Take, for example, the possibility of land managers collaborating on how to respond to climate change accross a particular landscape. Climate change is definitely a complex and controversial issue. There are myriad perspectives including
- The climate is not changing in any significant way, it has always been variable
- The climate is changing and it is part of a larger natural cycle
- The climate is changing and it is caused or exagerated by human activities
- The climate is getting warmer
- The climate is getting colder
How much agreement is necessary in order for people to collaborate on designing livable solutions to today's challenges?
In any particular region, land is managed by a number of different stakeholders including tribes, federal, state, and local government agencies, corporations, non-profit organizations, families, and individuals. Each of these groups has its own unique set of priorities and objectives for how and why the land should be managed. Even if all the land owners in a region agreed that it was strategically important and mutually beneficial to collaborate on a project, and even if they agreed upon what the challenges were, and even if they agreed upon what the solutions were, it would still be complex to balance the multiple missions, multiple objectives, and multiple organizational policies, in order to collaborate effectively.
But when collaboration is really the only solution to a problem, we can't simply ignore it due to the complexity and the challenges.
Lately I've been attempting to map the complexity of the multiple perspectives on climate change. The effort has been deeply transformative for me, and I wonder if sharing some of my own learning would be of service to anyone else. I'm hoping to have the time to blog a little more frequently than I have of late. My intention is to try and find ways to share something large and complex in small and easily digestible chunks. Even if it doesn't prove to be of value to anyone else, it will certainly be a useful excercise to me.
1 comment:
I'm reminded of Upton Sinclair's statement: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Yet, while "salary" will likely always be important (until we all choose to operate within a "gift economy"), the obvious solution to this problem is for each of us to realign the source of our salary with activity that doesn't require self-deception. (I know that's easier said than done.)
Post a Comment