"Anti-ecological" site: good or bad faith?

[Obamot]

The counterpoints site is full of crisp articles, in particular the first, extracted from the book by Pascal bruckner The fanaticism of the Apocalypse, I quote (...)"Ecology has nowhere taken political power. Yet it dictates its laws to us like totalitarianism (...) Sorting is indeed a form of dictatorship !!!

And even funnier:

(...)Ecology is a total ideology. It brings together theses drawn from Marxism, Trotskyism or Maoism. Like other ideologies, it acts in the name of good and promises a better world. Its enemy is the individual and capitalism. It is also interesting to note that in wishing to protect the Planet he is aiming for the disappearance of Man. (...). Of course, all vilified scientific research, all technological progress is concealed. There is no salvation on the side of science.(...)

However, it seemed to me that ecology was precisely a field of science, and was therefore devoid of political character?

For the rest of the articles we would need a point by point analysis, but overall, the general idea that emerges from this site is that of someone who has no desire to change his lifestyle ... and who finds justifications are point of view in such or such publication at its convenience.

Houlà! They are heavy carpet smokers Unless they prefer the havannes ...

[sen-no-sen]

Right now, everything is good for making controversy and selling books, for the one mentioned above, I plan to buy it .... it can always be used in case of lack of toilet paper !

[Ahmed]

Sen-no-sen, you write:

However, it seemed to me that ecology was precisely a field of science, and was therefore devoid of political character?

A distinction must be made between ecology as a science of natural interactions and political ecology, which adds that of man as an actor and not simply an observer.

As for P. Bruckner, like some of his little comrades (the so-called "new philosophers"), he went from an extreme left sympathizer to frank conservatism, slaying all ideologies ... while carefully avoiding talking about his own!

Nowadays, objectivity is declined in all tones: it is the guarantee of stopping any criticism, necessarily "partisan"!

[sen-no-sen]

A distinction must be made between ecology as a science of natural interactions and political ecology, which adds that of man as an actor and not simply an observer.

Yes indeed, but "forgetting" that ecology is a science (with very many disciplines) seems to me a bit dishonest.
To state that ecology is the product of Marxism, Trotskyism or Maoism is absolutely false.

The author confuses the historical bases of the political ideals of certain parties which claim to be ecology, with true ecology, which is philosophically close to the culture of peoples living in contact with Nature (Animism, Shamanism, Shintoism , Djainism ...).
Coming from such a critical author I find that these kinds of statements indicate a lack of knowledge of the subject.

[Ahmed]

The "true" ecology is not determined by any origin, even if, historically, it comes from certain currents ...

Coming from such a critical author, I find that these kinds of statements indicate a lack of knowledge of the subject.

... or rather, very prosaically, a great partiality.