[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Selling Rosen to the University

John,

You might want to check out ecoinformatics.org, if you haven't
already.

I am working on some ideas now about considering internal
vs external networks in ecology. Internal networks would be
conceptual, models, ideas, research groups, collaborations,
epistemological, understanding from observations of systems of
study; external networks would be in the systems of study,
ontological, energy/matter fluxes, trophic ecosystem networks,
etc. In the ideal, we'd like our internal networks (the models or
modelers, information, knowledge, science) to be resonant with,
commute with and be mutually beneficial with so as to co-evolve
in sustainable and viable fashion with the external networks - i.e.
the world, our home. Right now what we have is not viable,
as actions from our internal networks (science, technology,
worldviews) have caused widespread, systemic ecological
degradation of the life support system crucial to survival of all
the people and institutions that make up that group mind or
social knowledge network. I think this problem relates to not
getting Rosen complexity and from over-use and abuse of a
single paradigm or perspective - namely mechanistic
reductionism. We have projected this perspective or model onto
the world in biased, unbalanced fashion, and the world has
responded in kind - it fragments and wears out like a machine.
In essence we have a simple modeling relation between internal
and external networks (simple = single, isolated perspective)
when we should have a complex modeling relation (complex =
two or more perspectives as unfractionable).

So could we set up a Rosenesque relation between our internal
knowledge/social/epistemic networks and the
external/environmental/real world networks of our biosphere to
reverse the trend of ecological degradation? Could we replace
the Tragedy of the Commons effect with a Bounty of the
Commons effect if we had a "commuting modeling relation"
between internal and external realms? Rather than emergent
properties being detrimental to our survival and thriving, could
the emergent properties of billions of human actions be
beneficial?

One other thought - maybe consider building, constructing your
new field or study or project with a small group, rather than try
to pitch it to any higher ups. Maybe later if it begins to take on
a life of its own, the path for taking it to higher levels will
become clear. If you go this route, I think core issues arise such
as how to make any long-lasting endeavor fit the complex
modeling relation suggested above that has the special lifelike
property of enhancing its own environment as it operates. In
this area I think two principles/relations are fundamental to
success - 1) the relation of people or social systems to the
environment, in which operation via renewable energy and
recycling materials processes are key, and 2) the relations of
people to each other, in which democracy, equality and the
capacity for organizational learning are key.

Cool stuff you are working on...best wishes for it...

Some thoughts from my realm...I hope of some use...

Dan

John Kineman wrote:

Hi Tim and others,

I am trying to introduce some Rosen concepts to the Environmental
Studies Dept. and a Cooperative Institute for Research in the
Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado in Boulder. It is a
very conservative group and strongly biased toward physical science, but
there are some ecologists who would like to create a focus. I'm
wondering if any of our Rosen colleagues would have some advice.

I'm thinking that we have a chance in ecosystem management and
informatics (including remote sensing, GIS, modeling, databases, etc),
where complexity is fairly openly acknowledged as important in both the
science and management picture (but few clues on what to do about it). I
had great success introducing it to a coastal working group this last
year of the Global Terrestrial Observing System. We were brainstorming a
coastal observing system implementation plan, which will be out soon. I
suggested that we take a functional / relational approach to defining
and mapping ecological services. That was unanimously accepted, and Dan
Baird (also working with Bob Ulanowitz) added the idea of functional
clusters. The group felt it was somewhat novel, since most
classifications focus on defined stratifications rather than functional
models, so I'm excited about that. The need for ecosystem informatics
related to biodiversity has been formalized in an NSF-NASA-USGS
document.  As we begin to propose a university research group focused
similarly, I'm now wondering (not totally naively) what difficulties to
anticipate.

I don't think there's any deep work going on here in cybernetics or
semiotics, although probably some aspirants. I suppose physiologists and
molecular biologists should be interested, but not sure where they are
at (how typical is interest like Don M's? I'm guessing not very). Most
biologists here would be a tough nut to crack -- mostly Darwinian
fundamentalists except for a few who take animal consciousness
seriously, but most of that is on a moral dimension dealing with ethics,
animal rights, and environmental activism. The policy group should take
it seriously as a social model but is too locked up in the idea of
literary debate to take any causal view at all. Already I ran into some
strong resistance from policy and philosophy; two areas that I think
could benefit most. It seems that the few true system ecologists are
very much interested, except for fears of comitting some kind of
epistemological sin (fears borrowed from positivist traditions, to be
sure). We have the ear of the Dean of Libraries, and while that may not
seem highly relevant at first glance, he is quite interested in the
whole emerging field of informatics and information complexity.
Geography may have some interests, although I doubt anyone there would
really get into the theory much.

The recommendation we are pushing is to start a research theme in
"ecological informatics" but I will have to get past a number of
physical scientists, chemists, and molecular biologists in the target
institute.

Anyway, I have so little experience with University politics I wondered
if anyone could give me some hints or success/horror stories..