ВУЗ:
Составители:
Рубрика:
Seen in this light, the concept carries several implications which to an environmentalist may be problem-
atic: a powerful (and polluting) elite co-opting "real" environmentalism; establishment of a playing field (high
technology and industrial systems) which implicitly degrades the knowledge base and operational characteris-
tics of traditional environmental NGOs; and, more subtle but all the more powerful for that, a vision of a future
"sustainable" world based on a high technology, urbanized society as opposed to an agrarian, localized world
with large portions of limits to people.
It was important, therefore, not to take that article as just a naive rejection of industrial ecology and its
promise, but to understand it as a reflection of deeply conflicting worldviews which were all the more critical
for being implicit and, to a large extent, even unconscious.
And, of course, these two mental models – call them the managerialistic and the edenistic – are not the only
common ones. Others which might be identified include the "authoritarian" (environmental crises require cen-
tralized authoritarian institutions); "communal" (with the caution that some communities can be extraordinarily
violent towards minorities and outsiders); "ecosocialist" (capitalistic exploitation of workers and commoditiza-
tion of the world are the source of environmental degradation); "ecofeminist" (male exploitation of nature and
women derive from the same power drive, and must be addressed concomitantly) and "pluralistic liberalism"
(open collaboration involving diverse interests is the proper process to achieve environmental progress).
All of these raise some very difficult questions. For example, ecosocialism is somewhat tarnished by the
abysmal environmental record of Eastern European communist governments.
The obvious question for the manager blessed with the opportunity to manage among these minefields is
which one of these mental models is "right"? The unfortunate truth is that we as a society are not ready to an-
swer that question yet.
This is not just because most people – environmental professionals, environmentalists, regulators, industry
leaders – are naive positivists, and therefore unwilling or unable for the most part to recognize their own mental
models, much less to respect other parties' mental models.
It also reflects a disturbing and almost complete ignorance about the implications of each model for the real
world. What levels of human population, of biodiversity, of economic activity, would each mental model imply?
What kind of governance structure? Who would win and who would lose (more precisely, what would the distri-
butional effects of each model be)?
The important point, I think, is not the correctness of any particular model. Rather, it is the need to under-
stand that differences among stakeholders in environmental disputes may arise not just from factual or eco-
nomic disagreements, but from differences in fundamental worldviews – and that, at present, our current
knowledge cannot anoint any particular one as "privileged."
A little sensitivity to how one's position and practices are understood by others can go a long way towards
facilitating collaborations, which are both necessary and plenty difficult as it is. Before one too readily criticizes
others, one should recall the Socratic admonition and know thyself – and thy mental models.
10. PRE-CAMBRIAN PERIOD
The Earth formed under so much heat and pressure that it formed as a molten planet. For nearly the first
billion years of its formation – called the Hadean Period (or "hellish" period) – Earth was bombarded continu-
ously by the remnants of the dust and debris – like asteroids, meteors and comets – until it formed into a solid
sphere, fell into an orbit around the sun, and began to cool down.
As Earth began to take solid form, it had no free oxygen in its atmosphere. It was so hot that the water
droplets in its atmosphere could not settle to form surface water or ice. Its atmosphere was also so poisonous
that nothing would have been able to survive.
Earth's early atmosphere most likely resembled that of Jupiter's atmosphere, which contains hydrogen, he-
lium, methane and ammonia, and is poisonous to humans.
Earth's atmosphere was formed mostly from the outgassing of such volatile compounds as water vapor,
carbon monoxide, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrochloric acid and sulfur pro-
duced by the constant volcanic eruptions that besieged the Earth. It had no free oxygen.
About 4,1 billion years ago, the Earth's surface – or crust – began to cool and stabilize, creating the solid
surface with its rocky terrain. Clouds formed as the Earth began to cool, producing enormous volumes of rain-
Страницы
- « первая
- ‹ предыдущая
- …
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- …
- следующая ›
- последняя »
