In case anyone misinterprets the previous post defending Matt Ridley’s attack on those (such as Bill Joy) who see absolute dangers in innovation such as nanotechnology and concludes somehow that I am against environmentalist causes.
1. It is scientists who are arguing, backed up by solid evidence that we need to cut back pollution.
2. It is politicians, particularly those with religious beliefs that fly in the face of scientific evidence, that refuse to believe evidence for issues such as global warming.
3. Although industry is the product of a technological society and is the cause for most pollution: a. there is a difference between science and the abuse of its innovation; b. contrary to popular opinion, non-industrial societies can be environmentally damaging; c. some scientific innovations would seem to be a very plausible way to reduce the environmentally damaging effect of industrialized society (for example, information technology increases opportunities for virtual communication and the need to burn fossil fuels for transportation).
Science means knowledge, and the opposite of knowledge is ignorance. A little or a lot of ignorance is a bad thing.