I once read a quote that went something like, "No action against
climate change has ever been taken that resulted in material economic
injury to those who took the action."

This lead me to think that despite the knowledge about climate change
at a physical level, humans make decisions based on the domains (not
the sciences) of psychology, economics, and politics.

Climate change then, is not a hard science problem, it is an economic
and political problem.  The solution can't be had through privation,
no matter how much scientists say extreme conservation may be
necessary, but has to involve a path through shared prosperity.

The second thing it made me think is that while it cannot be said that
one science is more important than another, the discursive domains
indexed by sciences can be ranked as more or less foundational or
derived, or more pejoratively as reductionist or ramified.


(Everything is, of course, mediated by psychology, but leaving that
aside.) As you go down the scale knowledge becomes more precise and
attainable, but relevance to daily experience lessens. As you go up
the scale, the ramified complexity of the domain makes knowledge
imprecise, but the lived relevance is high.  This explains the
frustration of natural scientists who find good science rendered
irrelevant in the face of psychology,economics, politics, and society.


Reply via email to