Friday, March 30, 2007
Universal authority of scientific experts
Various scholars (see Harrison and Burgess; Hoveden and Lindseth[1]) hint at a claim made by some scientific experts of a ‘universal scientific truth’. If nature and environmental studies/ problems are culturally influenced and socially constructed, can there be a “universal authority of scientific experts” on the environment? Internationally agreed environmental treaties and establishment of bureaucratic organizations suggest a global drive for the universal authority of scientific experts. Opposing views are dismissed, which generate conflict between scientists that advocate the dominant discourse and the often non-attached institutionally independent scientist (example climate change discourse). But, do the conflicting scientific voices subtract from the notion of science as fact? Do the conflicting scientific voices enhance or reduce environmental risks and problems at hand? Jean-Francois Lyotard (1979)[2] foretold that the new battle of the world would be the fight for the control of information as ‘knowledge in the form of an information commodity’ is linked to productive power. The question becomes if modern environmentalists are selling their knowledge to advance nature’s cause or enhance economic power?
The new ‘environmentalist’- raising more questions than answers
Judith McKenzie’s “Environmental Politics in Canada”[1] not only presented an account of the key political, economic and social participants that generate environmental discourses in Canada, but perhaps more essentially, it highlighted the various factions within the environmental movement and hinted at a shift from environmental activism as a passion to a career. But it is Timothy Luke’s[2] critique of the construction of environmental studies and subsequent training of graduates by American university programmes that establishes the institutionalization of environmentalism as a career. Accordingly, the number of trained environmental professionals has increased over the years. Their aim is to ‘save the planet’:
“…scientific personnel with positivistic technical knowledges allegedly now can identify ecological problems objectively as well as design efficient solutions for the most pressing ones” pp. 106
However, has the increase of environmental professionals had a direct relation with the decrease environmental problems? Are we any closer to pinpointing known factors of environmental degradation and tangible solutions? Are modern conservation techniques superior to traditional methods? Although no definite answers can be provided, it appears that the dominant ideological course of American graduate programmes in environmental studies has transcended national borders. Modern conservation principles, which Luke identifies as the “three ‘Rs” of Eco-Managerialism”, have been adopted worldwide, in particular, the management of nature as a recreational resource. For example, many developing countries in Africa are combining their environmental and tourism sectors[3]. The UN[4] and ENGOs[5] especially advocate eco-tourism, which is currently considered the fastest growing sector in developing countries.[6] According to Luke’s critique of tertiary uses of nature as a recreational resource, “Recreational managerialism [is thought of as a field to] ‘develop expertise in managing public lands and waters and in providing quality outdoors recreation experiences to their visitors’” (pp. 144).
Harrison and Burgess’[7] analysis on the public debate to create a commercial center in a wetland area also highlights the idea of saving wilderness and consequently species’ habitat. The idea of saving species from extinction is one of scientist’s managerial roles. According to Resource Conservation Biology discourse, species conservation is important for future generations. Thus, key species (normally the big and hairy) are accommodated in zoo’s and game parks, often outside their natural environment (not without its own problems), for their ‘own protection’. Another notion is that ecosystems are a complex spider web; thus the extinction of one genus alters predator-prey models, which can lead to more extinctions and destructions, and consequently essential losses of goods and services. This discourse also gave rise to species conservation regardless of their own impact on the environment (e.g., elephants). But, who really benefits from wilderness areas and species conservation? Are public land and wilderness areas managed for all of mankind or only for those that can afford it?
“…scientific personnel with positivistic technical knowledges allegedly now can identify ecological problems objectively as well as design efficient solutions for the most pressing ones” pp. 106
However, has the increase of environmental professionals had a direct relation with the decrease environmental problems? Are we any closer to pinpointing known factors of environmental degradation and tangible solutions? Are modern conservation techniques superior to traditional methods? Although no definite answers can be provided, it appears that the dominant ideological course of American graduate programmes in environmental studies has transcended national borders. Modern conservation principles, which Luke identifies as the “three ‘Rs” of Eco-Managerialism”, have been adopted worldwide, in particular, the management of nature as a recreational resource. For example, many developing countries in Africa are combining their environmental and tourism sectors[3]. The UN[4] and ENGOs[5] especially advocate eco-tourism, which is currently considered the fastest growing sector in developing countries.[6] According to Luke’s critique of tertiary uses of nature as a recreational resource, “Recreational managerialism [is thought of as a field to] ‘develop expertise in managing public lands and waters and in providing quality outdoors recreation experiences to their visitors’” (pp. 144).
Harrison and Burgess’[7] analysis on the public debate to create a commercial center in a wetland area also highlights the idea of saving wilderness and consequently species’ habitat. The idea of saving species from extinction is one of scientist’s managerial roles. According to Resource Conservation Biology discourse, species conservation is important for future generations. Thus, key species (normally the big and hairy) are accommodated in zoo’s and game parks, often outside their natural environment (not without its own problems), for their ‘own protection’. Another notion is that ecosystems are a complex spider web; thus the extinction of one genus alters predator-prey models, which can lead to more extinctions and destructions, and consequently essential losses of goods and services. This discourse also gave rise to species conservation regardless of their own impact on the environment (e.g., elephants). But, who really benefits from wilderness areas and species conservation? Are public land and wilderness areas managed for all of mankind or only for those that can afford it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
