Not Understanding Aspects of Science Can be Problematic

Preface

What is "science"?  Both definitions below apply.
1.  Science is a systematically/methodically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
2.  It's also an activity involving the systematic study of the structure and function of various aspects of the physical/natural world.
................................
What Some People Don't Seem to Understand

1.  Science and scientists deal in degrees of probability, not certainty.  In other words, science is not absolute.  Why?  There are too many variables (known and unknown) to be accounted for in any scientific investigation.  Because of that, when new discoveries are made in a particular area of research, the previous theory is likely to be modified or even discarded.  With new research, past conclusions change.

At any particular time, our knowledge is limited.  Even some theoretical physicists have said (paraphrased):  we humans have barely scratched the surface of reality.  That runs contrary to what many, perhaps most, people think regarding what we know.  In short, we are not as knowledgeable as we generally believe.  One of the biggest problems in the world today is that too many times we jump to conclusions based upon insufficient/inadequate information.

2.  Scientists sometimes do not arrive at the same conclusion regarding any particular topic of research.  Why?  The reasons are many and varied.  For instance, scientist A may have a vested interest in a particular outcome, while scientist B may be more objective.  Or, scientist A may understand the technical aspects of the study much better than scientist B.  Or... etc.

All the above is why science relies on many investigations, rigorous peer review, and constant challenging of results before accepting any theory as the closest known approximation to what's "true".  Even then, the future may hold some surprises concerning accepted beliefs.
....................................
Why A Lack of Understanding of the Above Items Can be Problematic

• Too many people appear to want instant answers nowadays.  Worse than that, they seem to expect absolutes.  When they get neither, too many migrate over to nonscientific, emotional positions held by autocrat wannabes, corporatists, and others with destructive vested interests.
• Their misunderstandings of science often lead them to reject scientific warnings of damage to natural systems which is not immediately and blatantly visible.  They can experience damage to the economy.  When it comes to the complexity of ecosystem damage, that's not always so visible.
• When new research results in a modification to some particular theory, instead of accepting that as normal, I suspect that too many people tend to reject science in total.  A trivial example---  A fictitious person with little science knowledge speaking:  "First their research claims that drinking coffee is bad for you, then more research says it's good for you, and now it's back to bad for you.  They don't know what's what."  

.....................................
Conclusion

Every time I've read a research article, a "journal article", I've again been impressed with the dedication, the rigor, and the discipline that goes into scientific investigations.  Because of my interests, that's especially true for the natural sciences.  So, for decades I've been amazed and somewhat dismayed by too many people seemingly rejecting the warnings by scientists of the damage being done to natural systems... and of the ever-increasing impact on humans and society in general.

I believe this essay explains a part of that rejection.  Other things are instrumental, too... propaganda/advertising, materialism, the wanting of more & more & more, a lack of education, distractions due to "bread and circuses", etc.  If organized human existence is to thrive on our finite planet, then all that has to change.

Some people believe the answer is for humanity to migrate to another celestial body.  I'm open-minded, but consider the following.  Exactly how are we going to transport billions of people to this new home.  More importantly, who do you think would get to make the trip (should it ever be a possible choice)?  My guess is:  the Super-Rich, and a small contingent of "workers".  Not many others.  So, I don't think that's a viable option.

Though the obstacles are great, a much better option is to change our ethics, change our economic system (which is destroying our life support), and clean up the mess we've made.  Some countries, Germany comes to mind, are already starting that whole process.  Europe, in general, is light-years ahead of the USA in that regard.  Kudos.
.............................................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

Unlimited Growth, Overconsumption, Equity, and Ecological Economics

Preface

It should be axiomatic that the concept of perpetual, unlimited economic growth and consumption on a finite planet is delusional thinking.  Instead, that concept appears to be the unquestionable mantra of mainstream/neoliberal economics around the world.  I believe it came to be that way because it started when our world was relatively empty of humans, and relatively full of natural resources.

Even later, when I was a freshman at Colorado State U. (1961), the human population was only three billion.  Perceptions of future, unlimited possibilities were quite different then.  Even though it was fairly pervasive, environmental degradation largely was unrecognized by most people.  Natural resources seemed to be super abundant, and in a perpetually unlimited supply.  Overall, the biophysical world appeared to be almost limitless.  The idol of unlimited economic expansion was "worshipped" around the world.

In 1968, a book by Paul R. Ehrlich & his wife, Anne, The Population Bomb, was published.  It was a best-seller, and made the points that this planet is finite, the natural environment will be degraded even more significantly, and the availability of resources will not keep pace with overpopulation.  The book was attacked rather viciously by believers in unlimited growth.

In 1972, after a two-year study by M.I.T. researchers (utilizing a large, mainframe computer), the results were published in a book titled, The Limits of Growth.  Like the Ehrlichs' book, it was a best-seller.  And it was attacked even more fiercely.  This is a fascinating story, and the author, Christopher Ketcham, is one helluva writer.  See the details here---
https://psmag.com/magazine/fallacy-of-endless-growth .
....................................
The Ignorance & Neglect by Economists of Biophysical Constraints

It appears to me that most mainstream economists have little to no higher education in the natural sciences.  In the essay at the link above, Ketcham quotes a number of them, as follows.
1. Oxford U. economist, W. Beckerman:  "[There's] no reason to suppose that economic growth cannot continue for another 2,500 years.".
2.  Harvard economist, C. Kaysen:  "[Some studies show] the Earth's available matter and energy could support a population of 3.5 trillion...".
3.  J. Simon (deceased), University of Illinois economist, stated in 1992:  "We now have... the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years.".
Those beliefs are, of course, sheer nonsense.  I can surmise only that they are due to an almost total ignorance of natural science.

In contrast, ecological economics fully recognizes biophysical constraints, and the negative impacts on our natural life support systems of pursuing unlimited growth.  From An Introduction to Ecological Economics (1997), by Robert Costanza, Herman Daly, et.al.:  "The basic problems...include:  ...highly entropy-increasing technologies that deplete the earth of its resources and whose unassimilated wastes poison the air, water, and land... ".

Unlimited Growth and Overconsumption

I recently watched a 2011 British documentary, "Consumed - inside the belly of the beast".  It effectively illustrated humanity's cultural evolution to the stage at which we find ourselves now:  lost in materialism, consumerism, short-term shallow thinking, the pursuit of unnecessary prestige, and trying our best to ignore the destruction of the ecosphere.  It also put forth the proposition that this stage is a temporary glitch in the development of the species, Homo sapiens.  The makers of the film see a future shift to sustainability and ecoethics.  Let's all hope that's the case for our species.

The film detailed how, over decades, we've been molded by advertising and propaganda to believe that consumer goods can bring us meaning, prestige, contentment, fulfillment, and the big kahuna, happiness.  The key is to buy more and more goods.  Over the years, as we've come to realize ultimately none of that is true, our discontent, anxiety, and emptiness all have increased.  During the same time, we've been trained (in a sense) to seek instant gratification, all the latest tech gizmos (to be replaced every year or two), and to desire having "the latest thing".  Now, we're at the point of a line from an old Rolling Stones' song:  "I can't get no satisfaction.".  On top of all that, too many people seem to believe that Nature is nice, but not especially important... and not really necessary.

In recent years, both mainstream economists and corporate America have used all the above to double-down on their promotion of perpetual, unlimited growth.  Any problems regarding natural resource depletion or ecosphere damage, they say, can be handled by new technology and/or the substitution of one resource for another.  Some mega corporations even have advertised their new "green" initiatives concerning corporate operations.  There's one big problem with all these solutions:  they are all within the framework of continuing unlimited economic growth and consumption... on a finite planet.

Ever-increasing economic growth means ever-increasing throughput. "Throughput" is the total flow of resources from the Earth ecosystem to the economic subsystem... and then back to the ecosystem as waste.  One doesn't have to be a genius to understand that more & more & more of such a system is unsustainable.  It's folly to believe that undiscovered, new technology and/or substitutable resources will prevent the collapse of our natural life support system.  That collapse already has started.  Much more than we've been trying to, we need to mitigate it NOW.  We must undergo a major shift in ethical and cultural values.  The old paradigm is killing us... literally... and both directly & indirectly.  It's time to implement steady-state, ecological economics.

Equity

It's all well and good to say, in the developed world countries we have a democratic system which ensures everyone's chance to pursue happiness and fulfillment; however, the reality is as follows.
1.  The playing field too often is not level; it's not even close to level.
2.  Resources (including financial resources) often are not allocated fairly.
3.  Many countries (including the USA) don't appear to understand the value of having all citizens educated to the highest degree that their capabilities and desires allow.  Some other, more enlightened nations provide access to universal higher education at (for the most part) no cost to the student.
4.  Adequate health care for many people (including many in the USA) is not available, or is too expensive.
5.  Neoliberal politics and corporatist policies (both public and private) greatly favor the Upper Class.  The excuse given is that the Rich supply jobs to everyone else.  Wealth supposedly "trickles down".  That's more often not true than it's true.  Even when it does happen, the jobs too often are temporary and/or part-time, and/or low-paying.
6.  Too many poor people often are relegated to living in neighborhoods which are much too close to the "sinks" of economic throughput wastes.  The resulting exposure to air pollution, water pollution, and land/soil pollution negatively affects their physical health, mental health, and general well-being.
7.  Perpetual wars and insanely bloated defense budgets siphon limited funds away from infrastructure repair/replacement and from social safety nets.  Primarily, they benefit Mega Banks and other Mega Corporations.  The wars often are the result of shrinking natural resources.  Stronger countries want guaranteed access to them.

Conclusion

Pursuing unlimited economic growth, overconsumption, a lack of equity, perpetual wars, essentially unlimited population growth, and neoliberal policies in general have resulted in:
1.  an ecological crisis probably never before imagined (shrinking natural resources, damaged or destroyed ecosystems, disease proliferation, an excess of greenhouse gases, increasing pollution in general, a loss of necessary biodiversity, etc.);
2.  gross social and income inequality (due to a lack of equity and ethics);
3.  a growing discontent with both public and private institutions; and,
4.  an increasing sense of despair over the condition of humanity.

It's time for a significant change in present-day economics, equity, and ethics.  Ecological economics is one part of a sane, sustainable, and much needed path forward.
........................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

A Brief Introduction to Ecological Economics - The Sane Path Forward

Preface

If we are to avoid an ecological catastrophe, then a relatively rapid paradigm shift must occur in a number of key areas.  One of those areas is economics, specifically, the neoliberal/neoclassical economic system that currently is dominant worldwide.  In this essay, I'll explain why I think the shift should be to ecological economics (EE).  The Intro here shall be bare bones; subsequent posts will cover in some depth various aspects (including criticisms) of the subject.

For two-plus decades, I've been puzzled (baffled, really) as to why neoliberal thinking views the economic system as separate from Nature.  Any economic system is embedded in the natural world - in ecosystems, in biogeochemical cycles, and is subject to the Laws of Nature, so to speak.  Do we not extract timber, other plant products, common minerals, rare earth minerals, water, fish, etc. from the natural world?  Do we not all breathe air?  Are not all businesses (and consumers) sometimes subject to the whims of flooding, storms, droughts, natural vectors of disease, and the like?  Obviously, the answer to each question above is YES.  Consequently, it makes no sense to me for anyone to believe that any economic system is not a smaller piece of the natural world.  In a very real sense, even though this planet has innumerable ecosystems, Earth itself is one giant ecosystem.  No artificial system is separate from or larger than that.
..................................
Why Ecological Economics (EE) is the Sane Path Forward

William Rees, founding member and past president of the Canadian Society for EE, wrote a brilliant piece five years ago for the Great Transition Initiative:   https://greattransition.org/publication/economics-vs-the-economy  In that essay, he makes the point that EE recognizes the economy as "an open, wholly dependent subsystem of the ecosphere...".  [Emphasis added.]   Natural resources are extracted from, and wastes are injected back into, Nature.  Any material transformations in these processes are subject to Natural Law (e.g., the Laws of Thermodynamics).  In other words, any economy is not outside of or separate from the natural world.

The neoliberal economic paradigm operates as if the opposite were true.  As a result, our world is now mired in a plethora of ecological disasters:  loss of biodiversity, which is damaging ecosystem services to humanity and nonhuman life; habitat destruction causing (among other things) disease proliferation; crucial ecosystem damage (e.g., to wetlands & their critical functions of flood control and removal of toxic substances from water); acidification of the ocean; the sixth mass extinction event on Earth; air pollution; water pollution, and unsustainable use of water; climate disruption; and more.

EE also takes into consideration the concept of ecological constraints on what Bucky Fuller long ago called "Spaceship Earth".  Except for incoming solar energy (and some meteorites), we live in a finite, closed habitat.  It's not growing larger.  Fortunately for life here, there are many, many ongoing regenerative and biogeochemical cycles of materials on this ship.  When we interfere with those cycles beyond sustainability, we threaten our life support system's proper functioning.  When we do not properly manage industrial wastes, and when we overharvest natural resources beyond sustainability, essentially we are committing species suicide.  EE recognizes these problems, but neoliberal economics mostly ignores them.

In addition to those mentioned above, key elements of EE include the following:
1.  a transition to a steady-state (not stagnant), sustainable economy, rather than the current unlimited growth model;
2.  the incorporation and evaluation of natural capital and ecosystem services in the economic system;
3.  socially fair distribution of goods & services;
4.  sustainable development and growth;
5.  local/regional procurement of goods & services whenever possible;
6.  reduction of material "throughput" in the economy;
7.  a transition away from fossil fuels; and,
8.  the incorporation of ecoethics into economics and the economy in general.
..................................
Conclusion

As we navigate through the Anthropocene geologic time period, we must face up to a few facts that we've been avoiding.
1.  As Rees and others have pointed out:  the finite ecosphere in which we live has highly variable, but limited, regenerative and waste assimilating capacities.
2.  Our current economies around the globe, and all the activities associated with them, are destroying significant sections of our natural life support system.
3.  That destruction primarily is due to the pursuance of unlimited growth, unlimited development, and over-consumption.
4.  The main driver of the above pursuits is essentially unlimited population growth.
5.  Despite some positive applications, our technology has not slowed the pace toward impending, massive ecocatastrophe.  Arguably and overall, it has instead increased that pace.
6.  To avert disaster, we are in need of a rapid cultural and ethical evolutionary change in our thinking and behavior.
7.  A significant part of that change should be the shift away from neoliberal economics.
8.  After much examination of the factors involved, I believe we should adopt and implement some version of ecological economics in as many countries as possible.  That would be a big step toward improving and preserving organized human existence on Spaceship Earth.
................................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Violence Erupts - The State-Corporate-Financial Complex Has Failed Us For Decades

Preface
As frustration boils over, in this essay we'll accept the premise that most protesters basically are nonviolent, and most cops essentially are good people.  Plus, the current situation goes way beyond a Racial Crisis and misdeeds by Law Enforcement.
..............................
In the USA and much of the rest of the world, decades of neoliberal policies implemented by the State-Corporate-Financial Complex (the Corporatocracy) have fueled the fires of---
1. a racial crisis,
2. a socio-economic class crisis,
3. an economic crisis,
4. a health crisis,
5. an ecological/environmental crisis, and
6. an ethical crisis.
They are all interrelated.

The policies to which I refer include:  austerity (except for the war & police machinery), the militarization of law enforcement, privatization, deregulation, wage stagnation, an inadequate healthcare system, a gross distortion of "conflict of interest", an ugly conversion of our educational system to one which produces compliant robots, bizarre financialization (which produces little to no employment), so-called "free trade", the almost complete destruction of labor unions, ditto for decent retirement plans, and more.  In addition to all that, too many private & public Powers-That-Be have demonstrated a blatant disregard for both common people and the environment.  Equity seems to have become a long-forgotten concept.  Inequality (including income inequality) is the flavor of the day.  Nature is unimportant.  And so it goes, ad nauseam.

Meanwhile, the ecological crisis of the century--- Climate Disruption ---appears to have been put on the back burner.  On top of that, the gross degradation of necessary biodiversity, the interference with crucial ecosystem functioning, pollution, corporatist propaganda, the suspension of enforcement of EPA regulations, etc., are all ongoing.

In short, neoliberal policies have failed utterly... except for people in the Upper Crust.  The current eruption of violence isn't about only racism toward people of color.  [The response to it has been multiracial.]  It isn't about only a few very recent murders.  This situation has been building for decades, and almost everyone is frustrated and fed-up to the gills.  It's not just about Race, or economics, or police, or inequality.  Perhaps more than anything else, it's also about ethics.

As the Harvard Professor, Cornel West, stated today on Democracy Now, "The American Empire is imploding.".  West also had a telling opinion piece in The Guardian.  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/01/george-floyd-protests-cornel-west-american-democracy

The time is ripe for a global paradigm shift to ecoethics, ecoliberalism, ecological economics, common sense, and equity.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well