Quantum Forest logs are written by Luis A. Apiolaza in Christchurch, New Zealand.
« previous post · next post »
Once again I have been admonished by environment fundamentalists. This time my sin was to question the usefulness of that sacrosanct ideal of all things green: the precautionary principle. I could start questioning the existence of THE principle; in 1999 Pers Sandin found at least nineteen vague formulations of the principle (Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5: 889-907), ranging from strong risk avoidance—making technologically advance impossible—to weak versions equivalent to motherhood statements. However, I will not go there, because the reason for this post is a broader discussion on the quality of public debate in Tasmania.
It seems that many people struggle to deal with the concept of genuine dissent and intellectual honesty. They are so convinced of their stories—repeated just too many times—that they find not possible to honestly differ from the ‘blatantly obvious truth’. The dissenters must be paid for their opinions, they have to be unethical and any attempt to point to flaws on the believer’s discourse is an attempt to silence them.
This dualistic point of view, where there is only good and evil (à la George Bush), does not accept compromise or negotiation. In this framework there are only winners and losers, and any attempt at a ‘middle of the road’ agreement is considered treason. A clear example of this point is the reception of Peter Garrett’s candidacy as a sell out in some green circles. May be Peter Garrett is being used by Labor, most likely there is a symbiotic relationship, where both the party and the candidate see an improvement for their respective positions. Not that I would even consider voting for him in an election, but it seems reasonable to give the guy a chance.
I shall ascribe the nastiness of the debate to parochialism rather than to malice. It may well be that people here has never had the opportunity to participate in a real discussion. It is possible that targeting people rather than ideas is just a left over from more isolated, colonial times. It is likely that people are just repeating old examples and following some bizarre models of conversation.
Independently of the reason, what is the consequence of this style of ‘discussion’? I think that it will alienate everybody but the most patient or recalcitrant people and will end up with an apologia rather than a debate. Maybe that is the idea: to create the perfect echo chamber effect, without dissenting voices, where all of ‘us’ know that all of ‘them’ are wrong. Good luck with that.
אאא