By Flying Stag on April 26, 2010
In this contribution, I refer in particular to the posting by Dave Milner on 9-2-2010 on the thread ‘Zero Growth Economy – A New Paradigm’.
The recent Channel 4 series “Beautiful Minds” has brilliantly demonstrated the value of original thought which spans the boundaries of the recognised academic disciplines, and which indeed does not acknowledge that such boundaries even exist. To me, this overriding of boundaries is an essential (indeed, self evident) requirement for the ‘one unifying thought process’ which Dave Milner believes we are seeking. (And, by the way, Dave, in what sense has the ‘gaia hypothesis ….. now run its course’).
The boundaries that exist between academic disciplines are essentially territorial in nature; that is, their existence is primarily to do with power and control (admittedly, on the assumption, to a large extent reasonable, that controlling power is a helpful way forward in human activities, including the pursuit of knowledge). However, once we realise this underlying reason, we can begin to realise that when the ice caps melt, and the economic migrants start fighting to reach our shores, then such distinctions which exist, say, between the social and natural sciences, will have lost any relevance. Defending them will then be pointless as well as useless. I suggest this may already be so.
Yet contributions I have made to Quakernomics have consistently met with the response that ‘economics is different’, specifically1) that as a social science it inherently falls outside the disciplines of the natural sciences, and therefore 2) it cannot learn from, say, engineering. If this is the level of our debate, then we are already lost. If I am to believe Dave Milner, then a whole swathe of academia was persuaded by a handful of social scientists that a figment of their corporate imaginations was a solution to the world’s economic problems, despite being based on the Indian rope trick of indefinite growth. Dave, please tell us, which of these institutions represented science, technology, or engineering, any of which could have provided some form of moderation for this numerical madness?
I believe that the nature of the truly scientific mind as demonstrated by “Beautiful Minds” shows us the way to the unity to which Dave refers. We need to initiate a search for the best brains in the world, as exemplified by Bell Burnell, Lovelock and Hunt, set them up in a world-class environment (modelled perhaps on the hugely successful Geneva-based CERN), and wait and see what happens. I do not envisage that economists would figure largely, if at all, in such a group.
I am aware of course that the UN etc has umpteen committees who are supposedly expert on economic affairs. However, none of these are able to think ‘outside the box’.
I suggest that Quakers, institutionally minuscule though we are, are perhaps better placed than any other world organisation to begin to make moves to encourage the creation and establishment of such an institution. The paradigm shift we are looking for will involve supra-national changes hugely beyond anything anyone is currently thinking about, and which are indeed currently unthinkable. It is only when world events reach some as yet unknown tipping point that these as yet unthought ideas will be seen to be tenable. When that time arrives, it will be of great benefit if we are prepared. The necessary degree of preparedness cannot be reached by the endless re-cycling of old ideas which is all that passes for ‘thought’ at the current time.
What I am proposing is a (tiny) move towards a world solution to a world problem. In doing so, I am convinced that no other approach is tenable, and I find it difficult to see than any true scientist could think otherwise. World solutions of course take time, decades if not centuries. However, in philosophical terms, I am greatly influenced by the thinking of Teilhard de Chardin; we should usefully be thinking in terms of our movement towards the ‘omega point’. In that light, my proposal is not just a ‘mad idea’, but the next logical step towards a concept of God.
7 Comments
I am recommending for anyone who can get to Leeds on 19 June a conference on steady state economics
http://steadystate.org/leeds2010/
Never-ending economic growth is not possible on a finite planet; nor is it improving well-being. This conference will bring together NGOs, academics, businesses, politicians, the media, and the general public to explore an ecologically and socially responsible alternative to economic growth: the steady state economy.
Keynote presentations include:
* Peter Victor, Professor in Environmental Studies, York University, Canada
* Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
* Dan O’Neill, European Director, Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
* Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development, University of Surrey (by video)
In addition, critical issues will be addressed in ten interactive workshops. Workshop speakers include Kate Pickett (co-author of The Spirit Level), Franny Armstrong (Director of The Age of Stupid), Roger Martin (Chair of the Optimum Population Trust), Molly Scott Cato (Economics Speaker for the Green Party), David Fell (Director at Brook Lyndhurst), among others.
Tickets are £30 for registration by 31st May 2010, or £50 after this date. Advance online registration is required. Please note that no refunds can be provided after 31st May.
I’d love to go myself but am already committed on that day. It would be good to get reports if anyone manages to get there.
Best wishes
Susan
Flying stag, how do your comments relate to the output of the new Economics Foundation?
Flying Sta, how do your comments relate to the output of the New Economics Foundation? What do you think of the Great Transition?
Whiteriver, So sorry I have not responded before; I have been away from home for several weeks, also I suffer from ongoing ill-health.
I have never felt the urge to look into the work of the New Economics Foundation in any depth. I am of course aware overall of their many projects and publications, but they all seem to me to be ‘inside the box’ though I realise that they would of course be offended by such a viewpoint!
To avoid much repetition, I think I really need to refer you back (see below) to my earlier contributions to Quakernomics (while noting that these provoked little response from bloggers). However, I did check the 50 staff CVs of the NEF. Unsurprisingly, I learned that apart from a (admittedly high-powered) core of professional economists, they consisted of the usual mix of journalists, social commentators, academics, lawyers, and what-have-you. I didn’t identify even one scientist/engineer /technologist. My thesis is that representatives of this latter group will in due course be seen to be essential, and indeed central, contributors to whatever ‘solution’ the world eventually finds. Until that happens, then the whole debate, from the standpoint of any hard-nosed engineer, has an unfortunately dilettante atmosphere about it. I guess that if pushed I feel the same about the Great Transition.
Perhaps what we really need is a philosopher expert in the progression of ideas from concept to implementation and in the identification and timescales of the tipping points at which each stage of the progression occurs. (I have previously given astronomy and chemistry as examples). To give a trivial example (trivial because the timescales are very short), the concept of solving the problem of an underwater oil gush must have been around for decades. The tipping point occurred a few weeks ago, and technology will now shortly solve the problem. What will the tipping point be which will cause mankind to focus on the analogous problem we are all considering? My personal view is that it will be some form of warfare, that it won’t happen for quite a long time yet, and that my suggestion of pooling the ‘best brains in the world’ would be quite a good starting point in attempting a) to predict it, and b) to deal with it.
You will find my earlier contributions as follows:
1. The third comment to:
Perpetuating the confusion … why dissent is so difficult!
By Tony Weekes on November 13, 2009
2. My own blog:
A New Paradigm
January 2, 2010 – 4:05 pm
“However, I did check the 50 staff CVs of the NEF. Unsurprisingly, I learned that apart from a (admittedly high-powered) core of professional economists, they consisted of the usual mix of journalists, social commentators, academics, lawyers, and what-have-you. I didn’t identify even one scientist/engineer /technologist.”
A senior staff member at nef, Victoria Johnson “has a BSc in Environmental Sciences, a MSc (awarded with distinction) in Climate Change, both from the University of East Anglia, and a PhD in Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College, London
Thank you Susan. If there is anyone else at NEF that I missed in my (admittedly rapid) scan, I would be grateful if you could point them out.
I am not sure why we have got into critical mode concerning the work of the New Economics Foundation. “By their fruits shall ye know them …” (Matthew 7:16. Among many well-written pieces of work over many years, NEF has drawn our attention to the impossibility of indefinite economic growth; the idea of having “Well being” as the main objective of public policy; the “New Green Deal”, …
There is no single source for the basis of a “new economy”; there is a need for debate, both among ourselves as citizens and in the context of a real democratic dialogue with our decision makers. Whatever emerges will be “messy”, but (one hopes) will be better than the present incoherent, internally contradictory mess.
But – we hardly have the mechanism for such a dialogue. And those who make the decisions are woefully ignorant of the possibility of something different.
Let us celebrate that dissent is there. It’s the basis of argument. We can add to it – with insights or questions – if we wish.