Can it Work

[foodchain]

Can having the future of the environment for what that really means be left simply to the field of environmental science? Can all of the reality of the natural science and social sciences from biology, physics to law and psychology really be condensed into one field and have such people expected to be able to perform, or should such be a reality that humanity needs to embrace in its aggregate of interests and activities that such a field solely has to encompass?

[pioneer]

It almost sounds like you are contrasting specialization with generalization. A specialist can approach the environment from one angle with a lot of focus right down to the tiny detail. The generalist would approach the environment, with much less depth in any one area, but from many points of views, all at the same time.

 

The advantage of the generalists approach is that, although it may not optimize the environment, in one special way, it makes it easier to find the compromise that maximizes all the many different interests.

 

For example, from an purely environmental point of view, the ideal may be zero emissions, pure water, air, no strip mining, etc. From the point of view of developing countries, it may require they do these things.

 

There are also the concerns of the naturalists who wish to protect species and eco-systems. But there are also nutritionists who wish to feed the hungry, who might suggest introducing new species into eco-systems. Then the geneticists want to bio-engineer new plants.

 

One also needs to add economic factors and concerns, that are a fact if life. There are also political factors, that may ebb and flow depending on election cycles. There are also sociological things that limit choices. All these will need to have their finger on the pie before we divide. When you are done, compromising, nobody will be full of pie, but everyone will have a good taste.

 

With specialization, each specialty takes the negociation stance of all, because they know so much about the importance of their point of view. But other points of view are also valid, and they feel the same way. The generalists doesn't know enough to buy any one point of view, but knows enough about a lot of points if view to know they also make valid points. From the synthesis, of many concerns, we work to the middle ground.

 

Maybe a university could put together an eco-generalist curriculum. It would be coursework in environmental science, health, politics, economic, sociology, culture antrapology, ethics, whatever, all geared to the environmental position each needs to optimize its position. One learns to put on everyone's finest hat and then see if we can reach compromises. The generalists tries to develop wisdom through general knowledge.