``...Scarcity of knowledge about what to do regarding the ecological consequences of modernization is quite large..'' Ian
---------
How I want to put this is that the scarcity of knowledge is a consequence of the focus on economic interest to the exclusion of all other concerns. Sure in the long run, that knowledge will become an economic interest only after the ecological consequences begin to take effect on the economy. Scarcity is only a problem now because there is no economic interest in developing that knowledge. In some fashion, I guess we agree indirectly.
In fact much of the research infrastructure that once existed has been dismantled for economic reasons! For example I once interviewed for a tech job working on a DOT project to develop a magnetic guidance system for highways back in the early 90s. The idea was to use a magnetic strip roadway as the interface between two computer systems, one in the vehicle and one remote server system that managed the traffic flow. The vehicle computer ran the vehicle, and the roadway computer managed the route, flow, and speed, something like a railroad or air traffic control. But the project was way under funded, had two engineers, and almost no budget. (They really needed another engineer, but only had money for a tech---much more qualified than me.)
There was once upon a time, a City of Berkeley electric vehicle plan on the books. The idea was to make and use small electric vehicles to test out a system in the city to see if air pollution and fuel costs could be cut back. This was in the 80s. Nothing came of it, because there was no money and no corporate or fed sponsorship. We got absurd traffic barriers, insane parking regulations, and yet another post-mod warehouse of dotcom/boutiques where the factory was supposed to be built (Fifth Street).
There are numerous projects and ideas like these around all piddling along or disappeared as `pie in the sky'. The fact is there is no interest in developing these kinds of plans or testing them and there is no political economic interest and no plan to coordinate research to come up with them either. Hence the `scarcity' of knowledge.
It was pretty obvious by the late 60s, that we were destroying the planet and the future of our society, if we kept at it. Lots of bullshit forty years later and we are still debating. Meanwhile climate change has already started, more or less on schedule. They said back then fifty years and it turned out to be about twenty or thirty.
Remember that the US rust belt was created partly to avoid minor environmental regulations, which were the only first stage of correction. There was no scarcity of knowledge on how to retro-fit factories for clean air emissions and cut down on pollution. There was a scarcity of interest in doing so. Same thing with auto pollution and fuel conservation.
We (or I) have watched a systemic retreat from developing the knowledge base necessary (hence created the scarcity of knowledge) to adapt to the multiple and interlocking problems of industrial society and its dependence on and co-evolution with the eco-systems of the world. Our political economy is simply not interested. Instead, our political economy has dismantled our few limited system resources for developing that knowledge.
``The macrodynamics are now of such a scale that we are always effecting the climate. We've always been in a co-evolutionary dynamic with gases and liquids and solids, new technologies-theories won't change that parameter at all; we'll either come up with better adaptations based partly on better accounting and calculative techniques that allow us to secure and produce a surplus at current and projected population levels or our current/future knowledge won't be able to overcome ..''
(It's true human societies have always had some impact on the larger scaled eco-systems within which they were embedded, all the way back to Egypt and Mesopotamia. On the other hand those former societies disappeared, and perhaps partly because they couldn't solve these problems. I think the Mayans were another example...)
It might help to re-configure our economic concepts to include the natural eco-system extractions we depend on. That might at least demonstrate the potential economic necessity of paying attention to maintaining them in some equilibrium or steady state. But I seriously doubt this will have anything like the impact it must, in order to over haul the way we reproduce and maintain our current society or even retain it in some reasonable facsimile.
``The Handbook of National Accounting Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003, referred to as SEEA 2003, is a satellite system of the System of National Accounts. It brings together economic and environmental information in a common framework to measure the contribution of the environment to the economy and the impact of the economy on the environment. It provides policy-makers with indicators and descriptive statistics to monitor these interactions as well as a database for strategic planning and policy analysis to identify more sustainable paths of development.''
Of course this is important. I even read part of the pdf file on the disputes as to which were more accurate methods.
But, I am afraid, I have gone over to the dark side.
We are looking at punctuated equilibriums all the way back down to some previous energy state of political economy and human society. Sure it should be, could be, would have been, if only.
Some how it seems that these rational concerns were part of the high modernity that our political economy abandoned in its neoliberal exuberant turn to postmodern late stage capitalism. Us old high modernists who believed the political economy, scientific research, and liberal government were supposed to work together for the common good of society were simply deluded hippies and are now irrelevant old fucks.
Okay kids. Just get me a walker so I can watch it all crumble from my park bench. Forget armed security and anti-depressants. I'll carry a few dollars to feed the muggers, and some wine in a paper bag.
Thank you and Good night.
CG
ps. Whatever this sounds like, keep sending. I've got to have something worth reading on my bench, since yesterday's newspaper only promises that today's will be even less worth reading tomorrow...