Comment 499

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted May 17, 2006 at 14:24:00

The basic problem with GRIDS and other recent initiatives amounts to effective dishonesty. There is no rational examination of options because there is usually no INTENTION of harm.

Mind already made up, most people go into unthinking denial mode when confronted with the slightest suggestion that their good intentions do not stand up to scrutiny (e.g. comparison with actual evidence for similar situations etc.)

As an example, an aquantaince at the City recently described how all projects must be signed off on their "triple bottom line" effects. Predictably, favourable assessments abound, even though the most superficial but honest assessment would commonly find neutral or harmful effects for the social and environmental spheres.

They do not INTEND negative effects, but because of defensiveness, lack the ability to objectively analyse anything. It's so easy to check off "social well-being enhanced" without actually having to think about it.

This is equivalent to dishonesty.

It is like the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter - the intentions were different, but someone is still dead because of your actions.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds