It’s not even ironic that “activists” invoke science when doing this. It’s just plain evil. What is even more dispiriting is the scientists’ having to appeal to the thugs to not destroy stuff.
Let me ask a question. Are such activists actually appealing to science when they destroy GM crops? On what evidence? Are such activists appealing to science when they thwart fracking? On what evidence? Of course they are not. I’d like to ask what philosophical principle they are operating under that seems to make them believe that stealing from Walmart, that destroying crops, etc. is OK, but that doing the same to their own personal property would not be? Or, would such activists actually agree that random and unscientifically based reasons for destroying their property is OK – if it is all done to just “raise our consciousness?” After all, activism is, too, a social construct. The activists are blinded by the echo-chamber they find themselves in, entirely constructed of course. And it is an obligation of those of us outside that particular echo-chamber (all of us are in one at some point of course) to raise awareness about this. And there is no particular theory required to defend what kind of “awareness” ought to be raised is there?
How can such a worldview not devolve into a Hobbesian nightmare? I truly would like to understand.
This goes back to the Earth First! people and the folks in the Pacific northwest who spiked trees hoping to mutilate a logger with a chain saw. As WC recounted a few posts back, this is the morality of Lenin, Mao, and Che Guevara, the ubiquitous poster boy. Bill Ayers, too. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Let’s say you’re getting D’s in science and math courses at Yale, but over in the philosophy department there’s a perfesser who gives you A’s if you take off a few weeks to camp out in lower Manhattan. Easy choice if someone else is paying your tuition.