The mission statement of the organization might provide some light to the question.
Our core values are reflected in our environmental campaign work: We 'bear witness' to environmental destruction in a peaceful, non-violent manner. We use non-violent confrontation to raise the level and quality of public debate. In exposing threats to the environment and finding solutions we have no permanent allies or adversaries. We ensure our financial independence from political or commercial interests. We seek solutions for, and promote open, informed debate about society's environmental choices.
The repeated emphasis on "non-violence" combined with the element of "confrontation" helps to frame much of what the organization is about. Indeed, their aim is to increase environmental consciousness and awareness. I think that one could argue that they are not really concerned with establishing a "shallow" environmental ethic, which is more cosmetic and surface. Rather, the organization is seeking to establish a "deep" environmental ethic which will create change on social and political level. Their group's original focus was nuclear testing, but since then the issues have broadened as awareness of the ecological concerns have also widened. Issues of climate change, political neglect towards the environment, as well as species extinction and the growth of business which might trade off with ecological concerns have become the critical focal points for the organization. Certainly, their relationship with science would be to encourage forms of scientific discourse that would help their overall agenda. At the same time, I cannot imagine that the group would possess an overall receptivity to branches of science that go against the mission of the group. For example, I cannot imagine the Greenpeace would be advocates of advances in nuclear technology, whose implication could involve ecological damage.
No comments:
Post a Comment