rattus rattus’ blog

Have you ever seen an optical illusion?

Really? How do you know?

Why don’t the newscasters cry
when they read about people who die

Why don’t human ecologists cry when they give their talks, when they take part in conferences and discussions, or when they present their posters?

At least they could be decent enough
to put just a tear in their eyes

Why don’t we cry?

Well mama said
It’s just make believe
You can’t believe everything you see
So baby close your eyes to the lullabies
On the news tonight

Quotes from Jack Johnson‘s song The News.

Knowledge

modifes

knowledge.

Make knowledge increase choice.

In a recent discussion about Sustainability and Global Change a student asked a few renowned scientists what we can do if the current unsustainable development may not be stopped or reversed in time. After a bit of discussion the researchers came to the conclusion: Think globally, act locally.

No, I am not criticizing it (I am just lying). I wonder what it means. I am asking what those who dare to answer with this slogan want to say. More so, what do they say? What is it they are demonstrating?

Who were the ones that explained us that global thinking tends to fail miserably? At least, a good number of ecological catastrophes serves as endorsement.

What does thinking globally mean anyway? Is there a global thinking without acting? Is the act of thinking globally a local act?
Whether globally or locally we act and we think in networks of causes and effects. Are local networks less complex than global networks? If so, at what level of complexity may we stop? What is the opposite? If I am to act locally how do I know what is local and what is global? What does acting globally mean? Who decides? And is this decision an act? A local one?

What about recommendations, rules, laws, and limits? Are they global or local? In which contexts do they operate? Who is held responsible?

Of course, I am responsible for my local actions, am I not? Who is responsible for my global thinking? Me, too. That’s what we think. So, why are there laws? What does it mean that I do act in contexts of habits, traditions, ethics, and for instance European laws?

And how comes my actions are bound by the fact that an American company does not care about how their computers are produced by a company in Taiwan both of which my local dealer can’t get hold of even though it entirely broke down yesterday only 3 months after I bought it?

Do you know what the answer is? — Think globally, act locally! And the other way round.

See what science is named after.

Some say science is about truth. It is not about lies. What could science of science be? The truth about no lies? Says who? And do we know that it is the truth? Isn’t science also about questioning and analysis? Hence, what do we know about analysis of analysis?

Science “refers to a system of acquiring knowledge (…) aimed at finding out the truth” (Wikipedia, 2006-03-03). So we assume that knowledge is not truth. Probably that’s why to know is derived from “view”, as are “vision”, “witness” and the German “Wissen”. What do we know about knowledge?

No, not me. I am a liar.
I am trapped in a feedback loop. Please, don’t cut it!

Those calling for agreement can’t accept intolerance.
Those calling for diversity won’t find much approval.

This is nothing new. These ideas date back to ancient times. They build ground for disadvantages as well as advantages of democracy. They apply to Sustainable Development as they do to liars’ blogs. I have only chosen words, words like placeholders, showing that the key notions of the quest for sustainability are bound by the same terms.

Of course, this is its very chance.

More of the same?

Those calling for agreement will struggle with diversity.
Those calling for diversity won’t find much agreement.
Those calling for consensus can’t accept intolerance.
Those calling for tolerance are afraid of self assurance.
Those calling for democracy can’t live with unity.
Those calling for change will fear conservation.

Those calling for tolerance cannot accept intolerance.
Those calling for freedom compete with freedom.

If someone claims that there is specific knowledge about something you are in fact expected to accept her or his view of it.

This is not only a lie in the sense that I expect you to accept my view of my knowledge about someone’s claims.
It’s a statement that provokes self-contradiction per se in the sense that knowledge is somewhere, for instance, printed in books or published in papers. Knowledge, here, is understood as something that can be reasoned, explained, discovered, acquired, agreed upon, and verified, or at least falsified.

But, if there is such a thing as a view of knowledge, if there are people who believe to know something and who believe that others do not, then knowledge does depend on someone’s perspective.

Whenever I say “it is known that” or “we know that” I’d always rather expect someone else’s denial.

By the way, I find it very interesting to search Google for phrases such as “it is known that“, and “we know that“.

I believe that you can
ask the big questions about life, the universe, and everything in many ways. One of them — maybe less obvious — might be this:

How much time do we have?
And what are we going to do with it?

When I started thinking about these two questions I quickly found myself trapped in a number of feedback loops; time consuming loops, to say the least.

Yet, a whole bunch of people and scientists keep reiterating their unfortunately most valuable theories, ideas, findings, and models about what might have happened and what might happen (see e.g. Wikipedia: Global Change, start.org, or essp.org).

Assuming we have 10 years left (for whatever) what are we going to do?
Assuming we have only 1 year left (for whatever) what are we going to do?
And assuming we do not know how much time we have left what are we going to do?

Apparently, we are using time asking questions, and reading and writing posts on strange blogs.

As if the notion of time alone was not complicated enough.