The science is still really happening... it's just not what the media considers newsworthy. I actually think that there has been a gap closed and that contributes to it. In the "old" days, you had people graduate from high school (and some that didn't) and there were distinct career paths that were taken, some involved a higher education, and some didn't. With nearly everyone going to college now days and having a core curicullim that includes general classes in all the subjects (which used to be done at the high school level), everyone has passed some sort of high learning in the science field.... making it not as "special"... ask any non-science/math major to explain box and whisker plots and many of them will look at you like you've grown a second or third head.
With all that said, I continue to preach on here that environmentalists are not what the media defines them as. You have two different lines of thinking in the field. The ultimate and total preservationalists versus the environmental stewards and managers, and in my opinion the latter being the more complicated of the two. It is easier to tell someone they can't do something because it will be detrimental to the environmental, and much harder to establish alternatives, tolerance limits and manage ecosystems to thrive while not impacting forward human progress. The first you just have to show the impacts and reasoning why not to do something....
...the second you actually have to understand the functionality of the ecosystem, determine the exact tolerance limits prior to the human activity starting a chain reaction and becoming destructive to a whole ecosystem, you also need to know if the ecosystem is a unique situation that you can wipe out by the littlest mis-calculation or if it is a common ecosystem with more resources to help you heal it if impacts become too great and remediation is needed.
In order to do all that, you need to understand the physics, astronomy, chemistry, hydrology, geology, genetics, micro-biology, the various macro-biologies, the general ecological functions and interactions as well as the micro-ecological functions and interactions of any specific area that you are trying to manage, mitigate, preserve, or rehabilitate.... you also need to be able to understand the impacts of all your studies to the human popluation, which IS part of any ecosystem and is often the part that gets left out by many of the main stream media propagated environmentalists.
When I was a kid in the seventies, industrial science films were shown on all TV stations before the news, the space program was in full swing (but dying fast), manufacturing was increasing in capacity and efficiency (but it too was getting ready for an abrupt downfall in the US).
Those things are shunned now by environmentalists.
All of the things you have mentioned aren't acutally shunned, however a true and honest 'environmentalist' (NOT a hippy) simply questions how we can make things even better by creating the additional consideration of sustainability for our surroundings.
I honestly believe that the downward spiral has been created by the increased opportunities for everyone to recieve an education in the science field. Now days, you have to have a MS or PhD in order to establish yourself in the environmental field and we have as a country just delayed scientific learning from high school education until college. Toss in the fact that there are so many BS degree programs in general biology and environmental studies available and no standard for what needs to be taught in order to achive said degrees... you create the need for even high levels of education to be obtained.
Engineering is a field that is very regulated as far as qualifications and requirements, and this just isn't so in many other areas, and the dime store degrees are too abundant now days.... just my :2cents:
