[afmdiscussion] Re: [saymaListserv] Re: Does This Sound Familiar?
(Lomborg/Death of Environmentalism)
Ceal
cecilia at wutka.com
Mon May 9 10:56:45 EDT 2005
The problem for many of us comes when so many emails flood our mailboxes
when we are out of town. So I do not appreciate crossposts myself. When my
mailbox fills, mail I need to recieve is refused and returned. Some of this
is critical to our business. But when I go to FGC and do not clear out email
for a week, this becomes a real problem.
SAYMA is talking about having a listserve for announcements only and I hope
that Atlanta would consider that also. This way the cross-discussions could
be eliminated for those of us who are not home at times to push that delete
button.
Ceal Wutka
Atlanta
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet Minshall" <jhminshall at comcast.net>
To: "Ellen Cooney" <ekcooney at earthlink.net>
Cc: <afmdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>; <sayma at kitenet.net>;
<earthcare at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [afmdiscussion] Re: [saymaListserv] Re: Does This Sound
Familiar? (Lomborg/Death of Environmentalism)
> Dear Ellen, Thank you for your response. I'm afraid, however that
> you are significantly outnumbered in terms of the other responses
> I've received, many of which were not posted. Quakers don't vote to
> come to agreement, but I, and many other Friends, think it
> appropriate to crosspost and let people judiciously use their
> "delete" button if they do not wish to read messages about a
> particular topic or by a particular individual. As you must have
> seen, this has become a much more interesting and wider discussion as
> a result of my sending to different groups. In Peace, Janet Minshall
>
> (This is, by the way, the last message I will send on this topic). J
>
>
>
>
>
>>Janet, I am with the person who posted the other day: If I wanted to
>>read the SAYMA list, I would subscribe. To me, your reposting of
>>notes to the AFMdiscussion list makes the assumption that even
>>though I decide not to read a certain list, you are going to decide
>>for me that I should see your notes. The word "hubris" comes to mind.
>>
>>I would encourage you not to crosspost.
>>
>>Ellen
>>
>>Janet Minshall wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Steve Livingston of SAYMA, Joshua Rose of Earthcare, and Friends,
>>>
>>>I am most gratified at the responses and discussions brought about by
>>>messages I have forwarded. I am struck by some interesting thoughts
>>>(interesting, I hope, to others too): Joshua Rose is apparently
>>>well-qualified in environmental science and, presumably, teaches at
>>>Duke University in North Carolina. Bjorn Lomborg is apparently
>>>well-qualified in political science and statistics and teaches at
>>>Aarhus University in Denmark. Their departments, presumably full of
>>>respected scholars in their fields, have seen fit to promote each of
>>>them on the merits of their work. Yet the two of them disagree
>>>completely about what is true from their separate perspectives.
>>>
>>>Friends have an old traditional belief that there is "that of God in
>>>each of us" and "that each of us has a measure of the truth (or
>>>Light)". Is it possible that this old traditional Quaker belief is
>>>relevant to the differences of opinion we are faced with here? Are
>>>there, perhaps, "true believers" who resist any and all questions
>>>about the beliefs they hold? And do they tend to discredit those who
>>>disagree? And are there also "honest skeptics" who see reason to
>>>doubt and question what is commonly accepted as truth? And do they
>>>tend to discredit those who disagree?
>>>
>>>I have encountered this same standoff in many other discussions.
>>>From the perspective of a political economist, I find that almost
>>>every issue which highlights significant differences in belief and
>>>leads to differing conclusions and behavior finally comes down to
>>>this issue of perspective. Do you, as a Friend and as a member of
>>>the group of Friends among whom this discussion is taking place, find
>>>that you tend to be "a true believer" and react angrily to the
>>>suggestion that your beliefs might be based on some flawed
>>>information? Or, on the other hand, do you tend to be an "honest
>>>skeptic" and "get your hackle up" at the suggestion that you should
>>>believe something simply because this or that group of experts says
>>>its true? As in innumerable court cases, we can all produce whatever
>>>experts are necessary to prove the point we are trying to make.
>>>George Fox often railed against "the professors", the experts of his
>>>day who had pretentions that they "knew" what was true and that their
>>>word should be believed above anyone else's.
>>>
>>>I, on the other hand, am saying, as Steve Livingston suggested in his
>>>message, that we Friends are bound together in a common search for
>>>truth. As has happened so often in the past, the heretic of today
>>>may, eventually, become the courageous prophet of tomorrow -- or not.
>>>We don't yet have the perspective of elapsed time and changing events
>>>to make a sound judgment. Instead of producing lists of endorsements
>>>on either side, we should all make a real effort to be open to other
>>>possibilities and get along with those among us who hold differing
>>>beliefs and make statements contrary to our own truth. Maybe that is
>>>what old George meant when he used the words of his time "Christ has
>>>come to teach his children himself" and to encourage Friends to be
>>>open to continuing revelation from "the Christ (or the Light) within".
>>> Janet Minshall
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 4 May 2005 at 22:24, Joshua Stuart Rose wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Two issues seem to have been conflated in the recent back-and-forth
>>>>> on
>>>>> environmentalism: the essay "The Death of Environmentalism" by
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, and the book "The Skeptical
>>>>> Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. These are two very different
>>>>> issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Shellenberger/Nordhaus essay is intelligent, thought-provoking
>>>>> writing by two people who have been environmentalists for many
>>>>> years,
>>>>> and so know a fair amount about the topics they address. It would be
>>>>> a
>>>>> mistake to attempt to dismiss this essay with a few CNN-style sound
>>>> > bites such as "Environmentalism is just another special interest"
>>>> or
>>>>> "Environmentalists are to blame for losing the battle over Arctic
>>>>> drilling".
>>>>>
>>>>> And note - I'm not sure this was clear to everyone - that the essay
>>>>> posted to this listserv was NOT "The Death of Environmentalism", but
>>>>> an editorial from The Economist which just briefly quotes from that
>>>>> much longer work. Grist, the on-line environmental magazine with
>>>>> which
>>>>> most of us are familiar, re-ran the original essay and several
>>>>> in-depth pieces in response; see
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/>http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/
>>>>>
>>>>> Lomborg is a very different animal. He is a statistician and
>>>>> political
>>>>> scientist who wrote a book attempting to deal with issues of
>>>>> meteorology, ecology, and several other fields in which he is far
>>>>> from
>>>>> an expert. I'm sure he's a very good statistician, but as an
>>>>> ecologist, he is an incompetent. Any honest and ethical scientist
>>>>> confines his or her comments to those areas where they understand
>>>>> the
>>>>> science involved; Lomborg did not. The criticisms of Lomborg's book
>>>>> did not come just from "environmentalists whose work he questions",
>>>>> as
>>>>> alleged in one preceding e-mail; his critics include many of the
>>>>> scientists whose work he distorts and misrepresents in attempting to
>>>>> make his case.
>>>>>
>>>>> To use as an example the area closest to my specialty, Lomborg
>>>>> addressed forests. One e-mail posted here quoted him using
>>>>> statistics
>>>>> on worldwide forest cover as justification that loss of forests was
>>>>> not a threat. Anyone who actually studies forests knows that this is
>>>>> an incorrect, if not dishonest, analysis. Forests as intact, healthy
>>>>> ecosystems are still being lost rapidly. Healthy forest ecosystems
>>>>> are
>>>>> being replaced by tree plantations and early successional growth
>>>>> that
>>>>> lack most of the species diversity and ecosystem services of the
>>>>> ecosystems they have replaced. In his book, Lomborg disputes the use
>>>>> of a forest loss index on the basis that it does not count timber
>>>>> plantations as forest; speaking as an ecologist who lives in a
>>>>> region
>>>>> where much of the original forest has been converted to plantations,
>>>>> and who has investigated both in detail, I can state authoritatively
>>>>> that Lomborg is wrong, a tree plantation is not any kind of healthy
>>>>> forest. Protection of virgin and old-growth forest, and of forest
>>>>> processes such as fire, flood, and decomposition, should still be a
>>>>> top priority.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ironically, Lomborg, at least wtih regards to forests, makes the
>>>>> same
>>>>> error of which he accuses environmentalists, abusing and
>>>>> misunderstanding the science supposedly supporting his case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua S. Rose, Ph.D.
>>>>> <mailto:jsr6 at duke.edu>jsr6 at duke.edu
>>>>> <http://www.duke.edu/%7Ejsr6/>http://www.duke.edu/~jsr6/
>>>>>
>>>>> Duke Natural History Society
>>>>> <http://www.biology.duke.edu/dnhs/>http://www.biology.duke.edu/dnhs/
>>> >>
>>>>> Program Director
>>>>> Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association
>>>>> <http://www.ellerbecreek.org/>http://www.ellerbecreek.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Environmental Chair
>>>>> Old North Durham Neighborhood Association
>>>>> <http://www.oldnorthdurham.org/>http://www.oldnorthdurham.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Duke University
>>>>> Department of Biology (Zoology, R.I.P.)
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list
>>>>> posting address: <mailto:sayma at kitenet.net>sayma at kitenet.net
>>>>> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>>
>>>>><http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma>http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list
>>>>posting address: <mailto:sayma at kitenet.net>sayma at kitenet.net
>>>>subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>><http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma>http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma
>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afmdiscussion/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afmdiscussion/
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>><mailto:afmdiscussion-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>afmdiscussion-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
>>><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
> Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/WwRTUD/SOnJAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afmdiscussion/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> afmdiscussion-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
More information about the sayma
mailing list