I'm blogging from Chicago's O'Hare airport, on my way to Portland to participate in a unique summit bringing together philosophers, scientists, social scientists, poets, filmmakers, and artists to consider new strategies for shifting the popular zeitgeist on sustainability and climate change. The workshop is sponsored by the Spring Creek Project at Oregon State. I hope to have more to report later, but for now, participants are asked to consider the following questions.
For readers, how would you answer these questions?
MAIN QUESTION: Let's jump ahead to 2020 and imagine that, in just a decade, a great cultural shift toward a truly ecological culture has occurred. Individuals and institutions have embraced genuine, long-term sustainability. Values and lifestyles have dramatically changed; the technology is coming around. How do you think that came about?
For the scientists: What are some of the factors that make it difficult for scientists alone to inspire social and cultural change in response to climate change? Who are the important allies?
For the humanists: What are some of the factors that make it difficult for writers/philosophers/etc. alone to inspire social and cultural change in response to climate change? Who are the important allies?
Can technological advances and economic incentives avert the worst effects of climate change? What else is required?
What can scientists and humanists do together that neither can do alone?
What can the arts (what must the arts) contribute to the great social changes that must be made?
- Log in to post comments
That they heard would have if the planet got colder!!!
The Earth warms itself up: So much the better It is going to allow to augment the area of the agrarian lands, rather than to construct conservatories which cost a lot to have warmth.
For the scientists: What are some of the factors that make it difficult for scientists alone to inspire social and cultural change in response to climate change? Who are the important allies?
Scientists are held apart from general society somewhat analogously to how the military is held as separate from civilians. We are seen as other in so far as being intelligent, enthusiastic, and socially awkward, even if we individually are not. As a whole this constructs a sort of intimidation barrier on both sides of the debate. The public is afraid to talk to scientists because they don't want to be talked over and made to feel stupid, even unintentionally. Scientists fear the public because we often lack a meaningful vehicle to communicate detailed theories or concepts and therefore have no frame from which to relate to the audience. Lowering that barrier with media programming (art?) to demystify science and make it seem more normal would help both sides of the divide. This applies to all science, and not just that of climate change.
As far as arts go, perhaps it is time that the media invents some sustainable heroes? The most popular shows generally have rich, or at least well-to-do, characters who pursue wealth and material gain, therefore making material gain at any expense desirable for the average consumer.