Difference between revisions 37258 and 37264 on enwiki

Welcome to Wikipedia! May I call you "24" for short? [[Ed Poor]]
----
Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative):

*[[Blue-Green Alliance]]
*[[Bonobo]]
*[[Conservation movement]]
*[[Eco-villages]]
(contracted; show full)

And others articles are too overloaded with eco-newspeach. I was born in communist country and similar speeches i've read before only before 1989. Eco-this, eco-those, just like pre-1989 everything was class struggle and efect of natural history processes.
[[user:szopen|szopen]]

-----
actually, I am starting to like you a bit.  ;-)

OK, here's what I've done.  The stuff you didn't like in NPOV is now in [[natural point of view]] where it doesn't pretend to be policy.  I should have done that from the start.

Second, I don't deny that you have the right to claim certain things as being morally absolute - including moral relativism if you want - and I don't pretend to understand the actual life of someone ni Poland,, and I sure don't intend to tell you what your body means or what ecology is.  Still less its political consequences.

But I hope we dont disagree that we are both breathing, drinking water, etc., and have a certain shared bodily interest in keeping those things going.  That there *is* some kind of natural point of view that we share by both being human.

Third, where I draw the line:  I'm not responsible for other people's abuses of "eco-speak".  I am more careful than most other writers about atton political sciciences, but I cam not going to pretend that I believe that primate extninction isiinction doesn't deeply disgust me etc. - I am going to find references that make a point of that , which are increasingly easy to find.

Fourth, ethics is what we are doing right here right now:  hashing out our differences to de-escalate them so they don't lead to bigger conflicts, side-taking, and the like.

So, it exists, but it isn't a matter of me imposing a moral point of view on you.  In fact my idea of ethics *is* the Four Pillars and the consensus process that they represent.

It wsa necessary for me to update some of that other material just so that I'd be able to go back and make clear that this is not just a list of four idealistic goals, but the specification of a process tthat I see as scientific and rigorous as mathematics or physics.

Perhaps even strong enough to replace peer review, trust in particle physics, representative democracy, etc., although I'm not claiming anyone is anywhere near that today.

Is that like Marx or Hegel and the end of history?  Yes.  Do I share the willingness to take shortcuts by violence?  Not at the moment.  But talk to me after a Great Ape is extincted in the wild, and see what I say then.  Everybody can change their mind about life and their place in it.

In general, I write articles that strongly understate and even conflict directly with my view on something - you can tell my politics from *what I write aboout* rather than *how I write about it*.

I think that's the socially acceptable way to proceed... don't you?

BTWI like the "Orange Alternative" and I wish it was here at the moment...;-)