my other photography / design
my flickr
my email








March 29, 2009
I just realized that in the last year, I have developed a love for reading/learning about scholars and scientists.  I have Einstein and Sagan biographies on my shelf, am excited each week to see what scientist or economist the New York Times magazine will feature, and watch Charlie Rose on a nightly basis to see what genius brain he will pick. Anyway, this week, the New York Times magazine has a great piece on Freeman Dyson - apparently a scientist’s scientist - and current naysayer and critique of the green movement and Inconvenient Truth followers (click here for the article).  I consider myself one of the mouthpieces of environmental change that he would dissent from, but I recently have been very open to hearing opposing views on the matter from people considered authorities on environmental and earth science.  I always carry a healthy skepticism for movements and seemingly bulletproof social trends, even ones that I follow and see the good in. I like particularly am interested in this one quote from the article: Beyond the specific points of factual dispute, Dyson has said that it all boils down to “a deeper disagreement about values” between those who think “nature knows best” and that “any gross human disruption of the natural environment is evil,” and “humanists,” like himself, who contend that protecting the existing biosphere is not as important as fighting more repugnant evils like war, poverty and unemployment.

I just realized that in the last year, I have developed a love for reading/learning about scholars and scientists.  I have Einstein and Sagan biographies on my shelf, am excited each week to see what scientist or economist the New York Times magazine will feature, and watch Charlie Rose on a nightly basis to see what genius brain he will pick.

Anyway, this week, the New York Times magazine has a great piece on Freeman Dyson - apparently a scientist’s scientist - and current naysayer and critique of the green movement and Inconvenient Truth followers (click here for the article).  I consider myself one of the mouthpieces of environmental change that he would dissent from, but I recently have been very open to hearing opposing views on the matter from people considered authorities on environmental and earth science.  I always carry a healthy skepticism for movements and seemingly bulletproof social trends, even ones that I follow and see the good in.

I like particularly am interested in this one quote from the article:

Beyond the specific points of factual dispute, Dyson has said that it all boils down to “a deeper disagreement about values” between those who think “nature knows best” and that “any gross human disruption of the natural environment is evil,” and “humanists,” like himself, who contend that protecting the existing biosphere is not as important as fighting more repugnant evils like war, poverty and unemployment.

•