Subject: AUT: Re: science, technology and ecology
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 05:38:11 +0100



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Handelman <mhandelman1-AT-yahoo.com>
Date: 2. februar 2002 9:42
Subject: AUT: science, technology and ecology


>I have serious problems, with attempts like social
>ecology to ground what we "can" and "can't do" based
>on nature. For example, wouldn't any attempt to change
>the "environment", be seen as a form of domination of
>it? Social Ecology and other similar systems often
>seems to open the door, to irrational systems of
>thought: Malthusian systems like Deep Ecology.


I do not consider me a social ecologist, but if you with
that term refer to the thought of Murray Bookchin, you
are way off the mark. Few authors have spent so much
time in the last two decades attacking Neo-Malthusian
currencies, Deep Ecology, anti-humanism and what
Bookchin sees as irrational thought, in which he would
include the post-structuralists.  In fact Bookchin for better
and worse is very much a defender of (part of) the
legacy of the enlightment, and hates almost more
than anybody else primitivism.

Otherwise, to me a "weather control system" sounds
pretty much like a madman's dream.

Harald








     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---