Jacek 3

Continuing from post 2, it seems that to avoid the aforementioned problem we should proceed in the opposite direction. First, formulate a position on the environment and  its crisis, and then use it as a test of political and other beliefs. If these beliefs accord with the said position, we keep them, otherwise, throw them away. This way is logical, and does not raise serious problems. To formulate a position on the environment and its crisis, we can look to science to provide us with the core facts for its foundation.
Any position has to have this structure if it is to meet the test of reality. Thus, we can use this as a minimum standard for any such position. If a position meets this standard we can deem it acceptable, otherwise, discard it. What other standards can we come up with?...