Quite a statement here: "There wasn’t a single moment in which “science” said something like “you should use your resources without exhausting them”. May I remind you of the report "limits to growth" published by the Club of Rome in 1972? Or "Our Common Future" , published by the Bruntland Commission in 1987? Sure, the scientific foundation of both has been criticized, but both exactly are moments were science said why we should use our resources with some care, why we should use common sense.
Something more we also seem to have forgotten. These days we are bombarded with info and advertorials and what not that we should insulate our houses, reduce the heating, get double windows, choose public transport over private cars, put solar panels on our roofs. Again, not new. Similar campaigns, same intensity, were done in the early 1970's. Now maybe more deep: get rid of the internal combustion motors and gas fired heating systems. Although that does not really safe energy, just uses another energy carrier. The reason now is different from the 70's. Now it is climate change, back then is was because of the oil boycott from OPEC. Campaigns kept on going, with some periods low, some periods high. Motivated by science, economics and maybe by the campaigns, I put PV solarpanels on the roof of my house already in 2020.
How come we keep forgetting? Do we only act if there is a crisis? When we get kicked in the behind? Hear the science, hear the politicians. Better not to hear, but to listen to the science and hear the politicians and make them listen.
Last but not least. Science gave us bigger cars, the opportunity to fly around the world but also this thing I am hitting on, the keyboard of my laptop that connects me to the world. And I never want to go back to nature, as the hippies back then and some new deranged varieties promote these days. It is not the science that damages things, it is the way we use it.
To begin with, the work of the club of Rome (which was not only scientifically weak, but also turned out to be fundamentally wrong) and the results of the Brundtland Commission are not science. Not for a second. They are policy papers, written by scientists. There is a fundamental difference there, which I am fairly sure you understand. Scientists, even great scientists, have frequently make a mess when they try to become policy makers. Shall we remember Einstein advising the creation of an atomic bomb to end all wars once and for all? To write policy and to do science are fundamentally different tasks.
To continue, I am not sure what’s your point about the waves of campaigns regarding saving energy. Have we try to do the same thing due to different reasons? sure. Is that a problem? what’s your point?
It might be that you are talking about the forgetfulness of us humans. But I don’t agree that we forget. We process, another important piece of knowledge that policy makers might contribute to the scientist. IN the scientific process memory is ideally (and frequently) perfect. Because we publish in paper, and those papers are there for ever to be consulted. We are train to consult them. NOt in dealing with people. Policy makers know that the advice given twenty years ago is as good as non existent. You know why as good as me: people and societies change. The reality of th seventies has very little to do with our reality in this crazy twenties that we are entering.
Last but not least indeed. I think that the hippies say plenty of things that have move us to a better road. Do I want to experience nature as most of them wished? not at all. But I certainly want our technology be more consonant with whatever you define as nature. And that, my dear friend, is heritage of the hippies, whether you like it or not.
History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Quite a statement here: "There wasn’t a single moment in which “science” said something like “you should use your resources without exhausting them”. May I remind you of the report "limits to growth" published by the Club of Rome in 1972? Or "Our Common Future" , published by the Bruntland Commission in 1987? Sure, the scientific foundation of both has been criticized, but both exactly are moments were science said why we should use our resources with some care, why we should use common sense.
Something more we also seem to have forgotten. These days we are bombarded with info and advertorials and what not that we should insulate our houses, reduce the heating, get double windows, choose public transport over private cars, put solar panels on our roofs. Again, not new. Similar campaigns, same intensity, were done in the early 1970's. Now maybe more deep: get rid of the internal combustion motors and gas fired heating systems. Although that does not really safe energy, just uses another energy carrier. The reason now is different from the 70's. Now it is climate change, back then is was because of the oil boycott from OPEC. Campaigns kept on going, with some periods low, some periods high. Motivated by science, economics and maybe by the campaigns, I put PV solarpanels on the roof of my house already in 2020.
How come we keep forgetting? Do we only act if there is a crisis? When we get kicked in the behind? Hear the science, hear the politicians. Better not to hear, but to listen to the science and hear the politicians and make them listen.
Last but not least. Science gave us bigger cars, the opportunity to fly around the world but also this thing I am hitting on, the keyboard of my laptop that connects me to the world. And I never want to go back to nature, as the hippies back then and some new deranged varieties promote these days. It is not the science that damages things, it is the way we use it.
Ah Rene! Thanks for the loving commentary. Let me see if i can reciprocate and write about your several points.
To begin with, the work of the club of Rome (which was not only scientifically weak, but also turned out to be fundamentally wrong) and the results of the Brundtland Commission are not science. Not for a second. They are policy papers, written by scientists. There is a fundamental difference there, which I am fairly sure you understand. Scientists, even great scientists, have frequently make a mess when they try to become policy makers. Shall we remember Einstein advising the creation of an atomic bomb to end all wars once and for all? To write policy and to do science are fundamentally different tasks.
To continue, I am not sure what’s your point about the waves of campaigns regarding saving energy. Have we try to do the same thing due to different reasons? sure. Is that a problem? what’s your point?
It might be that you are talking about the forgetfulness of us humans. But I don’t agree that we forget. We process, another important piece of knowledge that policy makers might contribute to the scientist. IN the scientific process memory is ideally (and frequently) perfect. Because we publish in paper, and those papers are there for ever to be consulted. We are train to consult them. NOt in dealing with people. Policy makers know that the advice given twenty years ago is as good as non existent. You know why as good as me: people and societies change. The reality of th seventies has very little to do with our reality in this crazy twenties that we are entering.
Last but not least indeed. I think that the hippies say plenty of things that have move us to a better road. Do I want to experience nature as most of them wished? not at all. But I certainly want our technology be more consonant with whatever you define as nature. And that, my dear friend, is heritage of the hippies, whether you like it or not.