Here are some belated observations about the vision statement authored by Burns, Ehrlich, Kennedy, etc. First, I understand from one of the Stanford meetings that it was agreed to retain the acroynym MAHB, but to change the tag line, so that we now have something like: MAHB: Sustainability and Human Behavior: Visions, Innovations, Transitions. This modification, I think, actually underscores my comment that follows. The statement is, I presume, not only destined for academics, but also for as wide an educated audience as possible. That being so, I would not open with the term "millennial assessment," for at least two reasons: (1) the terminology, like that of the Millennium Ecological Assessment (MEA) was termed "millennial" because it began at the onset of this millennium and was therefore appropriate then; (2) only ecologists and global change people will recognize the terminology, meaning that a general audience will think this is an assessment over a thousand years—which it is not.
I would prefer the opening to say "global assessments" which is a clearer description of those other initiatives and our project. The word "millennial" can then be introduced and described later in the text if necessary (indeed, I don't recall, is it ever defined?). I also wonder about the reification of "society," ("Yet, society stubbornly refuses) much as Jared Diamond did in "Collapse." Some might object to this phrasing because it reduces the outcome of a complex set of processes to a singular decision maker. But, it is my understanding that you have discussed this issue and have settled on it, warts and all.
Here are a few belated comments on the working statement by Tom, Paul, Don, et al. I understand from one of the Stanford meetings that it has been agreed to retain the acronym MAHB for pragmatic reasons, but to change the tag line, so that they read something like: MAHB: Sustainability and Human Behavior: Visions, Innovations, Transitions.
A final observation on the vision statement. Perhaps this is a typo only, but what does a malign technology mean? Is this supposed to be the word "malignant?" Whatever the term it seems out of the mainstream of the current discourse over the grand issues that we address in general, and out of step with the "vulnerability" perspective that is a refined element of those issues. Terminology such as "risky technologies" or "hazardous technologies" would seem to do the same job while situating us in the mainstream.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.
This is your Sidebar, which you can edit like any other page in your workspace.
This Sidebar appears everywhere on your workspace. Add to it whatever you like -- a navigation section, a link to your favorite web sites, or anything else.
Comments (2)
rosa@wsu.edu said
at 12:49 pm on Jul 18, 2009
Here are some belated observations about the vision statement authored by Burns, Ehrlich, Kennedy, etc. First, I understand from one of the Stanford meetings that it was agreed to retain the acroynym MAHB, but to change the tag line, so that we now have something like: MAHB: Sustainability and Human Behavior: Visions, Innovations, Transitions. This modification, I think, actually underscores my comment that follows. The statement is, I presume, not only destined for academics, but also for as wide an educated audience as possible. That being so, I would not open with the term "millennial assessment," for at least two reasons: (1) the terminology, like that of the Millennium Ecological Assessment (MEA) was termed "millennial" because it began at the onset of this millennium and was therefore appropriate then; (2) only ecologists and global change people will recognize the terminology, meaning that a general audience will think this is an assessment over a thousand years—which it is not.
I would prefer the opening to say "global assessments" which is a clearer description of those other initiatives and our project. The word "millennial" can then be introduced and described later in the text if necessary (indeed, I don't recall, is it ever defined?). I also wonder about the reification of "society," ("Yet, society stubbornly refuses) much as Jared Diamond did in "Collapse." Some might object to this phrasing because it reduces the outcome of a complex set of processes to a singular decision maker. But, it is my understanding that you have discussed this issue and have settled on it, warts and all.
Here are a few belated comments on the working statement by Tom, Paul, Don, et al. I understand from one of the Stanford meetings that it has been agreed to retain the acronym MAHB for pragmatic reasons, but to change the tag line, so that they read something like: MAHB: Sustainability and Human Behavior: Visions, Innovations, Transitions.
rosa@wsu.edu said
at 12:51 pm on Jul 18, 2009
A final observation on the vision statement. Perhaps this is a typo only, but what does a malign technology mean? Is this supposed to be the word "malignant?" Whatever the term it seems out of the mainstream of the current discourse over the grand issues that we address in general, and out of step with the "vulnerability" perspective that is a refined element of those issues. Terminology such as "risky technologies" or "hazardous technologies" would seem to do the same job while situating us in the mainstream.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.