March 15, 2010 § Leave a comment
The topic for the seminar this last week was “what can happen.” After lots of directions mentioned, we focuses on education, especially in the sense of communities of practice dealing with climate change, and concluded that education would be more important in dealing with climate change than technology. Strong statement, woke me up.
Shanks and i worked with Castilleja school on integrating globalization issues, including climate, into their curricula. The faculty and board seem ready to move on an education that meets the basics more quickly so that real time can be spent on more advanced and challenging projects of engagement.
I am reading the UN report mentioned earlier and it has some paragraphs worth critiquing.
Industrial development…can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution and beyond. Indeed, the idea of development is rooted in the Enlightenment ideal of a rational society of free and responsible citizens, i.e., ultimately a society governed by scientifc principles and managed accordingly. The emergence of industrial production in the nineteenth century was rapidly incorporated into the development paradigm: industrial development came to be seen as a means – so to speak the motor – of making this modern and rational society come true.
Unfortunately, the means turned into an end, development became a goal in itself.
The problem here is that it looks like a desire for progress was the engine, but alternative view is that banking used the IR for profit, not for any intrinsic reasons.