[Ibon]

I downloaded Origin of Species by Charles Darwin for .99 cents as an e-book and just finished reading it. It was 35 years since I read the book. What occurred to me this time around was how the observation of macro ecological phenomenon in the field lead Darwin to his theory of evolution and how natural sciences since his time have become more specialized and more micro down to the phylogenetic work on genes that determines evolutionary taxonomy today. Evolutionary biologists today rarely even go out into the field anymore and their level of specialization takes them far adrift from understanding the macro phenomenon of natural history. They know gene sequences but little of bio-geography for example.

I am guessing that this is also true in a suite of other fields from engineering to medicine to economics to sociology, etc. Specialization to the point that you can’t see the forest for the specialized tree you are perched on.
It is no wonder that we are so incapable of acting on the macro consequences of human overshoot when we live in a world of collective blind specialists so to speak. No one is steering the ship with a view of the broad horizon.
Reading original material from a couple hundred years ago really can provide insights into how far we have come at the same time as how far away we have drifted.

I thought this merited a thread of its own, the danger of becoming a bunch of short sighted mice focused on our minutiae where individuals and institutions can no longer act on macro consequences that are becoming more undeniable every day.

To open a discussion on this topic leads to the question, is this direction of specialization also one of those cyclical phenomenon that will one day swing back once we drift so far afield that consequences actually pull us back into the realm of the macro and holistic? Isn’t climate change one of those forces? Here we are 7 billion blind little mice specialized on our tasks as we do damage to the ultimate macro environment, our planet? Does this explain both the lack of collective will and blindness in being incapable of steering us toward mitigations. Or in finance the ever more sophisticated algorithms that go into moving a market and how this is taking us so far afield from a resilient economic system resulting in great disparity of wealth. Or how medicine is recently moving into specializing on the genetic level in offering tailor made therapies for the individual at exactly the time when the vast majority can no longer afford basic health care. It seems these are all examples of disparities and a weakening of collective resiliency that happens when there is over specialization.

Our species seems in exile and adrift in this specialized blindness.

[Timo]

Ibon, the macro disciplines are there, but they've been effectively vilified for their lack of easily useable information. Those disciplines I speak of, and which I think you're suggesting are lacking, are studies such as sociology, and anthropology, and philosophy. When was the last time you had a professor of Philosophy visit Mt. Totumas? Those studies are too human-oriented, and I'm pretty sure the money for these specializations doesn't really care much about humanity, and it's various, twisted exhibitions. You can get the macro view of anthropology on PBS, or A&E, or Nat. Geo. Interesting viewing, but not really anything more than that.

The biological and physical sciences, however, genuinely do offer near-term hope for the applications of new discoveries into medicines, or materials for CO2 storage, or energy storage. In other words, that's where the money is, and technologies are enabling a much finer and smaller view of our world. The hope is that the closer we look into how our world is created, clear down to the smallest quark-level, we'll be able to reconstruct our world in a better way to effectively address the problems we've caused to the planet as a human species. If we can figure out a way to sequester CO2 and other GH gases, the oil and coal industries do not have any reason to cease operations. If we can figure out nuclear fusion, well then, we're almost literally free to do anything we damn well please.

To be blatantly blunt about this, Darwin is old school. We've been there. We've done that. Most of humanity readily accepts the theories of evolution, and the off-shoot disciplines for further study are viewed as less valuable to humanity than the micro sciences that can alleviate the suffering we're causing for our children, and our children's children. Simply put, we have higher priorities right now.

I'm not suggesting that our priorities are right, by any means, but knowledge about how an isolated geographical climate can affect the evolutionary traits of the tufted titmouse is of much less monetary value than the potential use of mercury as a more powerful cathode for the recharge of sulfur/cadmium ion batteries. (BTW, I most certainly am not a chemist, and what I just wrote could easily be, and probably is complete BS!)

To your larger point, though, I think humanity is entering a new phase of evolution, or alt least cultural adaptation. As you've correctly observed, no one seems to be interested in studying the big picture anymore. We're all down at the micro level. Well, I think that's because, collectively, the money that funds science and education has pretty much accepted that we're screwed. We're all familiar (too familiar) with the doom scenarios and forecasts that await us in the future. We're not interested in learning more about that because we are now trying to do everything we can to reverse that inevitability. Wildlife biology, in the collective sense for humanity, is a waste of time. Our future is at stake. We should direct our attentions to the problems that affect our survival on the planet, and not the affects of AGW on armadillos. In this sense, we're seeking macro solutions by focusing on the smallest elements of our universe.

While driving down to Southland in NZ several years ago, the welcome sign to the district said something like Welcome to Southland, where we put People First. Someone had written below that with a can of spray paint Bugger Nature!

I hate to say it, but that seems to be the attitudes of most of civilization, these days. People first. Bugger nature.

[Newfie]

"People first, buggar nature"

Yeah,mi see that a lot also. Except, like it or not we are a part of nature. So we buggar ourselves.

Hard to see that at the micro level.

[Newfie]

I'm an engineer. Damned if I know what I do anymore. I'm working on four jobs...a toll highway in ca, a high speed rail job, a people mover and a bus radio design build job. I'm doing an ip addressing scheme, a fo design, managing the interface between a technology supplier and the electrical contractor, and estimating a civil/electrical scope of work. Other times I have written technical problems powwow and done rf simulations.

Yeah, I'm a generalist. Even as a very big company we have trouble keeping specialist employed. And the specialist don't help by being afraid to go outside their specific discipline. It's a huge problem. We have a few folks like myself who never lack for work, but we are hard pressed to keep others fully billable. I'm no smarter than they are. But somehow there is a difference in attitude.

It's a big problem for my company and the one before it.

Just my observations.

[Timo]

Newfie, think smaller. The less you think, the easier it is to fit inside your own personal comfort zone.

Big thoughts are scary! If you think too big, you'll lose your job for not containing yourself within your very small, specific assignments.

Thinking big is like going rogue. Going rogue is bad for contract business.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', ' ')Our future is at stake. We should direct our attentions to the problems that affect our survival on the planet, and not the affects of AGW on armadillos. In this sense, we're seeking macro solutions by focusing on the smallest elements of our universe.

Most of humanity readily accepts the theories of evolution, and the off-shoot disciplines for further study are viewed as less valuable to humanity than the micro sciences that can alleviate the suffering we're causing for our children, and our children's children. Simply put, we have higher priorities right now.

The hope is that the closer we look into how our world is created, clear down to the smallest quark-level, we'll be able to reconstruct our world in a better way to effectively address the problems we've caused to the planet as a human species.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'N')ewfie, think smaller. The less you think, the easier it is to fit inside your own personal comfort zone.

Big thoughts are scary! If you think too big, you'll lose your job for not containing yourself within your very small, specific assignments.

Thinking big is like going rogue. Going rogue is bad for contract business.

[Cog]

Technological advances force specialization whether it has an overall desirable outcome or not. Specialization works more efficiently in a high technology society. If you think back to primitive cultures, being a generalist(jack-of-all-trades and one where everyone must cooperate for the tribal survival, would be a preferable model.

In a high tech culture, if that even has meaning, I can fit into that culture quite easily by utilizing my own specialized talent. Others, with their own specialized talent provide the survival skills that insure my own survival and those of culture at large. No one looks at the big picture, because no one really needs to anymore. There is a lot of redundancy. At least as long as the technology can be sustained. If that fails, as you alluded to, we will be forced to cooperate more closely as a social group. But until then, I expect nothing different.

[Timo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'W')hat you are suggesting here is that there is some over arching design happening on the micro level that is somehow contributing to resolving the macro problems of human overshoot. This claim seems dubious. Sure you can point to battery technology but I could just as easy point to thousands of other micro specializations that are not at all related to resolving the macro problems of human overshoot.

[Timo]

BTW, Ibon, my wife just told me she downloaded Origin of Species for FREE!

[jedrider]

Science-wise, specialization has been necessary and very good for science. I remember people worrying about careers at the PhD level where you pick something and know more about it than anyone else. It didn't seem very appealing to me, so I just went out there in the workforce to see what I LIKE to do, or could get a job doing, actually

However, recently, if you follow science, the generalists are having their day, because they can draw on so much work already done and so much data already accumulated by the specialists.

As a way of life, it is good to have the big picture in mind, but it may not pay the bills.

[Newfie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'N')ewfie, think smaller. The less you think, the easier it is to fit inside your own personal comfort zone.

Big thoughts are scary! If you think too big, you'll lose your job for not containing yourself within your very small, specific assignments.

Thinking big is like going rogue. Going rogue is bad for contract business.

[Newfie]

The effects of specialization are many. Think about language. Anyone with some degree of specialization has learned at least one vernacular in addition to our core common language. I try to read my wife's psychobabble journals and they are difficult. My engineering stuff is as bad for her. And we are relative generalist.

I suspect it is not only the language but the cultural references of the specialization. Once y go sufficiently down the rat hole you become so deeply ensconced into the nuances of you peer group that it may become difficult to relate to adjacent study groups. Let alone society at large.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'B')TW, Ibon, my wife just told me she downloaded Origin of Species for FREE!

[SeaGypsy]

Yeah funny most people think Darwin was an atheist, merely for defying sanctioned positions within a dogmatic schism. Same with Nietzsche, spent most of his life trying to define God in obscurity, discovering greatness only when he finally looked within for God. The cycles of stories repeating eternally, the really good ones, 'Chinese Ghosts'.

[hvacman]

The late Garrett Hardin points out in many of his writings that "whole system" scientists who look at the interrelatedness of all the various scientific specializations are called "Ecologists". He says a truly well-educated person in today's society should be:

Literate (understand the words)
Numerate (understand the numbers)
Ecolate (understand the inter-relationships)

Basically, be both scientifically near-sighted (be able to see the trees) and far-sighted (be able to see the forest). And be literate enough to have the ability to filter the words funneled to you by those who would rather convince you that you are looking at a desert and grains of sand.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hvacman', 'T')he late Garrett Hardin points out in many of his writings that "whole system" scientists who look at the interrelatedness of all the various scientific specializations are called "Ecologists". He says a truly well-educated person in today's society should be:

Literate (understand the words)
Numerate (understand the numbers)
Ecolate (understand the inter-relationships)

Basically, be both scientifically near-sighted (be able to see the trees) and far-sighted (be able to see the forest). And be literate enough to have the ability to filter the words funneled to you by those who would rather convince you that you are looking at a desert and grains of sand.

[onlooker]

I will offer a little variant upon the comments in this thread. As humans we have built a cocoon which are our cities. Within those cities we are born and die. This disconnect with nature can be viewed as a specialization in regards to our immersion in a urban environment without a need to account for or appreciate nature. So this lack of involvement has meant that mankind did not 'NEED" to know about nature and how to live within it to survive. It recalls that infantile adage that you ask a teenager where does food come from and she/he replies the supermarket. So this narrow range of experience defines our urban specialization. It is one of the contributors to our woeful disregard for nature.

[Timo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hvacman', 'T')he late Garrett Hardin points out in many of his writings that "whole system" scientists who look at the interrelatedness of all the various scientific specializations are called "Ecologists". He says a truly well-educated person in today's society should be:

Literate (understand the words)
Numerate (understand the numbers)
Ecolate (understand the inter-relationships)

Basically, be both scientifically near-sighted (be able to see the trees) and far-sighted (be able to see the forest). And be literate enough to have the ability to filter the words funneled to you by those who would rather convince you that you are looking at a desert and grains of sand.

[MD]

You all are too wrapped up in your trees.

Too many words.

It's over. Deal with it.

You and yours might not survive.

Put your efforts into those endeavors that might come through.