In 2001, I was asked to give the Keynote address to the annual meeting of the Henry David Thoreau Society.  The talk, based on my book, No Man’s Garden, was published in The Concord Saunterer, the publication of the Thoreau Society.  Here is an except from it.

Ironies of the Information Age

During the time  that I have been an ecological scientist and involved with environmental issues, I have found several ironies of our modern technological and scientific information age. The first irony is that often we do not measure what we need to know. I have been involved in a lot of major environmental issues, from the conservation of bowhead and sperm whales to the possible effects of global warming on forests. In each case I find that there are key pieces of information missing that nobody has bothered to find out.

The second irony of the information age thing is that, if we do measure something useful, we usually don’t bother to use it. This is true among scientists as well as among public agencies and non-profit interest groups. We just archive information and forget it.

The third irony that, although we have the ability to gather many kinds of scientific information, we tend to solve environmental problems from ancient myths, plausibilities, false inferences, and ideologies. This means we often start with an answer that we wish were true and squeeze whatever scientific information we use into a mold that conforms to this wish. And we get very upset if people do not believe us.
(more…)

We hear a lot these days about what “scientists” are saying, believe, or have discovered. Especially with complicated scientific problems that have major implications for economics, politics, and society, it is important to understand the difference between scientific results and what a scientist says.

Scientists play three roles in our society, as I have written about in my book No Man’s Garden: researcher, expert witness, and “priest.” As a researcher, a scientist reports the results of a specific study he has done, objectively. As an expert witness, a scientist tells us about a subject in which he has worked, but generalizes beyond his own work, and gives a considered opinion based on his professional experience and best understanding. As a “priest” a scientist tells us what to think and what to believe.

Most of us scientists want to appear as the researcher, but in reality, most of the time, especially when we are dealing with complex scientific issues with broad policy implications, we function as expert witnesses. There is nothing wrong with this role, as long as we are honest in explaining that this is the role we are playing.

There is also a difference between what an individual scientist says and what a large group of scientists agree to say, when they are brought together by a political body and engaged in an attempt to reach a consensus. Most of the time, the result is “conventional wisdom” with all of its pitfalls, along with compromises that come about as the large group tries to deal with cultural and political differences. A report by such a large group is not scientific truth; it isn’t even expert opinion; it’s just a general negotiated agreement.

(Copyright (c) 2007 Daniel B. Botkin)

Everybody I know who uses a computer in their work has a problem with saving
information.  The technical term is archiving.  And I think I’ve found the perfect solution, which I’ll tell you about here.  But first, how did I come up with this idea anyway? (more…)

(Copyright © Daniel B. Botkin 2007)

The news that residents of New Orleans are giving up and leaving after trying hard to stay makes us wonder whether the city can survive as anything like it once was. While we may blame events on particularities, including mistakes by politicians and government officials, underlying all this is an ecology of cities, an almost environmental determinism about where and when cities survive, prevail, and rise to glory, especially cities that are on bodies of water, rose because of them, and depend on them. (more…)

The government of British Columbia, Canada, approved a request by the Redfern Corporation to build a 100 mile long mining road through the traditional land of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation. But they approved this road without asking the permission of hte First Nation.  If I understand things correctly, they didn’t even ask the First Nation.  And The land lies in northern British Columbia and is said to be one of the largest remaining wild areas of northern forests and tundra left in North America.  A mining road like this could have big effects on the wildlife, on the scenery, and most important on the culture and way of life of the Tlinglits. 

The First Nation asked me write a report about the possible environmental effects of the mining road, and I did this in the early fall of 2004, getting a small group of scientists and engineers together who had experience and knowledge about wilderness ecosystems, wildlife conservation, and road-building. Directing this kind of meeting of a small group of scientists and technical experts is something I have done repeatedly in my career, and I agreed to take on the work. (more…)

Late in 2003, Friends of Animals and The Audubon Society were at odds over deer. Too many deer is a national problem—- what to do about them? Who can be against an individual deer, a bambi, grazing in a pasture, looking up with big eyes? And who can be against the conservation of an entire endangered species of a bird? Could it be that the Audubon Society does not like bambi? Could it be that Friends of Animals could want to cause the extinction a species? Seems impossible, but it appears to be at the heart of the controversy reported in Wednesday’s New York Times where Priscilla Feral, President of Friends of Animals in Darien, Connecticut, publicly opposed a deer hunt on Audubon Greenwich land, a hunt whose intention is to protect the habitat of endangered species of birds. How can two organizations, both appearing to be of good will, be on opposite sides of an issue about the health of nature and its wildlife? (more…)

Who Visits our National Parks?

It is estimated that only one in ten Americans has been to a national park. What if a program provided funds to send many young, poor people from our cities to visit one national park? Sounds good, but our national parks are understaffed, and their buildings, roads, and trails need renovation. As presently funded, our parks could not absorb those new visitors.

An Urban World

Are we becoming city-folk? Today, 2.75 billion people –45% of the world’s population —live in cities. By 2025, this will increase to 62%. The question then is how do we bring people to nature, or nature to people?