Honorable ESA Board and Ecolog subscribers:
Josh Schimel's statement is a work of art. It reflects intellectual
integrity of a high order. It is unfortunate that the statement of the
"individual concerned" could not have been paired with it, but it stands
alone as the result of careful consideration of some very sticky conundrums
and apparent contradictions.
It is healthy and just plain good science for such statements to be
provisional, as it is important to simultaneously "just get it done" and to
remain open to challenge. If concerned individuals can come up with a better
statement, all should be open to it, and gracefully accept it as yet another
step in the ongoing yearning of this oddly wonderful form of life to
recognize and act upon the effects of its own actions and in so doing act to
modify them. The job is done, and well done, but not necessarily finished.
But I rest a lot easier knowing that the statement is a carefully considered
one. That any organization, especially one with thousands of members, can
come up with such a statement is an extremely rare event that reflects well
on the quality and commitment of the people so devoted to its principles.
I want to thank all concerned for all of the difficult and selfless effort
that has obviously gone into the statement, and for their courage in
stepping forward in a world in which so much of the current tide flows in
the opposite direction.
WT
PS: Now it is time to roll up some sleeves and get some work done. Setting
some priorities for research based on its potential to actually help turn
Schimel's supertanker of earth and human destiny in the right direction. A
few possible principles and starting points, all of them familiar enough,
but familiar too, is the imperfect current state of things.
1. Do no harm. (Ok, do less harm. Degrade ecosystems less.)
2. Hone and polish "sustainability" in the best possible sense.
3. Restore degraded ecosystems.
4. "Manage," first by managing least, second by managing only a sufficient
amount to restore ecosystem function, and third and perhaps most important,
by giving careful consideration to unfamiliar ideas and counterintuitive
thinking--reject and deny with care. The cutting edge often lies beyond the
normal distribution.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nadine Lymn" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:46 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
Dear All:
In a recent correspondence with an individual concerned about ESA's position
statement, ESA Board Member Josh Schimel points out that the Governing Board
took very seriously its task of representing 10,000 ecologists and carefully
deliberated in issuing the ESA statement. With his permission, I post
Josh's correspondence below.
Nadine Lymn
ESA Director of Public Affairs
================================
The ears were not deaf. On the contrary, they were wide open. We heard and
agreed with many of the fundamental points Brian, you and others had been
making. But those weren't the only messages coming in and we had to balance
those different perspectives. The discussion at the Governing Board meeting
was extended, thoughtful, and analytical. There are a number of
extraordinarily insightful and concerned people on the board. We all agreed
that an ESA statement needed to highlight the conflict between two
fundamental truths:
1. Humans in the developing world have a moral right to try to improve their
well being.
2. There is a finite capacity of the planet to support humans and increasing
resource consumption and waste production will degrade the planetary
carrying capacity.
Thus, we felt that the statement had to argue that we needed to balance
those conflicting truths. As ecologists, we can and should focus on the
second--managing the carrying capacity, but we can't tell poor people that
they may not improve their living conditions. There are ethical boundaries
just as there are ecological boundaries. We didn't feel that we could cross
one while arguing that we must not cross the other. So, the key front
section starts by highlighting that conflict, and personally I think it does
it well:
-------
The Sustainability of Economic Growth
At present, economic growth is a double-edged sword: Although it enhances
the standards of living in the short-term, it can degrade the ecological
infrastructure needed to sustain long-term welfare. This dichotomy may be
humanity's central challenge in the 21st century-sustaining living standards
and spreading the benefits of economic development to the large fraction of
humanity still mired in poverty, while preserving the ecological
life-support system on which future welfare depends.
---------
The whole document is a major redraft from the initial one, which many were
unhappy with because a) it focused too much on the right to develop, b)
didn't emphasize the carrying capacity issues adequately, and c) read too
economic-speak rather than ecological-speak. I.e. we were concerned about
the same core issues you and others were highlighting, partly in response to
your input. The current document focuses on the risks to ecological systems
(and thus the long-term well being of humanity) and the need to manage them
rationally. Those are appropriate messages for ecologists to make.
However, and this may be where the apparent disagreements arise: does
"economic growth" necessarily require increased resource consumption and
environmental degradation? The economists, at least, argue that some types
of economic activity actually reduce environmental impact. I think they may
be right. The development of hybrid cars, solar cells, etc. all involve
economic growth and development, and yet they reduce human impacts on the
world (at least where they replace existing technology). Other kinds of
"growth" may enhance our well being without degrading the global support
system as well.
In terms of your specific concern with the term "sustainable growth," I
would point out that the term we used was "ecologically sustainable growth,"
which to my mind modifies the concept and helps emphasize that such growth
may not be based on increased resource consumption, but may be achievable to
some degree with technological change. We are taking a term that is accepted
in public discourse and trying to "turn the supertanker," rather than
stopping it in its tracks.
So yes, we didn't in the end endorse a document saying that we must abandon
the very concept of "sustainable growth." But that isn't because we didn't
hear, understand, or even agree with many of your arguments. The Board is
considering writing a piece for the Ecol Bulletin to explain more about how
this piece came about and how ESA handles position statements. They are
always controversial because there is no point issuing a statement on a
non-controversial topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.32/2266 - Release Date: 07/27/09
05:58:00
