So, Why “push for” Climate Science – Software Engineering hybridization so adamantly?!

I see it as eco-consonant in at least 2 respects: the subject of research interest, the planet’s climate (perhaps its immune system indicator?), and a widening of inter-transdisciplinary setting, which already exists among the climate natural sciences. Added to the “natural” is/would be the abiotic, and moreover, artefactual – the modelling technology.

From then on, I am simply eye-balling the highest probability of increasing the speed at which an ecosonic consciousness shift may occur. [note 1] The contingent hybridization above is only one of many that can benefit adaptation-mitigation-INNOVATION (my emphatic addition to IPCC’s 2 directions of policy making and action). The more sectors “get serious about it”, the faster the changes in the social imaginary (read: public “mind”; unless… note 2) and in a variety of societal structures: economy, education, law, media, politics, science and technology…

As a private case, the more research fields adopt an eco-consonant approach, the sooner and easier the change will take place. For example,

  • prioritize climate as an area of study
  • engage in inter-disciplinary explorations
  • encourage innovation
  • communicate with the public directly, not only through the media or gov’t

Importantly, it is crucial to coordinate well with all sectors/actors with which CliSci interfaces, for example,

  • governance & law – inter-trans-national
  • sponsors – all levels of gov’t and private
  • media – as public educators
  • education – for knowledge | of purveyors of CliSci

Looking back to just 2 public debates held locally shows that we are experts at modularizing and dichotomizing. In the December Munk Debate, two pairs of debaters were pitted against each other to “resolve” whether “cilmate change is humanity’s defining crisis and requires a commensurate action”. In the University of Toronto’s Ethics of Responsibility and Climate Change public debate, a group of debaters, mostly academics were gathered to debate what kind of issue CC is – ethical-moral, technological-scientific, political…

I’d go for a “collage” of all of the above – which would be the COMMENSURATE RESPONSE to a GLOCAL ISSUE of the scale of global warming – AND all other PREVENTABLE maladies inflicted upon ourselves and what surrounds us, through pollution and junk food, through merciless/mindless exploitation of natural and human resources, through developing a kind of scary arrogance (specifically in Western society, per numerous feminist and poscolonialist scholars) of human knowledge that leads to a delusional conquest of Nature rather than respectful learning and tuning into it, AND each other/ourselves.

As you can see, eco-consonance on all levels may be the panaceic concept. Admittedly, it draws on and rings in agreement with so many ancient and more recent, religious-spiritual and secular epistemologies-axiologies, and so many more with which this author is not/may never be familiar.


NOTE 1. To point out a distinction of denotational scope, compared to the (by now) cliched term “green”, per this thought-log’s terminology, “ecosonic” has the widest scope imaginable, including biotic – abiotic eco consonance and dissonance.

NOTE 2… unless you want to read the originator of the concept/theory Cornelius Castoriadis (since the 1950s in the journal Socialisme et barbarie), or a contemporary Charles Taylor:
Castoriadis, Cornelius. The Imaginary Institution of Society. MIT University Press, 1987.
Taylor, Charles. Modern Social Imaginaries. Duke University Press, 2004.