"So, that implies that 'ignorance' (defined earlier) is no 'evil' in the traditional sense
Response: If they knew better they'd do better -- my liberal motto since puberty (which came late). Jesus said the same,"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
That is what I wanted to say in the first post."
I don't know why didn't you understand the point.
Response: Maybe because you didn't say that in the first post. Or maybe because I'm the gentile
Yanniru warned me about. I don't really know what I am, but that's what Yanniru tells me.
Secondly, I wanted from you an explanation of this: "internally inconsistent and biologically negligent". What does this mean? Please clearly state what do you want to say.
Moreover, you seem a bit cynical. Please avoid it. (nt) of course means 'no text'
Response: Of course. But I say it means nothing at all.
From ignorance proceeds a mishmash of errors --
including less than accurate explanations for what they are doing. Folks who do not understand the biology of the biosphere are managing the biosphere. Rush Limbaugh, one of our most influential blabbermouths, seems to understand almost nothing about biology except to serve his masters. No wonder...he hardly has any education.
Yanniru has corrected me on part of this...he assures me that our government is "advised" by scientists. Well, Yanniru's point is true but not disproving my point.
Since we agree about ignorance being sometimes innocent (though also sometimes a cloak for bad motives), I hope you see we also agree I am not so deeply cynical...but how can folks be trusted who are ignorant? How can their motives be good if they have chosen not to learn the full extent about the bottlenecks facing us in the exploitation of the natural world? Maybe Rush Limbaugh will wade in and prove he knows a lot about it.
Since you wondered why I don't understand it,
will you also wonder why I DO?