Titanic implications?

Engendering 2052 through Re-imagining the Present: Review of a report to the Club of Rome (Part #3)

---

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

---

Blinkered response to constraints: The 2052 Report emerges within this context as a seemingly blinkered focus on a very similar set of indicators to those publicised in 1972 -- and well-deprecated since, as the Royal Society report notes in passing (but without taking any account of the issues raised by Turner in 2007). The 2052 Report makes only the briefest of mentions of Turner.

In this light there is no capacity whatsoever to engage with the demonstrable constraints inhibiting effective response to dramatic predictions of crisis. This was a primary thread in the critical review of the Royal Society report (2012). The latter indeed took specific account of the much-publicised Swedish study of nine "planetary boundaries", but completely ignored the factors inhibiting remedial action on those boundaries, as discussed separately (Recognizing the Psychosocial Boundaries of Remedial Action: constraints on ensuring a safe operating space for humanity, 2009). The 2052 Report makes no reference to the report on "planetary boundaries" resulting from the work in Stockholm -- another instance of "irresolutique"? It does however recognize several boundaries to remedial action, but curiously fails to design them into its systemic model. In this sense, like the Royal Society report, it is fundamentally asystemic -- despite its claim to the contrary.

Again it might be said, however, if Norwegian and Swedish initiatives cannot get their act together, what is to be expected of the reactions of those in other countries?

Lack of transparency: Despite the report's preoccupation with sustainability, the irresolutique is further exemplified by significant involvement of Randers with the Dow Chemical Company, at a time of current controversy regarding the latter's major sponsorship of the Olympic Games (2012) -- when there are unresolved issues concerning the tragic Bhopal disaster (1984), for which it is claimed it have a responsibility. For many this association will be enough to suggest that the 2052 Report was in some way sponsored by Dow Chemical in its efforts to launder its image. Toyota (Norway) is however the only corporation acknowledged as a sponsor.

That Dow Chemical is indicated as a participant in the UN Global Compact does little to alleviate suspicions, especially since it is only Toyota (Pakistan) that is a participant in that Compact. The 2052 Report does however have an extensive discussion of corporate social responsibility. The accuracy of the 40-year forecast of the 2052 Report might even be considered to have a probability as great as that of the report having been enabled in some way by Dow Chemical. Enabling this implication says a great deal about the Club of Rome itself and its failure to ensure appropriate transparency in this regard. It invites the suspicion it has long attracted from conspiracy theorists regarding its supposed hidden agenda.

Global implications for emergence of "new thinking": These questions are far from trivial in that both the Royal Society report and that of the Club of Rome are considered major inputs to the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio de Janeiro, 2012). As the successor to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972) and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), there is a specific need for attention to the incapacity to implement resolutions and strategies. These are increasingly seen as exercises in pathetic, well-meaning tokenism. Neither of the new reports does more than indicate that crises are imminent and that urgent action is called for. Will the Rio+20 event aspire to more?

As exemplified by the panel presentation of the 2052 Report, there is no so-called "new thinking" on what form that action might take, nor indeed on the very nature of the "new thinking" that might be of relevance. The press release notes the functions of the Club of Rome as a global think tank of individuals composed of 30 national associations -- at a time when the role of "think tanks" might itself be considered questionable (Tank-thoughts from Think-tanks: constraining metaphors on developing global governance, 2003). The report is however seen by the Club of Rome as part of an 18-month campaign to stimulate ideas on future options to shape the world in a sustainable way -- taking its context from the 1972 report. What exactly has it learned since then? Where is this articulated?

Excluded perspectives: Of particular relevance to current assumptions regarding the place of Limits to Growth  within the "overarching framework for action", is the manner in which the insights rejected at the time of adoption of that programme no longer call for any consideration. It is readily forgotten that that programme was adopted by the Club of Rome as an alternative to that elaborated, at the request of the Club of Rome, under the direction of Hasan Ozbekhan -- in consultation with Alexander Christakis, Erich Jantsch, and Aurelio Peccei. That action-focused original "prospectus", in the form of a "report to the Club of Rome", was entitled: The Predicament for Mankind: Quest for Structured Responses to Growing World-wide Complexities and Uncertainties (1970). A distinct variant was later published by Hasan Ozbekhan (The Predicament of Mankind, 1976). What has been designed out of the overarching current framework? Should it now be caricatured as effectively a "limited-to-growth" perspective -- of which the 2052 Report is a new incarnation? What might be the implications of the argument by Andrew Simms (Clinging to economic growth suffocates the imagination, The Guardian, 1 February 2012). He suggests that after 40 years, the message of The Limits to Growth report is still not being heard -- and that other ways are needed to share a finite planet.

Titanic scenario? At a time of widespread interest in the disaster of the RMS Titanic (2012) and its centennial celebration, it is curious to note that the preoccupation is with the past disaster itself and not with what might be learned from it -- of current relevance. In that sense it is useful to see the institutions of global governance as now having a systemic resemblance to that vessel and its governing authorities -- responding similarly to the appreciation and needs of the different classes of passengers.

It is tempting to see the worthy academic preoccupation with trends as corresponding to careful study of the trail of the vessel through the waters -- as seen whilst comfortably seated on the afterdeck. An "aftercast" rather than a "forecast"? Although explicitly regretted, there is no preoccupation with the incapacity of the vessel's authorities to even consider effective precautionary measures. That might be understood as "foreward" thinking, but of a higher cybernetic order. The need for such concern is denied -- as in the case of the arrogant self-confidence so disastrously enacted a century ago. As argued with respect to the Royal Society report, this is seemingly not a worthy concern of the forms of "science" deemed to be "relevant".

---

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