Honorable Forum: In a recent post, the author expressed concern about our anti-intellectual society--". . . our anti-intellectual society would find it very difficult to appreciate . . ."
There can be little doubt that our society is replete with anti-intellectualism. Ecology and ecologists (ecology, in particular, has gotten pretty bad treatment from popular culture, as "eco-" has become a prefix for almost everthing, from selling soap to weight-loss nostrums and cosmetics, ad nauseam) as well as other scientists, not to mention other academicians, scholars, and those who dare to advance questions about cultural norms or differ from common presumption, are derided by those who consider anyone who ventures beyond the bounds of "popular culture," whatever that is, to be effete intellectual snobs. This phenomenon affects elections, and ultimately, funding for intellectual activity. To paraphrase Rodney What's-his-name, "I[ntellectuals] don't get no [appreciation]." In difficult times especially, competition increases for scarcer and scarcer funds, and support for intellectuals, scientists in particular, seems to decline, even in relative terms, as the pork gets sliced thinner and thinner. Beyond howling in the wilderness, is there anything anyone can do about this? Anti-intellectuals, by definition, are not only unlikely to do anything except make the situation worse. That leaves, I suggest, intellectuals. If that's the case, the choices are to take action or to take no action. If ecologists want to take action, what should that action be? I have a suggestion as to form. If every concerned intellectual on this list--say 10,000--met with four other intellectuals and listed five actions, and each of those five met with an additional four, the list would grow impressively large very quickly. A list of potential actions could then be assembled and prioritized by frequency. Or any more efficient alternative? WT
