Comments on: Do I really care about Activism?

By: totunroz

totunroz — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:22:15 +0000

So what makes us decide where we draw the line between scientist and activist? Are these two so distinct afterall or are they sometimes intertwined, making it difficult to label one’s actions? Communicating and sharing the results of your scientific work is a form of activism? Engaging in research in the field of environment isn’t? Is participation to international conferences in the field an extreme form of activism? Should we refrain from such an aghast behavior just because our statute of pure scientists cannot be compromised in such a way?
What if we didn’t care about the label others are putting on our actions? What if we just did what “felt right”? Maybe I’ll decide that sharing my work is precisely what I want, that I feel comfortable giving an informed answer when one is solicited, but I would only refrain from what i consider to be extreme actions. Is that going too far? Should I care of being labeled as an “activist”? Why?

By: free_of_charge

free_of_charge — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:22:42 +0000

Shorty, we all agree for a broader definition of activism but dictionaries do not agree with each other… Why??? The difference of perception might be a matter of culture or language… Anyway, I don’t want to go into that but the things is, as long as we are defining our own definition, activism is just a simple word with 8 letters… That’s it.. A conclusion, however, that we can withdraw from this is the fact that where ever you go, you must adapt your message to the language/culture of the audience in order to be well understood. This does not apply only to Activism but for everything else!

By: shorty

shorty — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:34:23 +0000

I would go for a broader definition of activism. Although I don’t believe just informing someone about a subject is activist, I do think there are ways that are not extreme that play the same role. Petitioning for example; I believe that’s a form of activism but its not harming people. It says we the following care about the situation and want change. A scientist giving a seminar stating, this is how things are, is not activist, but if he begins saying, this is what I believe should happen he assumes the role. Speth for example told the audience we should do something about the global catastrophes occurring in the world. That’s activism, trying to gain a response. It’s not wrong to attempt to elicit a response as long as its not damaging to others.

By: patagonia

patagonia — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:15:21 +0000

I do not think that activism means being a bad scientist; this is because I do not believe that environmental activism is necessarily ‘extremist.’ There are, of course, extreme cases of activism where the science or scientist behind the movement would be made less credible. For example, the science of forest ecology being practiced to learn how much forest can be sustainably logged, and then making recommendations based on your findings, is good science and activism since it will encourage limiting the amount/type of forests that are logged. However, conducting the same research, and then going out and spiking trees so that a logger (probably someone not very influential in informing forestry policy/ protection) becomes seriously injured, makes the whole scenario (including the scientist) less credible, no matter how sound the science was to begin with. When I say that science is ‘credible’ or ‘less credible’ I do not mean ‘accurate, sound science’ vs. ‘inaccurate, unsound science.’ Rather, I mean that science presented in an appropriate way can be used to inform people and policy, it is credible. When science is presented is an extreme, radical way, it can not be used to inform people or policy, it shoved aside as wild assumptions or wild environmentalists that are best not to deal with, and is discredited.

By: sieber

sieber — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:46:01 +0000

“Environmentalist” is a tough one. I know many, many environmentalists who are excellent scientists and who are not at all extremists (in free_of_charge’s definition). At the same time, I’d say they’re activists by definition. The question is, does activism mean they’re bad scientists? And aren’t scientists trying to change the world?

By: free_of_charge

free_of_charge — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:22:39 +0000

This topic really turns me on. Even if extremism tends to make the news, it does not necessarily suggest that making news makes things really change. General public would rather hate extremist actions instead of really understand the environmental problem. Who have not heard people saying (after seeing a Greenpeace action on TV): “Holy BIP… look at what members of Greenpeace are doing… they’re so BIP”?
One other important consideration to think about is the fact that those extremist actions make prejudice to pacific environmental organisations that do not, what so ever, consider extreme actions. Do we have to stop extremist organisations? Absolutely! How? This is another story! Ok, time for a drink, it is Thursday “happy hour” quand même! see ya!
Before I go for the drink, the level of action, hence, should depends on the person willingness to change the world. We cannot force people (scientist) to take any action obviously, but we can take a café with them and discuss how they feel about it!

By: LBM

LBM — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:26:46 +0000

“Environmentalist” is another good example of definitions that can be placed on a continuum. The definition of the “environment” is inherently complex and thus defining how we work toward environmental principles is just as much. Ultimately, the goal is to support principles of how humans and the non-human world should interact. Yet personal experience and knowledge feed this value and thus each person’s expression of environmentalism. It will be different depending on what makes you passionate whether it be food safety issues or wildlife conservation or water resource management and so on.

Some equate environmentalists at the more extreme end of activism because of publicized reports of actions of a few (think Greenpeace). The regular and continuous work is not as media-grabbing as shock-provoking stunts. It’s the same idea that bad news makes the news. The work which creates positive change isn’t as exciting because we’re expected to be inherently good. This work though is more important than extremism. I think it bears repeating that ultimately what matters is that all of us need to act as a model of how ought to live our lives so that others may be influenced by this example.

By: sieber

sieber — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:15:11 +0000

Maybe this is the definition of activist: to be put on a country's terror watch list. Climate change activists might be the last group you'd think would be labeled as trouble makers. They tend to be scientists in their professional lives. They listen to all sides, although they believe in the consensus agreement of climate change scientists. They're tolerant. Sure, they're in an interest group. But we're all in interest groups, at minimum, we probably belong to professional scientific associations with normative activities like codes of ethics. Many of these associations lobby government, for example to improve science education or increase grant funding. I think you're right that we don't fundamentally disagree on a definition of activism, although your finding of difference in the two definitions is striking. Perhaps, it is a type of continuum, with letter writing on one hand and the Black Bloc on the other. The question is, where do we, as scientists, draw the line on the continuum? What is an appropriate level of activism?