From seanat: " It probably starts with public awareness and getting people to view the land as more valuable for conservation than for building."
This sounds like a Zero Growth perspective, which is exactly opposite of a wise or reasonably progressive society. The Earth is first and foremost an economic engine. The cultures in the world who do not operate on an economics-first principle are noteworthy as impoverished, powerless people.
There is likely an answer to this in technology, something along the lines of additives to the water that could eat away at the pollutants. I am not saying we have the answer yet, but we should be emphasizing solutions that are technical, not natural.
My comment posted on article: Science panel says "radical" changes needed to control stormwater.
Posts
1 comment:
Zero Growth is a philosophy based on guilt, panic, and the guardian ethics which are necessary for effective conservation. Being stuck in guardian mode is not progressive. The progressive rationale for conservation must be economic and scientific, which requires us to turn to commercial ethics as we craft innovative solutions.
The report invokes the Zero Growth meme with sensational phrases like "radical solutions" but one of the links in the PI article suggests the committees recommendation is Low Impact Development. This is not about living in teepees without taking showers. It's a design discipline combining technology and ecology.
Hopefully policy makers will respond to the technical content of the report rather than responding in a purely political fashion embracing the spirit of radical change without applying technology and science with good, efficient design.
Post a Comment