Bowers vs Oreskes/Conway

*Make-up post from when I went to the Emergency Room*

C.A. (Chet) Bowers' "Steps to the Recovery of Ecological Intelligence" was definitely a complex read with lots of abstract concepts. I'm not sure that I understood all of it, but the parts that I did understand were very interesting. When Bowers described negative impacts from ecological crises, I was not surprised to read about the physical losses. Some of these included "melting of glaciers that are the source of potable water, the spread of droughts, the changes in the chemistry of the world's oceans and the collapse of major fisheries, the disappearance of over thirty percent of the world's topsoil, the loss of forests that serve as carbon sinks, and the extinction of species." These were not unfamiliar ideas, and they are often associated with global warming for me. But what I did not expect Bower to include as negative impacts were the loss of linguistic diversity and the loss of intergenerational knowledge that sustain the diversity of the world's cultural commons. He goes on to say, "The latter two losses are especially important as they are the sources of knowledge and skills that have enabled different cultures to live with a smaller carbon and toxic footprint." That may be very well true, and Bowers does make a fascinating point that I previously never thought of. At the same time, I can't help but wonder if Bowers is also placing too much importance on this knowledge. I am reminded of Oreskes and Conway's "Collapse of Western Civilization" -- what good is knowledge, really? How much power is knowledge without inaction? Oreskes and Conway may disagree with Bowers and argue that knowledge does not necessarily equal change, and the outcome Bowers is dreading just may be inevitable.