List, Today I received a Facebook post which included this quotation:
“*I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that*.” Gus Spaeth, a US adviser on climate change I wonder (1) whether list members agree that the top environmental problems aren't "biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change" but, rather, "selfishness, greed and apathy" and, if the latter (2) the extent to which one concurs that "scientists don't know how to address" these issues, that even after decades of "good science" around these problems that science hasn't been able to significantly impact the most serious environmental problems because these are essentially ethical issues and, finally (3) what thoughts forum members might have on how Peircean pragmatism might address these environmental/ethical issues, however one might frame them. I'd be interested in the views of frequent contributors to this forum, but also those of less active list members. I don't present this as a matter for 'debate' but, really, just thoughtful reflection. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690*
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
