-balling here. Obviously some of this stuff is well beyond consideration. The point is, wherever they're going to allow debate they must ensure that anyone raising these issues is pelted by some kind of pastry, baked good, or its organic vegan equivalent. It would be a sort of ritualized acknowledgment that the speaker has been properly chastised, and then serious discussion of the matter could guiltlessly follow.
Either that or Mark could add a little humility to his heresy, apologizing for employing the kind of thuggish tactics that have lead to the more generalized intolerance among his fellows, and renouncing their employment in the future. Somehow I have a feeling the adoption of the pastry flinging recommendation is more likely.
And therefore Mark Lynas is having a bad time lately. Who's Mark Lynas? Oh he's some British Greenie who achieved some notoriety for trying to silence Bjørn Lomborg by throwing a pie in his face when he gave a public reading from his book," The Skeptical Environmentalist." But that's not important right now.
What's important is that Mark isn't being treated very fairly by his fellow Greens.
See, he went and did some research to help him remember why all good Greens hate nuclear power. And to his surprise he discovered there really didn't seem to be a good basis for it. That sounded great to him, because it could help generate plenty of power without contributing any of that awful carbon which all good Greens know causes Global Warming.
Mark went merrily back to report the good news to Green Nation and encountered a snag: They didn't care what his research showed. Nukes are bad, mmkay? "But I checked the science, and there's really nothing to worry about from nuclear energy," said Mark. "Shut up," explained his environmentalist fellows.
But Mark decided not to be deterred. So he's taken to the press to protest this attempted silencing. "If only we were allowed to discuss [eco-myths] without being flayed for heresy," says Mark.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Of course Mark, who, just to remind you, achieved some notoriety for trying to silence Bjørn Lomborg by throwing a pie in his face when he gave a public reading from his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," might have a tiny problem in making his case. I mean, just hypothetically, let's say someone parted ways with Greens on some other issue. Let's say, for example, they agreed with all the man-made Global Warming stuff, but didn't think it was quite as big a catastrophe as Mark thinks it is. Say such a person wrote a book with that thesis. Say that person tried to give a public reading of such a book.
Oh wait... that actually happened. His name was Bjørn Lomborg. Mark threw a pie at him.
Indeed, except for in the area where Mark himself parts from Green orthodoxy, he hasn't had much trouble persecuting the very kind of "heresy" he now wants the latitude to practice. I'm sure somewhere in his complicated reasoning he reconciles this in some manner, but my point is that it isn't immediately obvious to the casual observer what's so different about Mark's favored heresy du jour. Why should they listen to a guy pleading for an allowance for open discussion from someone who flings pies at other people for doing the same sort of thing?
It doesn't seem consistent, is my point. But it does suggest a workable compromise.
Rather than admit error, perhaps the Green movement, using Mark's example, should open itself up for a bit of debate once in a while over potentially heretical things... maybe it's alright to own a toilet with serious flushing power... maybe there is some benefit to genetically engineered crops... maybe capitalism isn't always wrong... I'm just spit-balling here. Obviously some of this stuff is well beyond consideration. The point is, wherever they're going to allow debate they must ensure that anyone raising these issues is pelted by some kind of pastry, baked good, or its organic vegan equivalent. It would be a sort of ritualized acknowledgment that the speaker has been properly chastised, and then serious discussion of the matter could guiltlessly follow.
Either that or Mark could add a little humility to his heresy, apologizing for employing the kind of thuggish tactics that have lead to the more generalized intolerance among his fellows, and renouncing their employment in the future. Somehow I have a feeling the adoption of the pastry flinging recommendation is more likely.
Posted by Doug Williams on
Wednesday December 17, 2008 at 2:03pm
