Presentation context of the 2052 Report

Engendering 2052 through Re-imagining the Present: Review of a report to the Club of Rome (Part #2)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

These preliminary critical comments concern the actual presentation of the report in Rotterdam (available on video) and the associated press release and commentaries in the press. The book itself was not scheduled for release until a month later.

Time stands still? The presentation offered a curious sense of time standing still. The format of the presentation (with speaker, panelists and selected questioners) can barely have differed in detail from that of the presentation to the Club of Rome of The Limits to Growth in 1972. The nature and focus of the graphs presented strongly recalled those of 40 years past -- as well they might, if nothing had been learned in the intervening period. It could be readily understood as an exercise in "we told you so". The style and contributions of the panelists, in response to the solo presentation, was less than inspiring. The recommendations made, and central to the press release, were essentially "more of the same". Will the pattern of analysis and reporting be repeated in forty years time?

Unchanging mindset? Perceived in this light, an option considered for this "review" could simply have been to "cut and paste" arguments made in the "review" of the Royal Society report, as mentioned above (Scientific Gerrymandering of Boundaries of Overpopulation Debate, 2012). The fundamental (and tragic) point to be made is that neither report seeks to derive insight from the lack of uptake of the insights of The Limits to Growth or other articulations of the global problematique. The "scientific" focus is on reviewing the data on the selected set of 5 core parameters. This is accompanied by extremely weak, if not naive, recommendations about what governments and individuals should do about the emerging situation -- with no capacity to explore why there is very little track record of effective action in this regard -- adequate to the nature of the challenges foreseen. Religions have adopted this posture over centuries. People continue to "sin".

Resolutique: This is curious in that it was in fact the Club of Rome that had initiated a preoccupation with a "resolutique" to complement their recognition of the "problematique" (Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider (Eds.), The First Global Revolution: a report by the Council of the Club of Rome, 1992). This could be seen as a reframing of the emphasis in the earlier report by Hasan Ozbekhan (as noted below). Separately it was argued that this preoccupation merited consideration in the light of two other complementary "-iques", namely an "imaginatique" and an irresolutique" (Imagining the Real Challenge and Realizing the Imaginal Pathway of Sustainable Transformation, 2007).

Imaginatique: This term was suggested as a way of giving focus to the dimensions typically neglected in any resource-oriented report like that for 2052. It is appropriate to note that the Club of Rome had commissioned a so-called third generation report to focus on the social, psychological, and cultural inner limits which could give positive direction to human aspirations (Ervin Laszlo, Goals for Mankind: Report to the Club of Rome on the New Horizons of Global Community, 1977). This dealt explicitly with human factors and investigated those ethical commitments, world views and value judgments which could lead beyond perennial crises toward a healthier state of global human society. The two recent reports only make passing reference to imagination and none to that report.

Irresolutique: This term was proposed as a way of holding the degree of indecision and game-playing undermining any effort to respond "rationally" to the problematique. The extent to which the Royal Society and Club of Rome initiatives ignore each other is but one example of "turf wars" of which Turner (2007) gave a more extensive account in relation to Limits to Growth. The irresolutique can be recognized as a primary characteristic of governance at this time -- especially in response to the need for longer-term strategies, to which the 2052 Report draws attention. Neither report makes reference to the kinds of game-playing so characteristic of "turf wars" -- and so fundamental to the frustration of efforts to initiate change

Governance and learning: What is extraordinary is the seemingly complete incapacity of the Club of Rome to take account of the insights in the 50 reports it has elicited over forty years -- and the seeming incapacity of its members to be aware of the pattern they might represent. Why, for example, are their contents not appropriately segmented into a single database -- analogous to the Wikipedia initiative -- tagged according to relevance to problematique, resolutique, and even to imaginatique and resolutique?

The reports include that with respect to governance by Yehezkel Dror (The Capacity to Govern: a Report to the Club of Rome, 2001), previously reviewed. It might be said that the Club's capacity to give its authority -- to what must now be seen to be essentially pathetic recommendations -- constitutes an inherent incapacity to learn. This is especially ironic given that it has elicited a valuable exploration of "learning" (James W. Botkin, Mahdi Elmandjra and Mircea Malitza, No Limits to Learning: Bridging the Human Gap -- A Report to the Club of Rome, 1980), as previously reviewed (Societal Learning and the Erosion of Collective Memory: a critique of the Club of Rome Report: No Limits to Learning, 1980). The 2052 Report makes no reference to any previous "Report to the Club of Rome", other than those relating directly to Limits to Growth.

The conclusion to be drawn is that, if the Club of Rome itself is apparently incapable of learning from the rich source of insights at its direct disposal, how does it expect the world at large -- or individuals -- to benefit from those insights? More tragic is its apparent inability to weave this accumulation of insights into a meaningful pattern -- if only to inform its own membership and immediate audience. Again, with what pattern of insights is the wider world, and those in government, expected to engage -- if the Club cannot make meaningful sense of its own reports? Nevertheless, the launch of the report is explicitly framed as enabling "an overarching framework for action" -- like so many down the years, now gathering dust on shelves.

Interrelating problematique, resolutique, "imaginatique" and "irresolutique" (tentative) (Reproduced from Imagining the Real Challenge and Realizing the Imaginal Pathway of Sustainable Transformation, 2007)

The structure and labels can be most fruitfully understood as evoking "questions" rather than as indicative of closure on a definitive pattern of "answers". For example it raises issues of how seemingly "positive" or "negative" qualities are best reflected therein -- especially as valued by mutually opposed constituencies -- and to what extent these may be otherwise understood. Similarly to what extent does "reality" depend on prior "imagination" for it to exist, whether within a "faith-based" or a "reality-based" commitment?

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]