Hi all, I have read some but not all of these recent threads, including ones on whether/how ecologists can/should be exemplars. I wanted to add one issue I don't think has been addressed, or if it has been I missed it. It has to do with what we want to do about the changed and changing world situation (global ecological crisis and related social problems) with respect to ecology, ecological science, environmental science, and science itself. If we adopt the view that the current manifold symptoms of unsustainable human-environment relations are related to a single or small set of core causes - a unitary "humans in the environment" disorder shared by our entire industrial culture - then we could say that this problem impacts our favorite fields and professions as much as any other. That is, we are ostensibly just as much part of the problem and part of the solution as agriculture, energy, transportation, commerce, housing, etc. etc. And, problems like excess CO2 emissions, excess N emissions, dependence on non-renewable energy with no replacement of equivalent renewable energy capaicty and unsustainable water use - all of which require systemic changes in our C, N, energy and water relations and processes - suggest major issues for the sustainability of ecology and science itself.
So rather than try to solve or frame or address the problem in general and abstract terms, or for other sectors that seem more in violation or problematic, we could start to work on what we are going to do to make sure that ecology and science become sustainable. >From even a "selfish" perspective of wanting to preserve and pass on our professional passions as fields of study and lineages of artisan-like craftsmanship and apprenticeships and mentoring, we have some major problems. It seems safe to say that ecology, science even ESA will not look much like they do now in 100 years. So what can we do about setting direction and taking steps to convert these specialized and important fields into new forms that are environmentally sustainable over the long term? Or does this even matter? And if we did such a self-reflexive looking inward and were successful, what would that do by way of spreading and allowing us to help lead by example? Is part of the issue simply taking stock enough to realize that we have to account for and provide for the environmental capacity to do *any* cherished profession if we really love what we do enough to want to be able to pass it on and help it to continue? Some thoughts...some I am pondering for my own science practices... Dan Fiscus ecosystemics.org Bill Silvert wrote: > A good example of what David Lawrence describes is the Y2K issue. The problem was identified and although there was disagreement about the seriousness of the problem, millions of dollars were spent addressing it. > And on 1 Jan. 2000 there were a few glitches, but for the most part life went on OK. Since there was no great disaster, Y2K has been branded as an > enormous hoax and the vast majority of people think that all the money spent > fixing the problem was wasted, and that the computer scientists who warned > us about the problem were deliberately defrauding the public. > > My own impression is that the warnings were valid -- some overstated and some understated -- and the work that went into fixing programs was well > spent and avoided serious problems. The amount of effort that I spent rewriting my own programs, and the success rate I achieved, were consistent > with this (I used to do a lot of programming in connection with ecosystem > modelling). But have you ever heard anyone agree that we responded to the > problem correctly? The almost universal consensus is that since the problem > was solved, it never existed. > > Unfortunately this is a lesson that politicians and other decsion-makers have learned too well. There is no reward for successful prevention. If we > spend a million dollars to contain an epidemic and are successful, we will > be attacked for wasing a million dollars. If we do nothing and the epidemic > spreads, then we are no worse off personally. If we evacuate a village because a volcano might blow, we are going to be criticised. If we don't, > and 1000 people die, we can write it off as an unpredictable act of g*d. > > The precautionary approach does not receive a lot of support other than from > environmental NGOs, although it has been adopted by some government agencies. If we reduce fish quotas and the stocks recover, we are attacked > for reducing them too much. The unpleasant truth is that no matter ow risk-averse individuals might be, society as a whole is not willing to avoid > risks. > > I suspect that part of this relates to the "tragedy of the commons". Individuals do not want to lower their sights for the public good. > > Bill Silvert > > PS -- I think it is time to change the subject line, no matter what anyone > says! >
