I think it is a mistake to say (as professors K. Hickey and D. Kantarelis at Assumption College did) that this proposal ...
Biological Model for Politics and Economics: Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html… would require changes in human nature.
Maybe *I* am mistaken in thinking that this is a reasonable and practical proposal that describes real possibilities.
We could make a judgment about whether this proposal is contrary to human nature if Hickey and Kantarelis would be willing to say *what* changes in human nature would be required. How is our nature inconsistent with this proposal? What changes would be required?
Which aspect(s) of the proposal, exactly, is (are) being challenged?
After repeated requests, these professors have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to extend a professional courtesy to offer a sentence or paragraph of explanation or elaboration of their assertion.
I have just ended a three-day fast. I did the fast to protest DIS-courtesy.
This fast was not done merely to protest the discourtesy that might disrespect me or others personally. This was a protest of discourtesy that covers for or hides a serious neglect of what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal; one that might be part of a natural unfoldment of a sustainable and just human civilization on Earth.
Following this path *might* be part of a natural unfoldment of a new phenomenon in the universe (a sustainable and just global civilization), except that this natural development is forestalled by an UN-willingness to bring these ideas to a wider audience and make them part of the public discourse.
What change(s) in human nature would be required before we could create a policy of charging fees or selling permits to polluters? Or, what changes would be required in our nature before we could create a rule or law that says these fee proceeds will be shared among all people, to each an equal amount?
I'm still wondering.
(If the professors are unwilling to answer these questions, perhaps a reader here would like tto do so.)
How to make the biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a mistake to allow public discourse to be dominated by arguments about whether humans cause climate instability or about how much change can be attributed to human activities or about whether that change might be good or bad, on balance.
Public discourse ought to be focused on discovering efficient and fair ways to bring the reality about environmental impacts into line with what most people think those impacts should be.
We should be talking about what are the most effective, transparent and verifiable means for discerning the will of the people regarding the various kinds of human impacts on the environment.
We could use random surveys to learn what rates of emissions and what rates of taking of resources most people believe are acceptable. We would need to conduct many different surveys that inquire about the many different kinds of environmental impacts, but since polls of very large groups (in this case, the global population) can use relatively small sample sizes and still produce accurate results, we would likely be asked a question related to air pollution, for example, only about once or twice a year. (That's assuming 30,000 chemicals or classes of chemicals, and a sample size of 30,000.)
NPR Cosmos and Culture blog 13.7 - Admitting mistakes: a heroic act in science
No comments:
Post a Comment