>From what I learned in school, this is the exact opposite of reality. Technology cannot solve all of our problems. I would say the attitude below would be more representative of an engineer than a scientist. However, the first thing you cover in environmental geology (and most intro env. sci courses) is that technology usually delays the inevitable, and you can't control the environment.
On Tue, October 30, 2007 1:10 am, Bill Silvert wrote: > 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] >> >> > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
