I’m wondering whether the lack of a theory of the biosphere as a whole is one of the biggest problems of today’s environmental movement. I’ve yet to see ideas debated in the movement’s mainstream that go beyond protecting areas here and there, reducing damages and limiting pollution (and quaint socialist paradigms in some corners). The current theory-minimising approach is probably meant to reduce the surface that can be attacked, and look pragmatic. That’s clearly not working out.
Replies:
3
@christianschwaegerl that is why I enjoyed reading Andrea Wulffs books about Humboldt and Jena Romantik so much.
@christianschwaegerl
I disagree. The unrelenting damage to the biosphere doesn't come from not having a good enough theory. Nor would more theory help much with the protection of the biosphere, besides milking the last out of the limits. The problem is not lack of knowledge, but rather destructive collective behaviour of mankind (under the prevalent cultural hegemony).
@W_Lucht
I disagree. The unrelenting damage to the biosphere doesn't come from not having a good enough theory. Nor would more theory help much with the protection of the biosphere, besides milking the last out of the limits. The problem is not lack of knowledge, but rather destructive collective behaviour of mankind (under the prevalent cultural hegemony).
@W_Lucht
@christianschwaegerl
You're absolutely right. There's a huge lot that can be said about that. A hundred years after positioning the biosphere as part of Earth's mechanisms, more than a passenger, we still only have parts but no clear picture of ecological functioning. Biodiv people don't talk to thermodynamics people and these not much to biogeochemists and neither to ecologists, then there's evolution ... I'm trying to write a paper on this, but it's difficult. But it's our living habitat. 👍
