Tonight's All Things Considered story on the development of a wind farm in Lewis County, New York, provides unintentional demonstration of two too-seldom observed truths.
The first is that even the "greenest" energy sources have environmental impact. Before we succumb to the apocalyptic scenarios offered by environmental alarmists, we should recognize that we have already radically reduced the environmental effects of our technology but we will never eliminate the human footprint on our privileged planet. The most advanced countries aren't exactly poisoning the planet as it is, and we aren't ever going to leave "nature" undisturbed. It is an unfortunate myth that the world is better off without us, after all.
The second is more indirect. The story closes with the vignette of an eighth-grade science class discussing how communities might more effectively manage the development of wind farms. We draw attention to this exercise not just for the uncritical way that the teacher affirmed students in solutions that offered vague, bland, collectivist approaches that erode the private-property rights that provide the financial incentive for development that benefit communities. We note instead that science teachers have no qualms whatsoever about using the science classroom to discuss what is not natural science but social science, i.e. politics and economics.
Such interdisciplinary learning is, of course, encouraged in public school classrooms. And we encourage its encouragement. However, interdisciplinary learning in the public school classroom is not encouraged if the disciplines are evolutionary biology, cosmology, philosophy and religion. There the lines must be drawn and maintained at any cost.
1 comment:
I suspect that the eighth-grade science class discussion had less to do with economics and political science (the social sciences) than it did with economic and political philosophy. And if we can introduce economic and political philosophy into the science curriculum, why not natural philosophy (e.g., the philosophy of evolution)? The reason, of course, is obvious. It might lead to a discussion of religious issues, and those have been banned from the science classroom by the courts. I would point out, however, that the courts have yet to ban the discussion of scientific issues (e.g., evolution) from philosophy courses. But, alas, the K-12 public school system doesn't have enough money to support such frivolous disciplines as philosophy.
-JB in CA
Post a Comment