next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi all! I have a $0.02 to add to this that I think is new to this thread, so here goes: We're only going to confuse people by arguing like this. Most informed people can have a hard enough time wading through the issues, if they even have the time to do so. For most people getting a junk food media diet, the issues are that much more incomprehensible. PR firms use this, creating groups or nurturing relations with "reasonnable" environmentalists to divide our movement. Whether these divisions are made worse by corporate agents or not, we need a way to assess the performance of enviro. groups, and be able to hold them accountable to the public. We need to be able to say "the Island Nature Trust is a bogus environmental group, more interested in fundraising than protecting our common future" if it is true. Otherwise, material and human resources will be channeled to these groups, and we'll be no closer to environmental sanity. We do need specialization, but we also need some common framework of understanding for how the different pieces of the puzzle fit together, so that there can be some level of unanimity that leaves no room for confusion when we decide that a group is working against the environment. And how does that relate to the maritimes? I think the problems are getting worse very fast around here, creating some sense of urgency, at the same time as some groups are starting to build this common understanding. We're then likely to see many more debates of this kind in the near future, and if we don't plan ahead, they could get very costly to the movement as a whole. And that's all I have to write about that. Peace- Daniel.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects