What it boils down to is that the people who do the science usually know the limitations of their field. I did not mean to imply that scientists in one field would fully appreciate what is the case in other fields.
In other words, I don't know many scientists who overrate the capabilities of the work that they are doing, although there are some unfortunate exceptions. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Fireovid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:57 AM Subject: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth > Unfortunately, I know too many economists (social scientists) - some > in high-level policy-recommending positions within the government - > who think in this way. > > - Bob Fireovid > >>Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:10:54 +0000 >>From: Bill Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>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: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >>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. >
