Stewart Brand kirjoittaa teoksessaan ”Whole earth discipline” erinomaisesti vihreästä liikkeestä:
My theory is that the success of the environmental movement is driven by two powerful fores – romanticism and science – that are often in opposition, with a third force emerging. The romantics identify with natural systems; the scientists study natural systems. The romantics are moralistic, rebellious against the perceived dominant power, and dismissive of any who appear to stray from the true path. They hate to admit mistakes or change direction. The scientists are ethical rather than moralistic, rebellious against any perceived dominant paradigm, and combative against one another. For them, identifying mistakes is what science is, and direction change is the goal.
It’s fortunate that there are so many romantics in the movement, because they are the ones who inspire the majority in most developed societies to see themselves as environmentalists. But that also means that scientists and their perceptions are always in the minority; they are easily ignored, suppressed, or demonized when their views don’t fit the consensus story line.
A new set of environmental players is shifting the balance. Engineers are arriving who see any environmental problem neither as a romantic tragedy nor as a scientific puzzle but simply as something to fix. They look to the scientists for data to fix the problem with, and the scientists appreciate the engineers because new technology is what makes science go forward. The romantics distrust engineers – sometimes correctly – for their hubris and are uncomfortable with the prospect of fixing things because the essence of tragedy is that it can’t be fixed.
Romantics love problems; scientists discover and analyze problems, engineers solve problems.