Already too political. Greenpeace's focus on GMOs is bordering on absurd. Would recommend Cradle to Grave as a great book and primer on Sustainability.
Thank you for the feedback. Indeed I would like to keep politics out, however with these things it's more like a scale of greys than black and white.
I believe some of the articles I included are informative for the general public. I'm aware that opinion articles can be biased by the political views of the authors - the reason for including them is that they may be easier to digest and get the point across more easily than scientific publications.
As this is a crowdsourced effort I hope there can be a healthy discussion about what should go in here and what shouldn't.
Also, one of the reasons for creating this is to showcase new innovative products that may otherwise find it difficult to get traction / visibility.
If that's your motivator, find something else to work on, seriously.
If you do want to do this, and do it right, then grow a hide. Might talk to some of the people who've been doing similar things for a while. Because if you're revealing truth, you're going to make a lot of enemies.
It is a trait of the environmental movement to present the topic as apolitical. The basis in science is important for predicting the future and creating solutions. But the basic ethos is inexplicably linked to politics. We absolutely do not have to live sustainability. The desire to do so is a moral judgement that has to pass the popularity taste test. It is political.
It doesn't help that terms like sustainability and environment are so general and wooly. It can include a vast range of different social, economic, ecological and health issues. Each with different ramifications for the public. In developed economies it is often used as a way of avoiding public debate about these issues in favour of a pseudo scientific process. That makes people feel disenfranchised.
The environment is a massively important issue. But we need to stop generalising and branding using these kind of meaningless terms. You can't opt out of politics.
On one side, not including links that have a political nature may keep this project unbiased.
On the other side, a project with a provocative name like Trump Forest accomplishes a desirable goal (reforestation), and it could be argued that it uses a click bait for the common good.
Perhaps I should be more explicit about what I'm trying to accomplish?
The overall aim could be: Inform and empower people to make choices leading to an increased chance of a good future for the human species.
From this point of view, protecting the climate is urgent and more important than the political noise around this.
12 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 27.6 ms ] threadI believe some of the articles I included are informative for the general public. I'm aware that opinion articles can be biased by the political views of the authors - the reason for including them is that they may be easier to digest and get the point across more easily than scientific publications.
As this is a crowdsourced effort I hope there can be a healthy discussion about what should go in here and what shouldn't.
Also, one of the reasons for creating this is to showcase new innovative products that may otherwise find it difficult to get traction / visibility.
If you do want to do this, and do it right, then grow a hide. Might talk to some of the people who've been doing similar things for a while. Because if you're revealing truth, you're going to make a lot of enemies.
It doesn't help that terms like sustainability and environment are so general and wooly. It can include a vast range of different social, economic, ecological and health issues. Each with different ramifications for the public. In developed economies it is often used as a way of avoiding public debate about these issues in favour of a pseudo scientific process. That makes people feel disenfranchised.
The environment is a massively important issue. But we need to stop generalising and branding using these kind of meaningless terms. You can't opt out of politics.
On the other side, a project with a provocative name like Trump Forest accomplishes a desirable goal (reforestation), and it could be argued that it uses a click bait for the common good.
Perhaps I should be more explicit about what I'm trying to accomplish? The overall aim could be: Inform and empower people to make choices leading to an increased chance of a good future for the human species.
From this point of view, protecting the climate is urgent and more important than the political noise around this.