Joseph Tainter taught us in 1988 that civilizations have a limited lifespan due to the marginal returns on investments declining over time. This can be regarded as a theoretical issue that has relevance for archaeologists, but ever since Jem Bendell wrote his paper on deep adaptation in 2018, I wonder whether we as conservationists and specialists in sustainable development should also consider this in how we approach our discipline and what kind of research questions we should address if our civilization is indeed already in decline ?
Personally and not representative of my place of work or related organizations:
I would offer that theory and theoretical research becomes less important: (1) theoretical knowledge requires considerable social and economic capital to maintain itself and this is more at risk to being lost than practitioner knowledge; (2) theoretical knowledge is less useful for practical adaptation than applied research and so is likely to be less helpful for making transitions; (3) it is harder to connect people to nature and develop stewardship ethic and skills using theoretical knowledge than practical knowledge. This is critical if other social structure for land stewardship decline; (4) practical projects can integrate ways to reduce GHG emissions from the research and to improve application of natural climate solutions into solution building.
Some of the best theory people travel long distances and emit high levels of GHG to get to field sites when many applied research programs tend to focus more locally. Long ago I worked at some very cool cutting edge field stations. It was a blast but travel and support GHG emissions were high.
As a conservationist, think research should priotize adaptative management of ecosystems, with a focus on efforts of restauration. Moreover, innovative solutions in renewable energy would be an asset, but a strong accent should be placed on the engagement of local communities. These are important to ensure a more sustainable and livable planet.
I would like to explore ideas and see how this is received by colleagues. I was just curious how fellow researchers feel about the topic as science mainly still holds very much a 'positivist' attitude, focusing on 'fixing problems' rather than scaling up and see everything in a wider perspective. What is science for and what should its goals be? I have been asking my students these questions for many years in a course on research methods, but I do not find many colleagues who are openly engaging about this. The first phrase in Andrew A. Whitman 's reply makes me realize it is of course not easy to do that because of institutional constraints as well. But I think it is important that we overall hedge our bets and start thinking about scenarios that are different from the 'eternal progress' scenario, just in order to cultivate a new attitude of science towards the world that we inhabit and prepare people for what may be on the horizon. So, I was mainly just exploring ideas about the topic. It is also great to see an African colleague Marcelin Murhula engaging with this topic as I think in Africa there is a lot of experience with building 'resilience' which may be exactly what is required to address this question.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agricultural Science
- Agronomy