The whole point of science is that it's about what is not what ought, right?

Once traditional morality goes away, the new morality doesn't know its limits.

And so it starts stomping around and just completely manipulating the discussion of what is and start seeing in what is some sort of moral instruction.

Science can certainly inform outcomes and what different things would lead to,

but it can't tell you what's right and wrong.

That's not the role of science is supposed to tell you what is.

Hello and welcome to the Brendan O'Neill show with me Brendan O'Neill. This is a

podcast in which an esteemed guest joins me to talk about the big ideas, the bad

ideas, the problems, and the controversies of life in the early 21st century.

In this episode I am delighted to be joined by Michael Schelemberger.

Michael is a rational environmentalist.

He is a writer, author and campaigner who has made a name

as someone who wants to tackle climate change but without all the fear,

doom-mongering and reigning in of progress.

He was a signatory to the Eco-modernist Manifesto

that was published in 2015.

That document caused quite the stir by arguing that Greens should ditch the goal of sustainable development

and instead make the case for a more focused intensive use of nature's resources.

Michael has for a long time been at the forefront of efforts to make environmental

policy more reasoned and more human focused. In 2004 with Ted Naughthouse, he co-authored

the essay The Death of Environmentalism, Global Warming Politics in

a Post-environmental world. That led to the book, Breakthrough from the Death of Environmentalism

...