AFS Cinema
No Human Development Is Ever Good
RECEIVED Fri., May 12, 2006
Dear Editor,
So the bottom line (as much as I loathe that word) is: Vote against 1 and 2 because the means with which they would allegedly protect the environment are too extreme and would compromise representative government, and their language is harsh and not (easily) amenable to recourse (some would also say the campaign is manipulatively simplifying). And the pro-props are debating that, claim by claim.
But the reasons I'd vote for them are exactly those. You say the city is already progressive and moving toward conscientious development. No human development is ever good in any way for nature (maybe except zoos and solely conservatory structures). It's a zero-sum game, and there's no turning back. Wake up: Progressive/conscientious development is an oxymoron. If we were to do it, we can do it – or at least convince ourselves we are doing it – “conscientiously” or less ruthlessly. But if we have a choice whether to do it in the first place, then no, I'd vote for no development. Period. Maybe I'm too cynical and value wildlife, clean water, and unspoilt land over human progress, but I'd vote for 1 and 2 precisely because it's brash, retaliatory, “unsophisticated.” I realize this may be very Bush-esque rhetoric, but sometimes you have to ... stoop to their level ... to actually get things done (good things, too). Radical gestures remain that – gestures, empty. It may take more sophistication to know when to be brusque and unrelenting, and it's time.
So the bottom line (as much as I loathe that word) is: Vote against 1 and 2 because the means with which they would allegedly protect the environment are too extreme and would compromise representative government, and their language is harsh and not (easily) amenable to recourse (some would also say the campaign is manipulatively simplifying). And the pro-props are debating that, claim by claim.
But the reasons I'd vote for them are exactly those. You say the city is already progressive and moving toward conscientious development. No human development is ever good in any way for nature (maybe except zoos and solely conservatory structures). It's a zero-sum game, and there's no turning back. Wake up: Progressive/conscientious development is an oxymoron. If we were to do it, we can do it – or at least convince ourselves we are doing it – “conscientiously” or less ruthlessly. But if we have a choice whether to do it in the first place, then no, I'd vote for no development. Period. Maybe I'm too cynical and value wildlife, clean water, and unspoilt land over human progress, but I'd vote for 1 and 2 precisely because it's brash, retaliatory, “unsophisticated.” I realize this may be very Bush-esque rhetoric, but sometimes you have to ... stoop to their level ... to actually get things done (good things, too). Radical gestures remain that – gestures, empty. It may take more sophistication to know when to be brusque and unrelenting, and it's time.
Kevin Hsu