Kel et al,
Yeah, that's "touchy-feely" alright. And another excellent reason for both
getting our words, in the words of Goldilocks, "just right." "Context, it
might be said, is "everything." But unless the context is clear, as in the
case where you took care to explain your definition, words like "growth" do
not always convey the same thing to everybody, or even to a majority. The
"reasonable person" test or "common usage" test can be useful in determining
when one needs to qualify the meaning of a term, but even then words like
"sustainable," for example, are mushy enough to result in enough confusion
to be dangerous. I guess that's what makes effective communication an art.
"Growth," in the sense of economic growth, is a hijacked term, but one where
the a kind of Stockholm syndrome has set in, ripping the term out of the
hands of biology and converting it to a euphemism. But in this case, the
theft is so old, and the misusage so entrenched, that it must be qualified
at every usage in which the context is not iron-clad.
While I might wish that your definition held sway in the real world, I fear
that is too wobbly to stand. But you can always use "change, adaptation,
paradigm shifts," eh? Use the word that provides the best fit to the
context. (Well, at least we can try.) "Progress" is another example of a
word that once meant "improvement" or "movement forward," must now share a
bed with "progressives." What a tangled web we weave.
And we are ensnarled in our web, hoisted upon our own petard. To avoid this
dilemma, better to go the way of Jefferson than of Alexander [the "Great"].
"Though you cannot see, when you take one step, what will be the next, yet
follow truth, justice, and plain dealing, and never fear their leading you
out of the labyrinth, in the easiest manner possible. The knot which you
thought a Gordian one, will untie itself before you."*
A being, a species, that sees itself as "sapiens" is perhaps making progress
when changing its own PN to merely sapiens rather than "sapiens sapiens,"
and I suppose one could call that [intellectual] growth. An occasional peek
behind the curtain at our picture, especially as our visage/image grows more
and more handsome, might do us all a world of good
(http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Picture_of_Dorian_Gray), not to mention the
world and the earth a world of good.
Yet, even seemingly tangled words can sometimes stimulate a sniff at a
least-traveled path, eh? http://www.ram.org/contrib/road_not_taken.html
WT
*http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_Peter_Carr_-_August_19,_1785
PS: Tufford cuts refreshingly to the heart of the matter when he point out
the difficulty of "selling" the truth in the "real" world. A knotty problem
indeed . . .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Stettner" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:26 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ESA position on sustainable growth
Dear fellow/sister ECOLOGgers;
I am not a member of ESA, but I have never had a problem with "sustainable
growth" per se. I don't see it as continuing on the road that we're on
economically or developmentally, but I see it as growth in new ways, new
attitudes and new ways of thinking. To me, "growth" does not mean
"unfettered use" or "unlimited consumption." It means change, adaptation,
paradigm shifts.
"But as the United States takes a fresh look at how our economy functions,
we see a tremendous opportunity to adopt an approach that incorporates the
value of natural ecosystems."
Why can't that include Low Impact Development? Growth and development that
incorporates the dynamism of the natural world we live in? Why does growth
have to be viewed as "bad"? And by what standards do we measure "value"?
Society at least needs to be honest about that; when using the word "value"
in the sense of "natural ecosystems," what are we talking about? Property or
real estate value? Development value? Wildlife habitat value? Tourism value?
Recreational value? Scenic value? Is nature valuable just cuz it exists? If
everything not associated with humans is "natural," then what are we?
What I've been thinking is that, if we want humanity to be part of the
natural world and not separate from or above it, we must learn to grow
within it as much as we learn to grow it within ourselves. Pardon the
touchy-feely aspect of that, but we really need to act as though we belong
here and embrace the idea that all organisms on the planet struggle for
survival ~ every living thing (plants, animals, insects, you name it)
competes for resources, outsmarts predators, consumes and makes waste,
defends itself, attacks and invades, and seeks to gain new territory through
growth. So far as I know, humans are the only beings that can consciously
modify our behavior and decide to limit our growth through intellect rather
than instinctive reaction.
Just my 2 cents' worth.
Respectfully,
Kelly Stettner
Black River Action Team (BRAT)
45 Coolidge Road
Springfield, VT 05156
http://www.blackriveractionteam.org
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:22:39 -0400
From: "TUFFORD, DANIEL" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in
Economic Decisions
I did not participate in the ESA discussions about this so do not know =
what was actually said or done, but I can understand this position in =
the context of political relevance. In an earlier e-mail Brian mentioned =
sound science, which is certainly a high priority. But "policy" in the =
functioning economic and political arena implies political salience. A =
no-growth position (which I personally support) will immediately =
marginalize the organization that proposes it. The position is fine in =
the context of an ongoing discussion of philosophical approaches but is =
a boat-anchor in the real world of feasible policy development.
=20
This level of compromise leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well, but I =
do not know of a practical alternative.
=20
Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D.
University of South Carolina
Department of Biological Sciences
715 Sumter St. (mail)
209A Sumwalt (office)
Columbia, SC 29208
803-777-3292 (phone)
803-777-3292 (fax)
[email protected]
http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford
________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of =
Heather Reynolds
Sent: Fri 7/24/2009 10:53 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems =
Should Figure in Economic Decisions
I am deeply disappointed that ESA has persisted in maintaining the=20
myth of "sustainable growth" in its recent position statement on the=20
ecological impacts of economic activities. What an embarrassing=20
oxymoron for ecologists to be caught promoting.
The position statement is at best confusing, sending a decidedly mixed=20
message. In one breadth it acknowledges that "there are limits to the=20
amount of consumption and pollution the Earth can sustain" and in the=20
next it is claiming that "the problem is not economic growth per se"=20
and that "[we can] move toward sustainable growth." It is unfortunate=20
that the many good aspects of the position statement, such as its=20
recognition of healthy ecosystems as the foundation of a sound=20
economy, the need to internalize environmental externalities, the=20
recognition of multiple forms of wealth, and the importance of=20
advancing wellbeing in a more equitable fashion across the globe, are=20
confounded with language implying that societies can continue growing=20
their economies ad infinitum. Apparently, ecologists have decided=20
that humans are unique among life forms in possessing an ability to=20
grow without limits.
Corporate capitalists and the revolving door corporate lobby that we=20
call our political system will be pleased. it is just that language on=20
"sustainable growth" that they will jump on to justify our continuing=20
drive for ever increasing economic growth, which by the laws of=20
nature, can lead only to a continued overshoot of carrying capacity=20
and destruction of the green infrastructure that ESA purports to=20
protect.
I hope that ESA will continue its discussion of these issues. This=20
needn't be the last word, of course. As scientists, ecologists live=20
and breathe the process of reexamining assumptions and adjusting our=20
models of living systems accordingly.
Heather Reynolds
Associate Professor
Department of Biology
Jordan Hall 142
Indiana University
1001 E 3rd Street
Bloomington IN 47405
Ph: (812) 855-0792
Fax: (812) 855-6705
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.34/2268 - Release Date: 07/28/09
06:00:00
