Keeping the dam isn’t a ‘scientific’ decision because science doesn’t make decisions—it just tells us what might happen: more fish, less renewable energy, changes to flood control, etc. The real decision is about trade-offs, like how much we value fish versus clean energy, upstream ecosystems versus downstream economies, or cultural traditions versus infrastructure costs.
Calling dam removal ‘activist’ implies the push to keep it isn’t. But keeping the dam is just as much about advocacy—it’s about prioritizing things like renewable energy or flood control. Neither side is more ‘scientific’ than the other; they’re both driven by values. Science helps us understand the stakes, but humans decide what matters most. That’s why this stuff gets so messy.
Calling dam removal ‘activist’ implies the push to keep it isn’t. But keeping the dam is just as much about advocacy—it’s about prioritizing things like renewable energy or flood control. Neither side is more ‘scientific’ than the other; they’re both driven by values. Science helps us understand the stakes, but humans decide what matters most. That’s why this stuff gets so messy.