On his Open the Future blog, CRN's Director of Impacts Analysis Jamais Cascio writes:
The four boxes [below] represent a variety of "response" scenarios, each embracing elements of the prevention, mitigation, and remediation approaches to solving the climate crisis. Certain approaches may receive greater emphasis in a given scenario, but all three types of responses can be seen in each world. And while individual readers may find some scenarios more appealing than others, none of these stand out for me as indisputably "bad" response models...
Which scenario is most likely? It depends a bit on how fast the truly disastrous manifestations of climate change hit. Climate catastrophe happening earlier than currently projected would push towards the more proactionary worlds. It also depends a bit on whether governments and corporate leaders continue to lag community and activist groups in terms of willingness to embrace big changes to fight environmental risks. Centralized responses may end up being too little, too late if wide-spread bottom-up models take root.Ultimately, which one of these scenarios comes to dominate depends on the choices we make today. We simply can't go on pretending that we don't have to deal with this problem for awhile yet, that "the market" or "the government" or "new technologies" will fix everything in time, that we aren't responsible. The more we abandon our responsibilities, our agency, the more likely it is that the world that emerges will not pay attention to our interests. Acting now is no guarantee that we'll get the world we want -- but not acting is as close as you'll get to a guarantee that we won't.
Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog
"We simply can't go on pretending that we don't have to deal with this problem for awhile yet, that "the market" or "the government" or "new technologies" will fix everything in time, that we aren't responsible."
My particular view is that "new technologies" are indeed the answer, as long as they can be made economically superior to current choices. Few will drive hybrids if they cost vastly more then normal cars, but make them cheaper to purchase and operate and maybe you have progress. I wouldn't so flippantly discount "new technologies" and the market. These two concepts are the creation and implementation of that personal responsibility you speak of.
Posted by: Jerry Mitchell | November 23, 2007 at 08:04 AM
I'm hardly "flippantly discounting" markets and technologies, I'm saying that -- in and of themselves -- they aren't enough. Markets, as they exist in the real world (and not in idealized models) can bias towards short-term thinking in ways that are often antithetical to dealing with long-term, complex problems; new technologies, while obviously of great potential value, are not certain in terms of applicability or (as you yourself point out) uptake. They may well play an important role in dealing with climate disasters, but we simply can't assume that they will solve all of the problems.
Posted by: Jamais Cascio | November 23, 2007 at 12:34 PM