Madam, - I feel I must reply to the letter from John Mulcahy (July 2nd). He simply declares his outrage that I was critical of Green philosophy and in my column of June 26th. Unlike Eoin Wilson (June 30th) and John Goodwillie (July 1st), he makes no effort to address any of my arguments.
I support the aims of the broad environmental movement and, of course, I fully support environmental science as an important branch of science.
In my column, I criticised deep-green philosophy. I acknowledge that this philosophy is not all-powerful in the general green movement, but it is influential and, in so far as it does affect green attitudes, I am critical of it.
The influence of deep-green philosophy tends to make the general green movement very wary of science and this bothers me. For example, mainstream science is enthusiastic about the cautious introduction of certain genetically modified crops. Much mainstream scientific analysis also endorses the proposal that rapid expansion of nuclear fission power would minimise the extent of global warming.
But green philosophy, while claiming to be guided by science, is very much against genetically modified crops and is extremely wary of the nuclear option.
Finally, John Mulcahy can rest his anxieties about my effect on young minds. I simply invite people to consider what science has to say before they make up their minds. - Yours, etc,
Prof WILLIAM J. REVILLE,
Department of Biochemistry,
UCC.