Friday, September 11, 2009

some of the Green Party Manifesto for A Sustainable Society was drawn up by antiscientific wankers


From The Daily (Maybe) and Camden Kiwi. I refer to article ST252 of the MFSS:

A pledge to "respect the earth and life upon it"?? Are they fucking serious? Which shower of stupid cunts came up with that antiscientific wankery? And why do they pick on scientists and technologists? Why not businessmen? Why not politicians? Are the worlds' environmental problems solely the responsibility of scientists?

I could go on with the angry rhetoric but I think I've made the point. Whoever wrote that needs to be beaten about the head with hemp sandals and then throttled with a hair shirt.


  1. Quite!

    I think they were aiming at a version of the Hippocratic oath for scientists - but it's such moralistic balls.

    What's wrong with legislation that prohibits specific activities that have been found to cause environmental problems?

    Anyway come the end of Feb. (next conference) the pledge *should* be gone. I'll do my damnedest to make sure it is anyway.

  2. Hi Jim, and thanks for your comment.

    The hippocratic oath is an awesome piece of morality. However, "legislation that prohibits specific activities that have been found to cause environmental problems" is a frightenignly woolly definition. Evidence-based governance- a trending topic over at New Scientist- is the obvious answer.

    All sorts of human activities "cause environmental problems". The trick is to identify the ones civilisation can do without and legislate against them specifically.


Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.