Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Like scientists, greens are children of the Enlightenment
Like scientists, greens are children of the Enlightenment
The green movement is not anti-science. It just knows science is not enough
Anne Chapman
The green movement obviously owes a great deal to science: the impacts of pollution, the threat of climate change, the loss of species, can only be spoken about because of the scientific research that has made them known. Without this knowledge from science the green movement in its current form would not exist.
Like scientists, greens are children of the Enlightenment. Both tend to think that decisions are, or at least should be, made on the basis of rational arguments, by appeal to the evidence. However, greens are also children of Romanticism. This legacy makes them aware of the limits of science, both in the sense of the limits to its knowledge, and that science is not sufficient to tell us how to live. Science is not enough.
In particular, science should not be the only voice when it comes to decisions about technology: science and technology are not all of a piece, but are distinct, governed by different norms and we should use different criteria when judging them.
It is in this area that greens have in recent years been accused of being anti-science; in particular in their opposition to genetically modified foods and to nuclear power (see for example Mark Lynas or Mark Henderson's Geek Manifesto). Science, the argument goes, has judged that the risks from these technologies are low and that the technologies need to be used if we are to meet our future needs for food and energy. Greens' opposition to them is therefore irrational.
A key part of this argument is the concept of risk as it is used in technical risk assessments. Most regulatory regimes require the safety of technologies to be assessed by a risk assessment process whereby possible ways in which the technology may cause harm are identified and their probability estimated. If no harmful outcome can be identified there is no risk; and risks are low if the possible harmful outcome, even if of very large consequence, is considered to be of low probability. In contrast, I argue that greens, and in fact much of the public in general, consider novel technologies such as GM food to be risky, because even if we cannot identify what harm they may cause, the extent of our ignorance is such that for all we know harm is possible.
Technical risk assessment tends ...
The green movement is not anti-science. It just knows science is not enough
Anne Chapman
The green movement obviously owes a great deal to science: the impacts of pollution, the threat of climate change, the loss of species, can only be spoken about because of the scientific research that has made them known. Without this knowledge from science the green movement in its current form would not exist.
Like scientists, greens are children of the Enlightenment. Both tend to think that decisions are, or at least should be, made on the basis of rational arguments, by appeal to the evidence. However, greens are also children of Romanticism. This legacy makes them aware of the limits of science, both in the sense of the limits to its knowledge, and that science is not sufficient to tell us how to live. Science is not enough.
In particular, science should not be the only voice when it comes to decisions about technology: science and technology are not all of a piece, but are distinct, governed by different norms and we should use different criteria when judging them.
It is in this area that greens have in recent years been accused of being anti-science; in particular in their opposition to genetically modified foods and to nuclear power (see for example Mark Lynas or Mark Henderson's Geek Manifesto). Science, the argument goes, has judged that the risks from these technologies are low and that the technologies need to be used if we are to meet our future needs for food and energy. Greens' opposition to them is therefore irrational.
A key part of this argument is the concept of risk as it is used in technical risk assessments. Most regulatory regimes require the safety of technologies to be assessed by a risk assessment process whereby possible ways in which the technology may cause harm are identified and their probability estimated. If no harmful outcome can be identified there is no risk; and risks are low if the possible harmful outcome, even if of very large consequence, is considered to be of low probability. In contrast, I argue that greens, and in fact much of the public in general, consider novel technologies such as GM food to be risky, because even if we cannot identify what harm they may cause, the extent of our ignorance is such that for all we know harm is possible.
Technical risk assessment tends ...
http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/29/scientists-greens-children-enlightenment
I think this is a good read, but it is off target. Benefit/Cost and Risk evaluation must also include the range of available options. In comparison to renewable energy sources nuclear cannot stack up favorably - even accepting the standard models for risk promoted by the nuclear industry. It fails in 4 key areas - cost, safety, waste, and proliferation.
