Furthering what's best and forestalling what's worst

How wonderful that quote from Mark Slouka is! It is the quote that I ended my last post with. I was just thinking about how it encapsulates fully the dilemmas we face as we move forward with addressing issues of the environment, culture, society, and justice. He said that we need "...men and women capable of furthering what's best about us and forestalling what's worst."

Slouka comes to the table from the position of an educator and a strong proponent of humanities education. He makes some fascinating points in a recent Harper's Magazine article titled Dehumanized: When math and science rule the school. But regardless of what position he comes from, and what he is advocating for in particular in the article (which is actually incredibly expansive and provocative), his statement is almost axiomatic. It speaks to me at a level that is very deep, touching on ethics, touching on greed, touching on power, touching on the good work that people are doing, touching on the forces at play that keeps that good work from being recognised. What I believe it says, partly, is the following--that there is something in most all of us that can be tapped into to cause introspection and reflection about the choices we are making as individuals and as a collective, and that the culture and society we live in have definitely not lived up, even partly, to the ideals they pay lip service to.

I have not written much about education explicitly on this blog (maybe once), although I have alluded to education by writing about dialogue and conversation, features necessary in a critical education. Education comes in many forms, and the idealist in me hopes that education never ends for anyone, anywhere. Of course, this isn't the case, with many public examples of people being uninterested in open dialogue, standing resolute in their beliefs in the face of well-founded facts. Regardless, the wisdom of what's best about us, and the knowledge of what's worst about us, a continuing education, that is, comes only from an openness of mind, the ability to accept that some things just aren't working, and the fortitude to expose the deficiencies in social norms, as I wrote in my last post.

Collin said to me today her vegetarianism can seem like a judgement on non-vegetarianism. To me, it is a judgement, because really, every decision we make is a judgement, and any critical thought stems from a judgement we make about norms and values. It takes fortitude to stick to these judgements, and it takes mettle to continually have the discussions provoked because of them. Only then will we able to expose what is best about us, and what is worst about us.

The right, the wrong, and the other

It is not difficult to see how environmentalism can be infused with righteousness. This righteousness is just like sexual harassment; it doesn't matter what your intention is, it is what is perceived that is what matters. In our advocacy, how do we deal with coming off to others as elitist and righteous?

This is something very difficult to deal with, especially because environmentalism stems from a judgement - the judgement (based on experience, on seeing, breathing, living, and, well, science) that what we are doing to the planet is destroying its ability to sustain the ecosystems that have characterised it. Unfortunately, however, this is the way we've structured almost all of our social interactions - we are judgemental. Some people are ostracised because of the way they look, some people aren't taken seriously because of stereotypes. This judgementalism we see throughout the most important of social processes - politics. The Republicans seem bad to the Democrats, and the Republicans think that the Democrats are bad. We think that what we are doing is the right thing to do, what the rest do is the wrong thing to do.

But things weren't this way in the past. Of course, they couldn't have been. Because before politics, the politics that stem from a society like ours, there was the notion of the other. There was nothing right or wrong about actions, because all human life tread lightly on this Earth. Groups of people tread in different ways, but all in ways that are unique to place and time, and all in ways that at the very least leave minimal damage to ecosystems.

It can be difficult to tell people that what they are doing, in all sincerity, is detrimental. But if we don't do it, then the behaviour continues. Treading the line then between righteousness and passivity is a delicate balance. It is important that the ethics that guide our actions do our utmost not to alienate by branding some thoughts as right or wrong, but rather as those that have the most potential to reduce the tradeoffs we make on a day-to-day basis with the environment and people's lives, those that have the ability to allow us to accept, respect, and see the other side. There is an honesty and humility with which those that care about the environment must operate. While we do partake in this culture, out of an unfortunate coercion at times, we mustn't identify with it. Yet, we must pass our judgements with humility, in knowing that this isn't a competition or a race, but rather a meaningful attempt to tread lightly on this planet, to keep it a safe and enriching place for this generation and the next, of everything, not just humans.

The power and deficiencies of science and numbers

While I want to continue to motivate environmentally-related action as individuals and a collective, I want to spend a post or two laying out some of my values explicitly. Hopefully this will allow you to get a sense of where I am coming from, and where I stand. Where I stand is of course subject to change (I hope) as I try to be as open to ideas as I can be. I want to write a little bit about science and numbers today.

I am an engineer. I am an experimentalist studying combustion chemistry and air pollutant formation. I deal with physical chemistry on a regular basis, and am enamoured with physics. I believe in the power of science and numbers. Data are powerful, and a set of experiments well done, or measurements well made, considering assumptions and control parameters, can inform us greatly of physical processes; there is no doubt about that. Yet, I believe in the power of experience as much as science.

Science and technology have allowed for the betterment of some people's lives in various ways - many are now able to fly across the world to see glaciers and cultural artifacts of beauty. We are able to develop relationships with people we've never seen, and we can satisfy our urge to eat the exotic whenever we want to. Yet, I cannot deny, we cannot deny, that science and its application to technology has been used forcefully and violently against nature and the people that reside on this planet. We cannot deny that the power of science and technology has caused destruction on massive scales, has blocked rivers and submerged entire ecosystems, and has unleashed the power of the atom on the world, so much so we live in the fear of it "getting into the wrong hands" continually. Of course, once we have the power of science and technology, we are compelled to use it.

One of the necessary features of science and technology is to be able to measure things, whether it is magnetic fields, chemical concentrations, the flow of electrons. Therefore, if we are able to produce it, we are likely able to measure it, for measurement is a key component of production. But we can only measure to an extent. We cannot and will not be able to ever measure the entire impacts of our actions once the science and technology are let lose on the world. What do we do then? What is the power of science when our brains are so small, yet our collective actions are so vast, tremendous, and destructive?

In a comment on yesterday's post, it was argued that science is about "getting it right." However, with something like the climate change, for example, we're never going to "get it right," because it is impossible. But what science affords us is the ability of judgement, of experience. Many times, we are able to predict to a good degree of accuracy the impacts of something might be on the environment. I value numbers and data preciously, but getting them "right" is very rarely necessary; fairly accurate numbers are good enough for most legitimate purposes. The power of science then lies in allowing us an intuition from retrospective study that is forward-looking. Anyone can look at some data and see that something is wrong (or well, most people - again, climate change). But what science allows us to do is make judgements. This is more than the precautionary principle. It is experience. This experience is invaluable. We cannot allow ourselves to get bogged down into trying to get a number right on. We don't have the time for that.

And so my environmentalism is science-based. But as, if not more, importantly, it is experience-based. 

What role do science and numbers play in your life?