I hope that David posted this as a joke. This is the most inaccurate stereotype of scientists that I have seen. If there are scientists that think this way I have yet to meet them.
Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Johns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth > 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]; [email protected] > 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: [email protected] > 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] > >
