Dear Loet
Thank you for your remarks! Our definition of "worldview" is basically
equal to the term Weltanschauung, and differs only in that it explicitly
introduces objective knowledge as its constitutive part - a distinction that
is methodologically appropriate for analysis of Western societies. We do
acknowledge the existence of mutually competing worldviews, but there is
always a dominant one that streamlines collective behavior. We can, for
example, condense the prevailing (Western) worldview around three basic
dimensions: materialism, rationality and hard-wired working ethic (details
are presented in Matutinovic, forthcoming in International Journal of
Sustainable Development and World Ecology). This may be put also in
different terms (dimensions), but any such combination of values and beliefs
must be internally coherent and it must logically link to the extant
institutional framework. The very existence of alternative worldviews in
modernity, which "disturb one another and thus provide another source of
change", as you mention it, provides one of the pillars of societal
adaptability. We wished to emphasize that the pace of adaptive institutional
change is unpredictable, and therefore, Western civilization runs the risk
of a major environmental crisis (see for example latest reports on the state
of global ecosystems: Mooney, H., Cropper, A., and Reid, W. (2005).
Confronting the human dilemma: How can ecosystems provide sustainable
services to benefit society? Nature, Vol. 434:7033, 561-562.; Scheffer, M.,
Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C., and Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic
Shifts In Ecosystems. Nature, 413, 591-596.).
Concerning the knowledge-based economy and its impact on environment, I have
a question: if we, for example, label the first fifty years of the 20th
century as belonging to the resource-based economy and the subsequent period
as a transition to the knowledge-based economy, than I can see no
improvement at all. On the contrary, as our technology becomes more advanced
and our communication possibilities widen and become more sophisticated our
impact on environment increases. This can be seen on the example of IT
industry which epitomizes the "New" economy: computer manufacturing uses
about 1000 toxic materials, including heavy metals, and its product life
cycle is extremely short resulting in enormous waste disposal and leaching
of toxics into environment. Following is the quote form E. Williams,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 38 (22), 6166 -6174, 2004:
"The total energy and fossil fuels used in producing a desktop computer with
17-in. CRT monitor are estimated at 6400 megajoules (MJ) and 260 kg,
respectively. This indicates that computer manufacturing is energy
intensive: the ratio of fossil fuel use to product weight is 11, an order of
magnitude larger than the factor of 1-2 for many other manufactured goods.
This high energy intensity of manufacturing, combined with rapid turnover in
computers, results in an annual life cycle energy burden that is
surprisingly high: about 2600 MJ per year, 1.3 times that of a refrigerator.
In contrast with many home appliances, life cycle energy use of a computer
is dominated by production (81%) as opposed to operation (19%)."
Besides IT, our increased ability to apply efficiently knowledge to
manufacturing resulted in a myriad of new consumer products, cheap and
attractive for use, which mass production, consumption, and short life
cycles overburden the environment and degrade ecosystems around the earth.
In the meantime, the "resource based" part of our economic activities did
not diminish materially, except for their share in GDP. Concerning Western
energy intensive agriculture, it is so inextricably tied to oil reserves
(both in terms of energy and in terms of chemical ingredients for mineral
fertilizers and pesticides) and I have not been able to learn so far about
an alternative, plausible solution for the post-petroleum era.
Perhaps you may have an idea how to relate economic networks (as Bob and
myself briefly addressed them), your vision of the knowledge-based economy,
and the constraints arising from the dominant Western worldview. This may be
an interesting direction for further discussion...
The best
Igor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet@leydesdorff.net>
To: "'Robert Ulanowicz'" <ulan@cbl.umces.edu>; <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Fis] Economic Networks
> Dear Igor and Bob,
>
> Thank you for your interesting opening to the discussion.
> While reading it, I had the impression that the "worldview" is
too much
> conceptualized as a single and closed system like a Kuhnian paradigm.
> Since
> the 16th century worldviews are in flux and internally
> differentiated/differentiating. The economic system of the market, for
> example, is mapped cognitively in a discourse other than the discourse of
> physics or the discourse of power. The different worldviews
(codifications
> of the communication) disturb one another and thus can provide another
> source of change.
>
> Perhaps, your own statement can be considered as one such worldview,
> namely
> one of ecosystems theory. In this view the resources are finite and
> therefore exhaustible. Information resources, however, are not finite. In
> a
> knowledge-based economy (unlike a resource-based economy) other dynamics
> for
> the expansion may feed new loops into the system. For example, Holland is
> one of the largest producers of tomatos while tomatos can not be bred in
> Holland naturally (because of the lack of sunshine). The production of
> these
> tomatos is completely knowledge-based. Indeed, this is energy-costly, but
> energy is only finite at the level of the universe (and not at the level
> of
> the earth).
>
> Thus, one can entertain very different worldviews. The interfaces among
> them
> can be considered as sources of innovation, for example, when market
> perspectives and research perspectives can be interfaced.
>
> Perhaps, you can easily integrate this into your model?
>
> With kind regards,
>
>
> Loet
>
> ________________________________
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
> Universit� de Lausanne, School of Economics (HEC);
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Apr 28 11:00:44 2005
