Reacting to both Igor's and Loet's statements here: I note that a
'knowledge-based system' is actually more energy-intensive than a
'resource-based system'. This reflects rather directly, I think, the fact
that nervous systems, and especially brains, use much more power/mass
(energy density throughput) than any other tissues in animals. Therefore
information transactions really are superimposed upon resource utilization,
and this raises a question as to the appropriateness of a distinction
between r-based and k-based systems. All exist in the material world, and
ALL are resource based!
STAN
>Dear Igor and colleagues,
>
>I don't buy your definitions of "Weltanschauung" as being
necessarily
>homogenized under a dominant one which can be simplified as
"materialism",
>"rationality" and "Protestant ethic". I think that we
have moved in
>sociology beyond these Weberian definitions. However, I agree that the
other
>issue is more interesting for the discussion on this list. (Perhaps, the
two
>problems cannot so easily be separated, but let us assume that for a
>moment.)
>
>The transition from a resource-based economy to a knowledge-based economy
is
>not to be placed at the middle of the 20th century as your email
suggested,
>since this has been a post-Coldwar development. The first documents using
>the words "knowledge-based economy" in OECD circles are from
1996 (on the
>basis of drafts from 1994). Thus, we are talking about a current
transition.
>For example, this transition was central to the Lisbon agreements of the
EU
>summit of 2000.
>
>What is the difference? Let me take a simple example. Compare two
megacities
>like Calcutta and New York. Both have of the order of 10^7 inhabitants.
New
>York is much more resource-intensive (in terms of using energy, etc.) than
>Calcutta, but few of us would consider Calcutta as more sustainable than
New
>York. For example, in New York the streets are reasonably maintained and
>clean, and one lives with much less risk of infections, etc.
>
>What makes the difference between Calcutta and New York? I would say a
>knowledge-based infrastructure like first a sewage system, but then also a
>telephone system, a subway system, etc. In short, a whole set of
>communication networks in New York which does not exist in Calcutta. The
>system is better sustainable because a set of coordination mechanisms is
in
>place which proliferates on top of "hardware".
>
>Let us formalize this notion of communication systems which are added to
the
>people. As noted above, the N of both systems is of the order of 10^7. The
>communication systems can be considered as an M. Thus a matrix N x M is
>shaped. In the case of Calcutta N dominates this matrix and therefore the
>system is "natural". As M expands, it can take over the
dynamics. The
>supporting capacity of the system (the maximum entropy) is N x M. The
>extension of M to (M + 1) enlarges the matrix with N (= 10^)
possibilities.
>The extension of M is knowledge-based, while the extension of N is
>resource-based.
>
>Please, note that this has nothing to do with "materialsm",
"realism" or "a
>Protestant work ethic" as you wished to suggest.
>
>With kind regards,
>
>
>Loet
>________________________________
>
>Loet Leydesdorff
>Honory Chair of the City of Lausanne (March - July)
>Universit� de Lausanne, School of Economics (HEC),
>BFSH 1, 1015 Lausanne-Dorigny, Switzerland
>Tel.:+41-21-6923469
>
>Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
>Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
>Tel.: +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-20-525 3681
>loet@leydesdorff.net;
http://www.leydesdorff.net
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Igor Matutinovic [mailto:igor.matutinovic@gfk.hr]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:00 AM
>> To: Loet Leydesdorff; 'Robert Ulanowicz'; fis@listas.unizar.es
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Economic Networks
>>
>> 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
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sun May 1 21:48:27 2005
