Not entirely. Your point is true about the scientists, but not for the
rank-and-file. Again, referring to Hoffer, it's the people. People join
mass
movements to give meaning to their otherwise meaningless lives - the
goal of
the movement is almost immaterial. People join, THEN adopt the tenets of
the
group. Further, membership in mass movements is interchangeable -
whether
it's "Burn the bra," "Save the Whales," or "Outlaw Walmart," the SAME
people
belong to all three groups. It's the membership itself that's
important -
not the goal.


Which explains most of the demonstrations revolving around the Climate
Change conference. Most of the participants don't really have a clue
about the climate or the changes in climate they protest against, they
just want to be a part of some mass movement. What I find disgusting
is how the media does everything possible to fuel the process for
their own purposes, anything for a scoop and ratings. Seems that each
participant in these mass movements has their own agenda that has
little to do with the good of the world.


Several years I worked out at the Nevada Test Site, where we were doing
nuclear weapons testing. And across the highway from the main entrance there
would usually be a bunch of protesters. They had tents, porta potties, the
whole nine yards. And if you were to go and talk to them, you would find
that most of them didn't know anything at all about the pros and cons of
nuclear weapons. They were there because they were being fed.

When we stopped testing nuclear weapons in the early 90s, the company
funding the protestors went bankrupt because there was no longer anything to
protest. The protesters themselves, being mostly ignorant sheep, dispersed
and went back home to the corner they lived on or bridge they lived under,
or the soup kitchen, etc.