Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on February 20, 2012

Bookmark and Share

Building Sustainable Future Needs More Than Science

Building Sustainable Future Needs More Than Science thumbnail

Contrary to popular belief, humans have failed to address the earth’s worsening emergencies of climate change, species’ extinction and resource overconsumption not because of a lack of information, but because of a lack of imagination, social scientists and artists say.

At a conference for the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) here in Vancouver, British Columbia, experts argued that the path to a truly sustainable future is through the muddy waters of emotions, values, ethics, and most importantly, imagination.

Humans’ perceptions of reality are filtered by personal experiences and values, said David Maggs, a concert pianist and PhD student at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia (UBC).

As a result, the education and communication paradigm of “if we only knew better, we’d do better” is not working, Maggs told attendees at the world’s largest general science meeting. “We don’t live in the real world, but live only in the world we imagine.”

“We live in our heads. We live in storyland,” agreed John Robinson of UBC’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability.

“When we talk about sustainability we are talking about the future, how things could be. This is the landscape of imagination,” Robinson told IPS. “If we can’t imagine a better world we won’t get it.”

This imagining will be complex and difficult. Sustainability encompasses far more than just scientific facts – it also incorporates the idea of how we relate to nature and to ourselves, he said.

“We haven’t yet grasped the depth of changes that are coming.”

Because human decisions and behaviour are the result of ethics, values and emotion, and because sustainability directly involves our values and ethical concerns, science alone is insufficient to make decisions about sustainability, said Thomas Dietz, assistant vice president for environmental research at Michigan State University.

Information plays a much smaller role than we like to think, Dietz explained. In order to truly address big issues like climate change or sustainability, we need to talk at a society-wide scale about our values and reach mutual understanding about the values needed for sustainability.

“However, we don’t like to talk about our values or feelings, because it threatens our personal identity.”

Engaging the public

Treating nature as an object, separate and distinct from us, is part of the problem, said Sacha Kagan, sociologist at Leuphana University in Germany. The current environmental crisis results from technological thinking and a fear of complexity that science alone cannot help us with, Kagan said.

The objectification of the natural world began during the Age of Enlightenment about 300 years ago. People saw the world and their place in it in very different ways before that, said Robinson.

Today, he said, sustainability will not be achieved without “engaging people in numbers and at levels that have never been done before”.

New social media tools like Facebook may help with such a monumental task, as “people certainly don’t like to come to public meetings”.

Current approaches to help the public understand the implications of climate change, such as graphs or iconic pictures of polar bears, have limitations and are ineffective, said Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

“We need to find new ways to think about the future under climate change,” said Hulme.

Art could be one such approach, suggested Dietz. It would serve not as propaganda but as a creative way to engage our imaginations. “Art can provoke thinking and actually change people’s perceptions of the complex issues associated with sustainability science,” he argued.

“When we’re considering questions about preserving biodiversity versus creating jobs, art can help us examine our values and have a discussion that’s broader than just scientific facts.”

It is tempting to believe the arts can help by softening and ‘pretty-fying’ the message and bringing it to a wider audience, said award-winning photographer Joe Zammit-Lucia.

“We need to go much further to provide a different worldview that can help us re-frame the issues,” said Zammit-Lucia.

Society’s choices are driven by people’s cultural perceptions of reality, which in turn are based on their values and their cultural context, he said. While helpful, scientific knowledge and experts are also part of the problem: by dominating the sustainability discourse, they narrow people’s visions of what’s possible.

“I also don’t buy in the idea we need to make the right decisions. What we need is the right process, ways in which the public can fully participate,” he concluded.

IPS



8 Comments on "Building Sustainable Future Needs More Than Science"

  1. BillT on Mon, 20th Feb 2012 4:01 am 

    Well, a lot of words to say that the public is kept in the dark and the real problem is to break the corporate hold on ‘news’.

    Ain’t agonna happen. Not in this world. Not with the government struggling to keep it all going in the direction that makes profits and keeps the top 1/10% happy. After all, they don’t care if 6 1/2 billion of us die off. In fact, they want it too happen so the can have ‘enough’ for themselves. All they need is a few hundred million of us to keep their world going in a manner they desire. You know, serfs or maybe even slaves.

  2. DC on Mon, 20th Feb 2012 5:17 am 

    That right Bill, sustainability, however defined, was never a problem of ‘science’. We have all the science we need, and then some. It was never about that. And the ‘public’ was never consulted when corporations forced ugly cars-only cities on us, or force fed us poorly made consumer goods, designed to become obsolete or fall apart rapidly. It was never asked if it wanted a ceaseless growth in population, and the pollution, crime and decay that comes along with. None of those things were put to a discussion, much less a vote.

    Round 2, if we make that far, wont be put to a vote or discussion either. Thats b/c the only thing being discussed, is useing ‘green-tech’ so we can keep doing exactly what were doing now, only with a thin coat of corporate green-wash applied.

  3. Mike on Mon, 20th Feb 2012 6:07 am 

    Social “scientists”, provide a “worldview”, “right process”, “landscape of imagination”, …

    Bwahahah! Stop! You’re killing us! Spongebob for Dictator!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sUPvDZfog

  4. Joseph on Mon, 20th Feb 2012 2:59 pm 

    Yeah!!! if people only knew the true horror. surely they would…….
    Here is a Quote from “Sustainable Trade”, by Zoltan Ban:
    “During the bloody revolution of December 1989 in Romania, which finally toppled Ceausecu’s brutal regime, there were a few stories of soldiers and law enforcement officers being ordered to open fire on protestors on the streets. Faced with the posibility of being executed, some have subsequently admitted to closing their eyes and shooting. I personally admire those few who admitted as much, although I never met such an individual pesonally. The western workers as well as their less affluent counterparts from the developing world, faced with the choice of possibly losing their job in favor of stopping the environmental degradation we are inflicting on the planet are likely to close their eyes (actually their minds), and continue on as the soldiers did.”
    More education is the answer? Perhaps, but not the kind that some may think. Did anyone try to do this in China, among the world’s newest consumers? I wish some would, because people need a dose of reality.

  5. Kenz300 on Mon, 20th Feb 2012 5:57 pm 

    Endless population growth is not sustainable.

  6. Lisa on Tue, 21st Feb 2012 9:02 am 

    Unsustainable living habits are not sustainable. http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

  7. Newfie on Tue, 21st Feb 2012 10:49 am 

    Never ending growth is a fairy tale.

  8. Arthur on Tue, 21st Feb 2012 1:01 pm 

    @BillT: “Well, a lot of words to say that the public is kept in the dark and the real problem is to break the corporate hold on ‘news’. Ain’t agonna happen”

    There is the internet now, this medium, slowly pushing the (partially dead tree) MSM aside. Peak-Oil awareness comes for the largest part from this medium.

    @DC – I think there is a lot more awareness at the political top level of the coming problems regarding resource scarcety then they let us know. Oilmen like Dick Cheney were perfectly aware before 2003 of the situation and that was a partial reason that drove them into Afghanistan and Iraq (the geostrategic position of Israel was another reason and Saddam wanting to switch to the euro yet another).

    The problem is: how are we going to tell the public that the party is over and at the same time stay in power?

    The best way to act now for ‘humanity’ would be to engage voluntarily pro-actively in demand destruction. But how are you going to bring that message across in a democratic system?

    I do not see how to avoid a crash of society and chaos. Globalism is going to die-off and local groups everywhere are going to take over from the now reigning liberalism.

    London 2012 is going to be the last globalist Olympic Games for a long time to come.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *