Hi to everyone. I'm Ken Zimmerman. My background is rather mixed up. That's why all this integration of disciplines and work across usual academic barriers sounds so comforting to me. Most of my working life (30 years) has been spent as a policy and costs analyst in energy areas -- natural gas, oil, electricity, etc. I hold degrees in mathematics, History, Literature, electrical engineering, psychology, philosophy, and finally sociology. I have also taught some, had a short stint at NASA, and worked as a clinical psychologist. So all this talk of crossing boundaries is not new to me and actually is quite comforting.
I agree with much that has been said by many of the others on this list. I particularly support "learning by doing" through collaboration across usual boundaries. From my experience this is difficult especially because some involved will not see the same "problem" or any problem at all. What's kept me going in situations where participants saw different problems and some saw no problem is my "faith" in two things -- 1. that people had a right and desire to make decisions democratically. I don't mean simple voting but primarily the face-to-face as equals dialogue and tough negotiations on issues. 2. that people want to "live well" and want the same for all others in the world. By live well I mean people want the chance to follow their dreams and fulfill their potential within the limits of making a positive contribution and not harming others or the world. I also strongly support taking science and similar belief systems "off the top of the perch." Pragmatically science has much to offer humans. More satisfying and fuller lives through medicine and the electronic exchange of art/music are just two examples. But science is not truth, big or little "T". And this applies to social and physical sciences. Similarly with religion or any other encompassing belief system. And this brings me to my darker comment. While the two faiths I mention above kept me going they did not stop me from recognizing that like Fritz Perl, Ernest Becker, Dietrich Bonhoffer, etc. had pointed out people have the potential to be evil and thus harm themselves, other humans, and the world we all live in. Overcoming this potential is really a major task for any "new" or integrated way for addressing sustainability, environmental degradation, war, poverty, etc. The two beliefs that sustained me have also often let me down. People have not always been up to the mark, so to speak. Expecting people to be cooperative and to change with only the right information is not only foolish, its also counterproductive. People are a lot more complex than that. A biologist friend of mine suggests that only a near extinction event is sufficient to "frighten" people into changing, of overcoming their potential for evil. Is she correct? Or do we need to "force" people to change, for their own good? If so, how far does the force go and who gets to be in charge of the storm troopers? Annually about 400,000 in the US die as a result of cigarette smoking. This included my father and two close friends. How far should we go to stop people from smoking? The same question applies to all behaviors that harm humans (including oneself) and the earth? This needs to be in the mix as we consider new or integrated approaches to social problems. Ken Kenneth R. Zimmerman, Ph.D. Senior Analyst Oregon Public Utility Commission Electric and Natural Gas Division Resource and Market Analysis 550 Capitol Street, NE Suite 215 PO Box 2148 Salem OR 97308-2148 503.373.1583 503.373.7752 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.learningforsustainability.net/pipermail/intsci_learningforsustainability.net/attachments/20060303/8dee16e3/attachment.html _______________________________________________ IntSci mailing list [email protected] http://mail.learningforsustainability.net/mailman/listinfo/intsci_learningforsustainability.net
