|
Crichton is in fact neither right nor wrong. Crichton is irrelevant and somewhat of a red herring.
As Ustwo said correctly, most "environmentalists" are not scientists.
However... most novelists and politicians are not scientists either.
In fact there are very few scientists around. I have a science degree. I would not call myself a scientist. Getting back to the topic at hand. Crichton's contribution is to simply muddy the debate.
I do like some of his points. In particular - he is correct. Nature is not the nice safe thing that fringe environmentalists worship. Likewise - hardcore environmentalism is somewhat comparable to religion.
Crichton annoys me somewhat in linking environmentalism groups to those scientists who study the environment. These are seperate groups with different ideals and goals. In particular, scientists are generally supportive of technology. It is science that makes many technologies possible - and it is technology that makes many areas of scientific research possible.
|