"To be anti-science is to be pro ignorance" - is a very strange comment. I suggest you need to be much more precise about what you mean by science. Science as commonly practised today is very much to be "anti" about. We currently privilege science as a way of knowing, and this science has a colonising approach to other ways of knowing. Your statement reflects this by denying dissenting voices. We have a science that knows things in rational, abstract, dispassionate and disconnected ways. Perhaps even in sado-masochistic ways. I know there is a whole new way of doing science today that is holistic, but I think the dominant science is still reductionist, male centric and manipulative. Science has a bad case history! Oh, sure, there have been benefits, but look back at the major catastrophes of the last 100 years, and you'll see "science" behind of alot of them. We need to develop alternate ways of knowing, based on feelings, emotions and intuition, if we are to fully know ourselves and our world. This way of knowing is metaphoric and symbolic, and creates a new way of thinking and feeling. We are living through an impoverished story of our place in the world, mainly through the stories of reductionist scientific rationalism, and technocratic dreams of control and mastery. We have become entranced with wires, wheels and widgets. Science has been partly responsible for the removal of the heart and aliveness of matter and nature, and reduced it to a backdrop and resource for the everyday world of business and busy-ness. In this reduced story, humanity seems to have no idea of its how to find a grander purpose and meaning beyond the artificially constructed consumerist drive, and its narcissistic tendencies.

I agree with the thrust of this post which is, in my reading, that a more mature society will be more environmentally sensitive. The mainstram "environmental movement" has, in my view, failed to appreciate this point, and has argued for policy change, regulation, 10 tips etc, without considering that a more mature society will have a lower footprint and be more socially aware, and society will be more diverse, richer and more meaningful. After 25 years in financial services, I left to join the conservation movement, and found the same dysfunctions as were exhibited in the corporate world. But the catch here is that we can't change people, but need to invite them into this new more sensitive world, and not try and persuade them with guilt and fear, the mainstay of the many movements for change.

Saving the world? Save it from whom? And for whom? The language here is of dubious value - reminding me of a "saviour" mentality. Remember the missionaries "saving" the souls of native peoples? A better word would be healing, and this means healing both ourselves, and the world around us. And another thing! We don't need answers, we need better questions! Cheers Peter