Talk:Bright green environmentalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note that at a couple points in time an article on this topic had been at Bright green, where it was a major cause of two AFD discussions. Some of the history for this article is in that page's history, and a small portion of discussion about this article is at Talk:Bright green#Bright green and technogaianism. GRBerry 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved to this page. — Omegatron 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Bright green and technogaianism
Could someone more knowledgeable than me on bright green and technogaianism explain the differences? I tried to do so, but I may very well be wrong.
The difference with technogaianism is a subtle one. While “bright greenists” are optimistic environmentalists who refuses a manicheistic view on technology and nature, technogaianists seems to adopt a more pragmatic, evolutionist approach. These former may, or not, be considered as utilitarianists.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 10:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've never heard of the term "Technogaianism" before (I am also unable to find out what "manicheistic" means). From what its article describes, it seems to be a subset or variant of bright green environmentalism with an emphasis on evolutionary philosophy. As far as I can tell they aren't really distinct enough (nor established enough) to warrant a comparison in their articles. Bright green environmentalism draws much of its identity-- and in many ways owes its origins to-- its differences with traditional environmentalism. --Holdek (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of technogaianism either, despite being well-versed in the field. Certainly it's obscure enough not to merit discussion in the entry, IMHO. -
- I never heard of it before stumbing upon the Wikipedia entry. Fact is it is there now, so either we delete the technogaianism entry or we explain the difference with Bright green. By the way, I reverted an IP deletion for the whole term, as there was no justification.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend deletion of the entire technogaianism entry, but certainly I don't think the term belongs on the same page as bright green, as bright green is now widely-used but technogaianism is very obscure and not used. For instance, technogaianism = 1,230 links on google, most (as far as I can tell) to the same set of articles by a small group of people. Bright green environmentalism returned 192,000 links on google. I'd argue for wholesale deletion.
[edit] Criticism
I generally share the POV expressed by whoever added the text now under the "Criticism" heading, but in no way is it neutral. —Ashley Y 02:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
This needs some work:
- Who calls themselves "bright green"? Examples of notable people, groups or numbers of people
- The worldchanging folk do a lot, and may be the origin of the phrase. Their website and book may be worthy of a mention, rather than just a link. Pjc51 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- How did the term originate?
- Who are their critics?
- None of the stuff in the "criticism" section is actually criticism, and criticism sections are Bad, anyway. Include criticism in the main article text. (Though, really, the only criticism that makes sense is something like "It's not possible". Saying that Bright Greens want a win-win situation is not criticism; Everyone wants that.)
- Quotes would be nice. — Omegatron 16:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- It already has a criticism section, you just removed the heading. —Ashley Y 05al:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- No. It has a paragraph with some sort of criticism in it. A Criticism section has a heading, and draws people to add more criticism in a false dichotomy sort of way. Criticism should be written about in the same place as the thing that's being criticized. — Omegatron 06:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced weasel phrases
Per WP:WEASEL, unsourced "some people say" statements do not belong in articles. I have accordingly removed them. I encourage people to re-add any of them with appropriate references. —Ashley Y 09:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced statement / bias
and the fact that every major new phase of technological growth has ushered in tremendous new powers whose benefits are reaped by social elites while the costs are borne by the underclass,
To me this isn't NPOV, is unsourced, and quite frankly wrong (or at least very contentious) - railways, automobiles, mass commnication etc. are all very arguably technologies which decrease social inequality. Pjc51 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- The whole paragraph was unsourced and non-neutral. I have removed it. —Ashley Y 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
