At 11:00 AM 1/18/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Am I the only one surprised by the nasty tone that the debates on PRNCYB-L
>suddenly seem to take? I don't remember anything like this is the good old
>days when we started with the list ;-).
>
I think the tone has changed because we are discussing politics. We should
all be more careful to retain some professional detatchment for the
purposes of discussion.
Just a casual observation about ethics: I think scientists subscribe in
general to an ethic that is not unlike that of a professional news
reporter, who must script the story as an observer even when compelled to
become a participant. When things get extreme, one crosses into the
political arena, such as when Einstein wrote to the US President about
nuclear weapons. Yet, many scientists and non-scientists can be frustrated
with the implicit politics of a mainstream view; and many are also aware
that in fact science is not a neutral observer of society, but a very
important participant. This means responsibility must flow in both
directions. We should not assume that anyone has or has intended to be
irresponsible here, even if breaching the norms of decorum on occasion. I
suspect only the best of intentions from all the contributors, regardless
of their expressed views.
Two specific remarks on the recent discussion:
On the subject of: "Idealist" vs. "materialist:" That "Ideas direct
sociocultural trajectories"
Francis' answer deals with what we can affect, even if physical processes
are important. Hence the decision making policy making process. However, is
it not implicit in this statement that nothing can affect sociocultural
trajectories by any other means? Even if climate change is driving social
change, it still involves the mind in adopting new ideas in response.
On the subject of: "1), long term statistics clearly show that the
efficiency with which we use resources increases
spectacularly...Ephemeralization explains the stable or declining prices
(corrected for inflation) of physical resources and energy. ... This
refutes the widely accepted pessimistic predictions (Ehrlich, 1976)
according to which our resources are near to exhaustion."
Yes, but as a technical matter only, looking narrowly at the problem. In a
broader view, economic measures are terribly inadequate at determining
efficiency. They do not take into account other hidden costs in terms of
the environment, psychological tolls, etc. To an ecologist, the rate of
planetary destruction is absolutely terrifying. It certainly has many
hidden costs that do not figure into our current measures of success.
i.e., te
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)