View - ResearchGate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

280Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainability Ethicscandidate, but persuasive information about many of the attributes listed in this commentary (e.g.environmental monitoring, self-regulating ecosystems, ecosystem health and integrity) is extremelydifficult to obtain, very likely because it is not commonly generated.However, a test of congruency could compare the attributes that are ideal for achieving sustainableuse of the planet and the actual attributes of a nation or ecoregion. The percentage of differencebetween the two could be determined:Sustainability Score = actual/ideal × 100 = sustainability index = %The list of sustainability attributes in this commentary is illustrative, but what if some type ofmeasurement were a reality — i.e. actually measuring how far along the path of sustainabilityhumankind really is? What if this resultant measurement accelerated the abandonment of unsustainablepractices? What if people realized that sustainable use of the planet requires doing morethan saying they favor it? Humankind would then know which, if any, nations might serve as modelsfor achieving sustainability. What if progressing along the path to sustainable use of the planetbecame a primary goal? What if the citizens of each nation improved the illustrative list of sustainabilityattributes to fit their particular circumstances? What if humankind abandoned denial of thedamage it is doing to the ecological life support system and the 30+ million fellow life forms withwhich it shares the planet?However, in the far recesses of the mind, two sobering ‘what ifs’ remain. What if humankind continuesits present unsustainable practices for the remainder of the 21st century? What if nature’slaws stop the exponential growth of the human population and its concomitant destruction of naturalcapital and ecosystem services? If humankind continues unsustainable practices until it findsthe answers to these last two ‘what ifs,’ this collapse will demonstrate that the human mind was anevolutionary failure. One hopes that reason guided by evidence, compassion, and ethics will makethese two ‘what ifs’ merely speculative visions.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am indebted to K. Cairns for transferring the handwritten first draft to typed format and to D. Donald foreditorial assistance in preparing this manuscript for publication.LITERATURE CITEDPostel S (1999) Pillars of sand. WW Norton, New YorkSchneider EL (1999) Aging in the third millennium. Science 283:796–797Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BritishColumbia
281Article 34With kind permission of Springer Science and Business Media (Kluwer Academic Publishers)Speculations in Science and Technology 16(3):163–170, 1993Communication and Status: The Dilemma of an EnvironmentalScientistJohn Cairns, Jr.University Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA‘Hard science’ is quantitative and based on numbers, but ‘soft science’ requires qualitative judgment. Theharder the science, the higher the status. There is, however, another aspect of assigning status: degree ofindependence. Environmental scientists typically study complex multivariate problems beyond the capabilitiesof a single discipline. They form interdisciplinary teams intended to interact and resolve problems.The connections and synthesis that environmental scientists regard as positive attributes of interdisciplinarywork, ‘hard scientists’ judge as marks of incompetence and insecurity. This situation is remarkablyanalogous to the gender differences in communicating.INTRODUCTIONThe genesis of this article was a talk by the Reverend Catherine C. Snyder at the BlacksburgUnitarian Fellowship based on a book by sociologist Deborah Tannen. 1 As the talk progressed, Iwas struck by the correspondence between communication among women and communicationamong interdisciplinary team members, and by the correspondence between the problems ofcommunicating from one gender to the other and those of interdisciplinary practitioners communicatingto disciplinary practitioners. For women, being understood is [the] most important aspect ofcommunication; for men, being understood is less important than establishing status. For interdisciplinaryprojects, it is essential that all team members understand what each is doing. A projectthat does not achieve at least some level of mutual understanding is doomed to failure. As in thecase of ‘communication’ between men, within an area of specialization, status is achieved bymaking the listener struggle to comprehend the message, and, if the message is not understood, itis regarded as a deficiency not of the speaker but of the listener.When the Reverend Snyder talked about communication in her address, I had a vivid flashbackto a departmental seminar I attended several decades ago presented by an outside speaker on arather esoteric area of genetics. On the way out of the seminar room, one of the senior facultymembers commented on how scholarly and scientific the seminar had been. Since I had beenthoroughly confused, I asked the senior member (not a geneticist) what the basic message hadbeen. Not only was he unable to tell me, but he saw no contradiction between this inability tosummarize the talk and his evaluation of the seminar. Intrigued by this response, I questioned twodepartmental geneticists about the ‘take-home’ message and found, to my glee, that neither had
Page 1 and 2:
INTERNATIONALESEP BOOKSJ O U R N A
Page 3 and 4:
Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainabili
Page 5 and 6:
Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainabili
Page 7 and 8:
161Article 18Reproduced with permis
Page 9 and 10:
Article 18163trate on cigarette smo
Page 11 and 12:
Article 18165remained hostile and m
Page 13 and 14:
Article 18167WAR AND THE STOCK MARK
Page 15 and 16:
Article 18169SECURITY AS A DEFINING
Page 17 and 18:
171Article 19Reproduced from Ethics
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
176Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainab
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
186Article 21Reproduced from Ethics
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
210Article 25Reprinted with permiss
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77: 230Article 27Reproduced from Ethics
Page 78 and 79: 232Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainab
Page 134 and 135: 288Article 35Reproduced with permis
show all

View - ResearchGate

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?