What may be more important here, is public perception of science. = Scientists (and yes, even engineers) may have changed, but popular views = on science and expectations placed on science and technology may not = have entirely caught up with that change. After all, if science and = technology can save our lifestyle, why bother to change it?
________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Malcolm McCallum Sent: Tue 10/30/2007 7:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth >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 =3D >> 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 <http://www.herpconbio.org/>=20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
