Tonight, Thursday, February 19, 2009, on France 2, at 22:45. A documentary directed by Jerome Lambert and Philippe Picard, who wants to put it back ecology!
Worthy ambition! Would there be abuses, too much would harm the ecological health of the earth, ecology would it be too present, too heavy on political decisions?
Apparently we will see the dark side of ecology, one that is attacking the man! It is certainly to be seen to understand the tensions around this central concern: preserving our planet, to save our species!
I let you read the official presentation of the documentary :
Ecology is the new media star. The consensus seems total: who today would dare to question "the ecological imperative"? This movie 's ambition to swim against the tide. Facing the media stream that engulfs us every day of sweeping assertions and alarmist information, we believe it is essential to clarify the debate. Ecology was originally a science , it is now an ideology. In an attempt to separate faith and scientific truth, communication and information, we want to give a voice to scientists able to shed some light on these fundamental issues, those who try to practice ecology as a science and not as a religion. With them, we will evaluate the damage caused by this "environmentalism" which now becomes an all-powerful ideology.
Here, the documentary has just passed. I'm not shocked, nor surprised. It looked like a campaign for ogm finally. So it was very very very focused, very balanced and very little with all the essential points of a sterile debate, rehashed, between ecology to man, forgetting that man is only part of its environment !
What always surprises me is the lack of any reflection on the profound nature of all living beings, ie the movement imperative to try to breed, to expand its territory and to confront the limits of its existence. In my opinion, but certainly it is not quite correct to say this, there will always be hunger in the world! For feeding the world is a utopia, especially taken and globally! This is the globalization of hunger!
Why did he not have a local solution, proximity, a solution that puts the man in his environment , to its rightful place. Why would we want that part of the world, nourish another part of the world's hungry because it can not ensure to feed itself? Why put this world in this interdependence?
It is this reflection that was missing, rather than remind us of the mowing volunteers, the fundamentalism of the ecology and "bondieusité" scientists who play with our genes!
