Todays guest is Jessica Weinkle, Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, and Senior Fellow at The Breakthrough Institute.
In this episode we explore a range of topics and we start with the question: What is ecomodernism, and how does The Breakthrough Institute and Jessica interpret it?
“It's not a movement of can'ts”
Why are environmentalists selective about technology acceptance? Why do we assess
Todays guest is Jessica Weinkle, Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, and Senior Fellow at The Breakthrough Institute.
In this episode we explore a range of topics and we start with the question: What is ecomodernism, and how does The Breakthrough Institute and Jessica interpret it?
“It's not a movement of can'ts”
Why are environmentalists selective about technology acceptance? Why do we assess ecological impact through bodies like the IPCC and frameworks like Planetary Boundaries? Are simplified indicators of complex systems genuinely helpful or misleading?
Is contemporary science more about appearances than substance, and do scientific journals serve more and more as advocacy platforms than fact-finding missions? How much should activism and science intersect? To what extent do our beliefs influence science, and vice versa, especially when financial interests are at play in fields like climate science? Can we trust scientific integrity when narratives are tailored for publication, like in the case of Patrick Brown?
What responsibilities do experts have when consulting in political spheres, and should they present options or advocate for specific actions? How has research publishing turned into big business, and what does this mean for the pursuit of truth?
“Experts should always say: here are your options A, B, C...; not: I think you should do A”
How does modeling shape global affairs? When we use models for decision-making, are we taking them too literally, or should we focus on their broader implications?
“To take a model literally is not to take it seriously […] the models are useful to give us some ideas, but the specificity is not where we should focus.”
What's the connection between scenario building, modeling, and risk management?
“There is an institutional and professional incentive to make big claims, to draw attention. […] That's what we get rewarded for. […] It does create an incentive to push ideas that are not necessarily the most helpful ideas for addressing public problems.”
How does the public venue affect scientists, and does the incentive to make bold claims for attention come at the cost of practical solutions? What lessons should we have learned from cases like Jan Hendrik Schön, and why haven't we?
“There is an underappreciation for the extent to which scholarly publishing is a business, a big media business. It's not just all good moral virtue around skill and enlightenment. It's money, fame and fortune.”
Finally, are narratives about future scenarios fueling climate anxiety, and how should we address this in science communication and policy-making?
“There is a freedom in uncertainty and there is also an opportunity to create decisions that are more robust to an unpredictable future. The more that we say we are certain ... the more vulnerable we become to the uncertainty that we are pretending is not there.”
Other Episodes
- Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr
-
Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg
-
Episode 90: Unintended Consequences (Unerwartete Folgen)
-
Episode 86: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, a conversation with Dr. Judith Curry
-
Episode 79: Escape from Model Land, a Conversation with Dr. Erica Thompson
-
Episode 76: Existentielle Risiken
-
Episode 74: Apocalype Always
-
Episode 70: Future of Farming, a conversation with Padraic Flood
-
Episode 68: Modelle und Realität, ein Gespräch mit Dr. Andreas Windisch
-
Episode 60: Wissenschaft und Umwelt — Teil 2
-
Episode 59: Wissenschaft und Umwelt — Teil 1
References
