Many years back David Ehrenfeld wrote a great book (The Arrogance of Humanism) that amounted to a critique of some Enlightenment assumptions that he thought many scientists subscribed to with religious-like faith. Among them were:
All problems humans confront are solvable by them. Most can be solved with technology. If they cannot be solved by technology they can be solved by changes in social organization. If we get it wrong (e.g. Biosphere) we just didn't know enough & we'll get it right next time. In tough times we will hunker down & do what we need to do to make it through. Some resources are infinite; finite resources have substitutes. Our civilization will survive. He suggested that the observation of history lent itself to a different set of principles, i.e. ones that better fit the "data": The world is too complex for humans to fully model or even understand, especially living systems. Techno-social solutions never completely solve problems; we only generate quasi solutions or patches. The quasi-solutions implemented generate new problems at a faster rate than can be solved; these new problems are usually more complex, costly to address, require that more systemic inertia be overcome, etc. Resources do run out. Social systems and entire civilizations do tank when the patches fail and problems become overwhelming. Ehrenfeld did not regard himself as a pessimist-just someone who noted that societies have always risen and fallen and that it's foolish to think we are different. He also noted that given the size of our foorprint and how much natural capital we have drawn down, some options are no longer available. _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Prato, Anthony A. Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth Brian makes a good point. However, there has been a lot of discussion about using technologies (e.g., injection of CO2 into the wells) that can reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. This suggests to me there is not a one-to-one lockstep relationship between economic growth and global warming. It's not that simple. Tony Prato University of Missouri-Columbia _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:55 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth I've been following the ECOLOG discussion on climate change "denial science" with great interest. Many of the climate change deniers have much in common with those who deny that there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. For example, both camps of deniers tend to be comprised of hirelings of, or were selected in a process strongly influenced by, "big money" (i.e., pro-growth, typically corporate and anti-regulatory entities). This point would be too obvious to be worth mentioning, except that now we are seeing a fascinating denial dialog developing regarding the relationship of economic growth and climate change. I noticed this at a climate change conference yesterday, where the old CIA Director Woolsey et al., while fully concurring that climate change is upon us, and substantially human-induced, are not yet ready to concede that climate change and other environmental threats are fundamental outcomes of economic growth. (While this is no place to elaborate, I have to at least note that, with a >90% fossil-fueled economy, and ceteris paribus, economic growth simply = global warming. And also that, with economic growth - increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate - prioritized in the domestic policy arena, dealing with climate change means not conservation and frugality but rather wholesale onlining of nuclear, tar sands, mountaintop removing, etc., because, as Woolsey pointed out, renewables such as solar and wind won't come anywhere near the levels our currently fossil-fueled economy needs.) So perhaps we could view "denial science" as lying on a spectrum, where endpoints might be defined either in terms of hardness/softness of science (e.g., physics hard, climate change science medium, ecological economics softish), or else in terms of political economy (e.g., from little to big money at stake). Denial would tend to be motivated pursuant to principals of political economy, and gotten away with in proportion to the softness (or alternatively, complexity) of the science. Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, VA 22043 Brian Czech, Ph.D., President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html . EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
