Hi Mark, David and everyone else !
I would like to put something to the forum to see what each of your
immediate reactions and thoughts/feelings might be. As it would take a
great deal of time to even begin to clarify exactly where I'm coming from
with what follows, if it's OK I'll just write just the following three
points (out of many) without further explanation, to gauge what you all
think or feel...Here goes:
1) Re Climate Change - The Earth's Climate has always changed, and will
continue always to do so. Tens to hundreds of millions of pounds are spent
on trying to determine how and when this change might occur, largely
through modelling efforts, and a lot of personal interest and resource is
invested. The best weather predictions for our small island are perhaps 5
days in advance. Can you accurately model one person's behaviour during the
course of one day, or even write a formula for, say, your polo shirt, and
how it behaves under all conditions, and be correct ? What might be your
reactions were I to say that maybe it might be more wise to realise that
actually we will never know with sufficient accuracy, as we shall never
have all the information, enough to model something as complex and massive
as the Planet's Climate (especially since many factors continue to change
also) to give an accurate prediction. Might it not, therefore, be wise to
realise our limitations, and put the resources instead into educating and
training humanity in the basics of living, such that the way of living is
inherently free to adapt to any changes and not to try to control them
quite so much - be these events climatic, terrorist, war, civil unrest,
water shortage, or any other ?;
2) Sustainability at this point is largely advertised as being about keeping
our existing lifestyle and making this as alledgedly sustainable as
possible. What say human resource usage with technology and
wildlife/food/water for example, can never be sustainable in this
sense. This technology takes us frequently away from nature (so less able to
understand how she works, and what's normal in life) and often keeps us in
offices, cars, and homes, under man-made rhythms, where labour-saving
devices are most of the time nothing of the kind, but merely allow more
time to be filled with other (often really unnecessary) things, creating
stress, which creastes illness, with higher expectations and more recourse
to (NHS) medicine and increasingly over-demanded NHS services (in the UK),
where those modern technology devices required enormous Earth's resource to
make, and were/are largely unnecessary. Where are most people most calm and
content - perhaps on a beach somewhere on holiday - no or few technological
devices around. So why do we need them. How much resource is required to
make one computer, or one fancy car, or one phone, or washing machine, one
solar panel when (perhaps apart from the latter ! : ) ) you don't need
them ! Compare the resource required to make a car to that for a bicycle or
horse and cart. Compare also the relative health and relaxation benefits
beween these two, and perhaps the environmental impacts. Is modern
technology really so great ? There's a Consequence to almost everything,
almost every decision, unless you get it right. Modern technology may well
have given us anthropogenic impacts on Climate, people's stress levels,
their health, ability to destroy more land/forest/life etc more rapidly,
"raping" of the land for resources to make that modern technology, daily
inane news broadcasts and media issues looking always at very small
focussed areas and from a Human-perspective only, and rarely at the "Biger"
picture, etc etc... All Consequences... of humanity being so inward-looking
and detached from nature, and not understanding both the reality of how
things work, and being wise/disciplined/responsible enough to realise it's
own limitations.
3) Habitat and Environmental management and related areas. Human beings and
science are fashionable, fluctuate with the times, particularly so these
days. What's a management method now wasn't 5, or 10, or 50 years ago, and
won't be 5, or 10, or 50 years in the future. So, as an example, when UK
householders are putting together gardens for wildlife now, it being
fashionable, the wildlife moves in, but when in 20 years time some other
fashion kicks in, where does that wildlife go ? When you set up on forest
management strategy now, wildlife has to adapt to it, and the fashion in
management will change in the future, and that same wildlife will again
have to adapt, move on, or perish. It's people again thinking they know
best, and wildlife, as one example, has perpetually to adapt or suffer to
the changing human and scientific methods. Nature does not really change in
this way in its underlying behaviour/method. Leave a plot of land and
everything that naturally can grow there and wants to survive there will do
so, 50 years from now, 1000 years from now, and so on, in consideration of
climatic and oceanic etc influences of course. Is it not better, and more
wise, to realise that for all our thinking, and believing we know enough
(or know it all) nature knows far more about everything, and how everything
interacts, and she manages herself - we just need to wisdom to facilitate
her being able to do so, not to impose what we think is right as a
management solution at a given time and place. Besides, the UK had great
biodiversity pre-Homo Sapiens agriculture etc, and has perhaps much less
now, and most of our species evolved well before man was so great in
population in these lands - so why do we think that our management methods
improve biodiversity over what nature naturally did (and still does) before
our species became so widespread and involved ? There is an enormous amount
is inter-human thinking and communication that goes on all the time on all
issues that, unfortunately for being so inwardly-focused and
self-perpetuating, and despite usually being very very well-meaning,
unfortunately lack the wisdom and understanding to make the correct
decisions, and thus to avoid consequences. Imagine as a mind-game looking
at several ant colonies, or any other species, or be an alien looking down
from on high. You'd see the ants, or humans, communicating and making
decisions of one sort or another, and having inter and intra-species fights
and, conflicts of individual interests, and using resources, and generally
behaving and making decisions within they're own structure/societies at
particularl times, and at particular locations. What you won't see or be
able to determine easily (excepting, say, parasites or simboints etc) is
those species, human, ants, badger, bamboo, making decisions outside of
their society/structure, and knowing and understanding all of the other
life and species about them so well that any one of those societies is
capable of making complete decisions on behalf of every other animate and
inanimate species/component of that Planet. Whilst the ants were busy with
their own inward-looking/society affairs, everything else was going about
its business in its normal rhythm and routine, and the same is true of
nature and human society. Our society, and ways of thinks are so
conditioned from day one, and continually, that we rarely take an analogous
view to the above and look outside our conditioned ways of thinking, and see
ourselves from "the outside".
When the Crisis Forum wishes to address issues about humanity, amongst many
many things that I'd like to communicate, improving the ability of society
inherently and always to adapt rather than try to control and keep things
the same (good for individuals, terrorist incidents, water shortages,
famines, wars, earthquakes etc...), to second-guess itself, to know what is
wise and not wise and what is REAL capabilities are, to know what makes life
happy, healthy, fun, and meaningful, to know all the impacts and
consequences of choosing everything about our lives and technology, to know
that we (despite our conditioned self-important way of thinking) are but one
species amongst very many, and very many other things I'd like to
communicate, I would love to see the members of this forum do well in
helping further its aims, but also to second guess how "Big" a picture it
is really looking at, or from, how much personal interest is locked up in
each decision and viewpoint (would you second guess your peer-review, or
your employer, or give up your job to take the "correct" stance ?),
or how tinted/filtered are the glasses through which it is looking, first !
My Best Wishes, and the Very Very Best of Luck - I hope and aim to pursue
this from a somewhat different perspective, All Being Well !!!!
Chris. McCOY
amongst several other things, ex-SOC MSc Stud.(ent) ! : ) : ) : )
Quoting Mark Levene <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> Dear Crisis Forumers,
>
> I thought I'd send this on to all of you, just so that you know where
> we're
> currently trying to take things Crisis Forum-wise - and what we need to
> get there.
>
> The discussion list, of course, is great. But to really make an impact we
> need to start initiating some serious projects. Part of the problem
> getting
> there is those of us who initiated Crisis Forum simply don't have the
> proper
> time we would like to devote -if we could -to developing this network.
> But
> that also in turn means we need some serious funding so that others can.
>
> Anyway, though this below (and attached) is primarily so that you know
> what
> we're doing, if you have any thoughts or perhaps, more pointedly and
> importantly a) any ideas on who we might also be contacting or b) any
> offers
> to practically help in this increasingly time-consuming and daunting
> task(!)
> please feel free to contact me.
> have a good summer,
> mark
> 01926 641026 (h)
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> 'The Forum for the Study of Crisis in the 21st Century'
> (Crisis Forum)
> http://www.crisis-forum.org.uk;
>
>
> Summary
>
> Crisis Forum seeks funding for two part-time posts a) a network manager
> b) a
> developmental officer who would work to further a range of specific
> projects
> initiated by the network. We estimate an initial cost of c. £52,000.00
> for
> the posts and sundry administrative expenses for the calendar year 2006.
>
>
> Who we are, what do we do, what are our objectives
>
> Crisis Forum is an independent initiative founded by two Southampton
> university-based academics, David Cromwell and Mark Levene, in 2002. It
> operates on the premise that humankind is in very serious trouble and
> that
> at the root of the problem is an international economic and political
> system
> which - as both highly dysfunctional and dangerous to the planet - has
> to
> give way to lateral, sustainable, people-based solutions if we want to
> survive as a species. To enable that to happen Crisis Forum argues that
> academics and independent researchers have a particular role to play :
>
> a) analysing the nature of the crisis of humankind in the 21st century
> from
> a holistic and hence interdisciplinary viewpoint
>
> b) seeking to make that knowledge available in ways which are accessible
> and
> friendly to society at large so that people themselves can understand the
> nature of the problems we face and empowered to do something about it on
> their own terms, and in their own local communities. We envisage a range
> of
> public events, reports, books, interactive CD-Roms and electronic
> information as routes to dissemination.
>
> As a further aim we also seek to influence and change the culture of
> universities themselves, not least so that they might be models of
> sustainable community in an age of acute, human-made climate change.
> Though
> we do not start from the position that human-induced climate change is
> the
> cause of the present crisis it is, however, the most symptomatic effect
> of
> it. Hence, our focus increasingly has this issue as its fulcrum.
>
> There are now a range of academics and activists across the UK and abroad
> who are associated with Crisis Forum. As a network it is open to anybody
> who
> shares our goals.
>
> To date, we have initiated a public lecture series 'Is Humanity in
> Crisis?',
> while in November 2004, our workshop for activists and academics:
> 'Climate
> change and humanity: Elite perceptions, Sustainable solutions' has led to
> a
> first multi-authored book project : 'Clearing the Pathways to Survival
> and
> Transformation: The State, Ourselves, and Climate Change,' which is
> currently being assessed for publication by Pluto Press. We have a
> regularly
> updated website, a discussion list, and a planning group founded at a
> meeting at Leeds Metropolitan University in March 2005. We also have a
> number of research projects which are at their initial stage of
> development. We also have a small team working on a methodology for an
> accessible climate change index, similar to the FTSE-100 model. Our
> longer-term plans include regular one-day events around the country, more
> formal courses in crisis studies, and a journal on the same theme.
>
> Crisis Forum is an autonomous network. It is not a department of any
> university. Rather it seeks to bring together university academics -
> from
> across the range of disciplines - and others, who want to put their
> energies into supporting the commonweal.
>
> Crisis Forum is entirely dependent on the funds it seeks itself. It is
> currently run by a small planning group drawn from both academics and
> other
> practitioners from across the country. Its form of governance is
> currently
> under review, not least so that it can ensure effective management of its
> projects as well as overall agenda, across the UK.
>
>
> Our current proposal
>
> Crisis Forum needs to move to a 2nd stage where it can initiate and
> develop
> a number of specific projects. Each would include one or more public
> meetings, fora, workshops and conferences. Each, too, would be geared
> towards specific outcomes.
>
> To set up and develop these projects, we need two part-time workers. The
> first would act as a network manager to administer the programme on a
> regular basis. The second, a development officer, would not only have
> joint-responsibility for the events themselves but would also seek to
> expand
> the programme, initiate further projects in consultation with other
> collaborative organisations, as well as seek further funding for 2007-8
> and
> beyond.
>
> The projects:
>
> 1. A new series of Southampton public lectures as successor to 'Is
> Humanity
> in Crisis?' (held in 2002-3).
>
> 2. A parallel (peripatetic) public lecture series in other university
> centres or towns around the country
>
> 3. A major academic-activist conference on the theme : What can
> universities
> do in response to climate change? Output : a) initial report b)
> feasibility
> projects for sustainable development at specific universities c)
> curricula
> development
>
> 4. Climate Change and Violence: an initial conference : output: tba
>
> 5. Climate Change and Public Opinion : an initial conference : output:
> tba
>
> 6. A specifically international conference for the humanities on the
> theme:
> how do we rethink the past in relation to a present of acute climate
> change?
> output: multi-authored book.
>
> The venues for the events would not necessarily be Southampton but could
> be
> hosted by a range of UK universities or other institutions. This would
> be
> the basis for an ongoing UK-wide programme from 2008 onwards.
>
> The network manager would also initiate a twice-yearly news letter, while
> she/he and/or the Development Officer would seek to develop Crisis
> Forum's
> public persona and rationale through articles and other contributions to
> the
> national, regional and local press.
>
> Additionally, or more specifically in the year 2006-7, the development
> officer, with the network manager in support, would explore:
>
> a) a series of specifically climate-changed focused fora, workshops
> and/or
> public meetings in different parts of the UK. We envisage this in
> association, possibly, with Regional Development Authorities (RDAs) and
> through the possible creation of localised groupings of Crisis Forum.
> e.g.
> given strong involvement in CF from academics at Leeds Metropolitan and
> Liverpool Universities, we might envisage the creation of a Crisis
> Forum-North for this purpose.
>
> b) the possibility of a range of feasibility studies in which specific
> universities would be earmarked as sites for radical carbon-reduction,
> and
> hence as community-models for sustainable development
>
>
> Provisional Budget
>
> Assuming we can find some core support - possibly from one or more
> university funds- for the provision of
>
> a) an office and relevant furniture
> b) networked computers
>
> we seek
> part-time posts c. 24 hours per week.
> 1 Network Manager
> 1 Development Officer c. £20,000 per annum each (incl.
> national insurance)
>
> costs for stationery, computer network, phone,
> travel to meetings etc £2,000
> costs for 5 conferences/workshops £2.000 per conference (£10,000)
>
>
> Total estimate budget (2007-8) c. £52, 000 :
>
> We will be writing to a variety of funding sources for this purpose. At
> the
> current moment these may include: The Royal Society, The Esme Fairbairn
> Foundation, The Scurrah Wainwright Charity, The Freshfield Foundation,
> The
> Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, The
> Network for Social Change, the Gatesby Foundation, the Lipman-Miliband
> Trust, The Elmgrant Trust, The Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation and
> others (with research councils, NERC, ESRC et al.,to follow in due
> course)
>
> ML July 2005
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
