A book review report to be submitted for one of the courses I am taking this semester (the course name is Philosophical Issues in Geography, the content is interesting, but the teaching style is...well...)
Book Name: Greenhouse Economics: Value and Ethics
Publisher: Routledge, London
Author: Cli_ve Sp_ash
Year: 2002
Sp_ash’s book offers insightful counterarguments to neoclassical economics with reference in particular to enhanced Greenhouse Effect. Despite titled as ‘Greenhouse economics’ the book is developed as a critical review of mainstream environmental economists’ misunderstandings of the issue. Intensive discussion on the misplaced role of economics as well as science in general is built upon a postmodernist perspective as a response to their methodological weaknesses in addressing the nature of the problem which is characterized by evidently high uncertainties, complexities and indeterminacy. It calls for a theoretically different approach that removes the consequential and utilitarian preoccupation of standard economics, and accommodates pluralist values and admits partial ignorance.
Normal science and mainstream economics, according to Sp_ash, restrict their analysis and policy recommendations to a claim of truth-seeking and neutrality. This
‘golden rule’, however, limits the development of good policy if applying to the public sphere. His criticisms come with a distinction between weak and strong uncertainty, which the former is meant to acknowledge predictable risks with unknown probabilities while the latter denies any predictability as with the climate change. Justified by a deterministic worldview, the linear and predictable trajectory of climate change then form the basis of cost-benefit analysis that formulates the money balance in case of catastrophic events. An objective fact is taken as given and awaiting to be discovered in forms like the dollar value of the damages following a rise in global temperature, which can then inform what should and should not be done to assure sustainability. However, Sp_ash dismisses such faith as ‘hard’ guidance for policymaking given the strong uncertainty, irreversibility and indeterminacy of climatic catastrophes that make experimental speculative numbers meaningless in developing proper responses to truly unpredictable events. The characterisation of future states via ‘scientifically sound’ cause-effect relationship would excessively simplify system behaviours in action which often operate in non-linear patterns, like human interaction.
Another problem that follows is the treatment of ethical dimensions. Reliance on science throughout the last century appears to promote the merits of a value-free position in the realization of adaptive responses. Sp_ash is sceptical to such a relegation of moral judgement especially in the high-profile debates of global warming. Relocation of inhabitants in low-lying areas and the international distribution of mitigation costs, for instance, inevitably involve justice issues and are beyond the economic dogma of utility maximization defined exclusively by neoclassical criteria. Sp_ash contends that “many economists claim that economic values and scientific research are separable from the moral and ethical dimensions of the problem they study. However, whether discounting or valuing damages, ethical and distributional issues are central to discussing the enhanced Greenhouse Effect (p.192)”. The utilitarianism well established in mainstream economics that serves well in dealing with private goods has entirely missed the point as far as the public good nature of the environment, as exemplified by the case of global warming, is concerned.
The need of a transition from normal science to post normal science is stressed by Sp_ash, following Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993, 1994), who are inspired by a specific postmodernist standpoint. Scientists and economists attempt to search for an objective truth for achieving a set of definitive solutions to the problem and restrict the criteria to their initial worldview. Under a methodological individualism they construct disciplinary boundary based on a set of unrealistic assumptions isolated from the human world and at the same time ignore evidence that is incompatible to their recognized empirical knowledge. Multiple values and deontological positions are excluded from positive economics thus cutting off the connection between science and society. Blatantly contradictory and misleading messages are then created under this narrow definition of global warming issues and its impacts, as demonstrated in the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change strongly criticized by Sp_ash in another article (Sp_ash, 2007).
Criticisms to Sp_ash’s position can be drawn from pragmatic needs. Economists’ simplification can make policy actions manageable and scientific ‘evidence’ can also minimize controversy. Admission of partial ignorance and incorporation of multiple values require a fundamental change in institutional behaviours as acknowledged by Sp_ash. Despite theoretically correct, practitioners may find it impotent to commit such a big move and be sceptical to withdrawing from vested interests, and this creates questions about the extent that the Sp_ash’s recommendations can genuinely make a difference in practice. He may also be challenged as being over-optimistic to an enhanced role of the public when he recommended a deliberative, discursive approach rather an expert-led one. Emphasis of subjective moral imperatives will leave rooms for policy manipulation too. Further, existing institutions tend to have a resistance to the unspecified, or sometimes ambiguous, roadmap, so do the general public in some circumstances.
Nevertheless, the major contribution of this book is in distinguishing the role of objectivity and subjectivity with respect to enhanced Greenhouse Effect issues, while leaving policy recommendations open (in fact, this must be open based on the contexts). Critics should not ignore the fact that the exclusive focus on objectivity is part of the problem per se. It not only relegates ethical dimensions but also puts too much faith to future technologies. If being objective is meant to rely more on science, then one cannot eliminate surprise events associated with the environment as well as human society. “Future technologies cannot be predicted and therefore all the worries of environmentalists may be solved by scientists and engineers. The very same analysts fail to see the logic of their argument. If the future is unpredictable we must plan for the unexpected” (p.279).
Acknowledging subjective values is meant to enhance the capacities of human to cope with strong uncertainties by extending the peer review community to lay people and stakeholders, and the concerned in other disciplines like social psychology and political science. This helps identify unknowns and develop novel solutions, and most importantly, assure equity in the distribution of costs and benefits associated with surprise events, such as relocation of coastal inhabitants due to sudden sea level rise. The issues about who gain and who lose are in fact central to the global warming discourse. They are however more an art than a science that objective judgement always fails to address if not intensifies the problem by, as some economists did, suggesting that a potential (hypothetical) compensation would justify ‘rational’ decisions like transferring chemical wastes to poor countries for lower costs in accordance with the Pareto optimality principle. Sp_ash stresses that objective information and approaches are to some extent ‘subjectively’ created. In his book, the enhanced Greenhouse Effect is taken to indicate the weaknesses of holding such an ‘objective’ position in tackling contemporary complex problems. Criticising on pragmatic issues does not reduce the credibility of his arguments but just repeat the narrowly defined economic doctrines. In fact, part of the current problem actually arises from the intentional avoidance of these complex issues.
To conclude, this book is worth reading in depth. In general it is suitable for readers who have basic knowledge in economics and are interested in a pluralistic approach. It broadens the understanding of the enhanced Greenhouse Effect by critically reviewing the interpretations of mainstream economics in particular. It reminds economists and those who accept their approaches that the issue can never be adequately understood within their disciplinary confines. Sp_ash raises suspicion over the prevalent neoclassicism and meaningfully approaches the issue following the postmodernist trend, while leaving more difficult (but unavoidable) questions to practitioners, including to himself.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Sunday, March 9, 2008
五年
剛剛出席了一個大學同學的婚宴，他是我的roomate，跟我一樣都叫ALEX，一起住了三年，他算我在大學裡的最好朋友了，看著他步入人生一個新階段，驚覺原來我們畢業已經五年了
跟很多人一樣，我的大學生活都是十分糜爛 (但比起他我還不算什麼，起碼我還會溫習課本)，常常三五成群，以酒為伴，不到凌晨2、3時不睡，又參與很多校內的活動，不過統統都是沒正經的，例如新生迎新營，三年級的時候便迷上online game，結果成績大倒退。當然，我當時也沒有什麼事業目標可言，只期望畢業後可以找份普通的工作就算了 – 事實上連打算找什麼工作也不太清楚。畢業那年(2003)正值SARS，百業蕭條，往後一年事業都十分不如意，好不容易捱到了2004年，心底裡漸漸有些念頭湧現，告訴自己不應再從事商業工作，而應重新拾回自己於下了多年的興趣 ，那就是環保。
入大學前我一度考慮選修環境科學，但最後因前途考量而放棄了，五年後即2004年，我決定擺心一橫，辭掉了只做了五個月的merchandiser的工作，找了一份環保工作，就是在一個政府機構內當Project Coordinator，籌辦環保教育活動，而代價是賠了HK$3000多元給另一個政府部門，原因是我工作了兩天就辭工。由於工作比較清閒，我有很多時間自行閱讀有關這個範疇的Readings，特別是有關environmental economics的，同時間我亦決定報讀環境管理學碩士，希望借此學更多有關知識，及看看自己是否適合再讀上去，而在課程開始不久，即2006年初，我就轉到港大教育學院當研究助理，目的亦是希望看看自己的research potential，避免走錯路，另外面也是因為對政府部門的官僚制度感到失望，想早日離開。
兩年又這樣過去了，我覺得研究這條路是十分適合自己，於是決定報讀MPhil，為自己再讀PhD鋪好路。令我意外的是，在我開始MPhil不到半年，我就獲得了一個全額獎學金到澳洲讀PhD，而且還是跟隨一位我心儀已久的教授工作，機會難得，我當然不作他想。
如此，這五年自我尋找的過程很快就過去了，我終於如願以償，可以到外國重新開始自己的事業和生活，我人生的另一個階段快要開始了，是十分令人興奮的，然而，這麼一去的代價甚大，想起也十分擔憂，但出國讀書是事在必行，人沒有理想就如行屍走肉，這種人我見多了，作為財務學畢業生，我反而不希望什麼也跟錢掛勾，每天西裝筆直在中環上班就叫人生? 別開玩笑，我不要這樣
物質生活對我不太重要，離開香港這個物質社會可以讓我靜下來做研究。但我最不願意見到的是為了理想放棄我身邊的人，艱苦的日子一齊渡過，我光榮自豪的一刻也要一起分享。
大學畢業是人生一個新階段，現在五年後又是另一個，當年中文大學逸夫書院國懋樓房號H122裡的兩個ALEX，今天一個結了婚，走進人生新的關口，而另一個則將要踏上陌生的土地，開始新事業。無法想像再五年後大家的樣子會變得如何(更老還是更胖?!)，但期望大家都能找到自己理想的天空。
跟很多人一樣，我的大學生活都是十分糜爛 (但比起他我還不算什麼，起碼我還會溫習課本)，常常三五成群，以酒為伴，不到凌晨2、3時不睡，又參與很多校內的活動，不過統統都是沒正經的，例如新生迎新營，三年級的時候便迷上online game，結果成績大倒退。當然，我當時也沒有什麼事業目標可言，只期望畢業後可以找份普通的工作就算了 – 事實上連打算找什麼工作也不太清楚。畢業那年(2003)正值SARS，百業蕭條，往後一年事業都十分不如意，好不容易捱到了2004年，心底裡漸漸有些念頭湧現，告訴自己不應再從事商業工作，而應重新拾回自己於下了多年的興趣 ，那就是環保。
入大學前我一度考慮選修環境科學，但最後因前途考量而放棄了，五年後即2004年，我決定擺心一橫，辭掉了只做了五個月的merchandiser的工作，找了一份環保工作，就是在一個政府機構內當Project Coordinator，籌辦環保教育活動，而代價是賠了HK$3000多元給另一個政府部門，原因是我工作了兩天就辭工。由於工作比較清閒，我有很多時間自行閱讀有關這個範疇的Readings，特別是有關environmental economics的，同時間我亦決定報讀環境管理學碩士，希望借此學更多有關知識，及看看自己是否適合再讀上去，而在課程開始不久，即2006年初，我就轉到港大教育學院當研究助理，目的亦是希望看看自己的research potential，避免走錯路，另外面也是因為對政府部門的官僚制度感到失望，想早日離開。
兩年又這樣過去了，我覺得研究這條路是十分適合自己，於是決定報讀MPhil，為自己再讀PhD鋪好路。令我意外的是，在我開始MPhil不到半年，我就獲得了一個全額獎學金到澳洲讀PhD，而且還是跟隨一位我心儀已久的教授工作，機會難得，我當然不作他想。
如此，這五年自我尋找的過程很快就過去了，我終於如願以償，可以到外國重新開始自己的事業和生活，我人生的另一個階段快要開始了，是十分令人興奮的，然而，這麼一去的代價甚大，想起也十分擔憂，但出國讀書是事在必行，人沒有理想就如行屍走肉，這種人我見多了，作為財務學畢業生，我反而不希望什麼也跟錢掛勾，每天西裝筆直在中環上班就叫人生? 別開玩笑，我不要這樣
物質生活對我不太重要，離開香港這個物質社會可以讓我靜下來做研究。但我最不願意見到的是為了理想放棄我身邊的人，艱苦的日子一齊渡過，我光榮自豪的一刻也要一起分享。
大學畢業是人生一個新階段，現在五年後又是另一個，當年中文大學逸夫書院國懋樓房號H122裡的兩個ALEX，今天一個結了婚，走進人生新的關口，而另一個則將要踏上陌生的土地，開始新事業。無法想像再五年後大家的樣子會變得如何(更老還是更胖?!)，但期望大家都能找到自己理想的天空。
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
From science to philosophy (with Chinese)
Some thoughts about the development of the discipline I am engaging in. In short, the change in the focus is driven by a recognition that science is not the key to achieving SD although it does have a role to play. We have to look at value, the ultimate source of the problems.
When the science of sustainability emerged in 70s, it was more closely associated with physical scientific perspectives than social or philosophical ones. Earlier researchers in ecological economics (EE) took part in this endeavour by re-connecting ecology and economics and based their works on the biophysical reality. They assessed the sustain-ability of our economy by showing people the failure of the current economic model in accounting for the earth’s operation. They began with energy and material flow analysis, and used this to show the ridiculousness of neoclassical economics. In a series of academic debates, mainstream economic assumptions, like indefinite supply of natural resources and reversible process of resource use, were criticized as misrepresenting the real world in which the scale of economy is subject to biophysical constraints.
Those with a greater emphasis on social or philosophical sides form a new school of thought. They work on this newer perspective, which is still in its infancy, by addressing what value is in subjective terms rather than objective ones. They address the meaning of environmental value based on various non-science viewpoints, like psychology, political science and applied philosophy, which the earlier researchers in EE did not pay as much attention as they do. Some of the earlier researchers who have an ecology or economics background insisted on incorporating the 'truth' of the Earth into policymaking through adopting approaches like energy theory of value or ecological tariffs. It was (and still is) suggested that the best way to build a sustainable path is to find out the existing, objective ‘truth’ and show it to all people, they will then become aware of the problems and do something good. Big changes in policy and human behaviours are thus a viewed as a function of an objectivity. What we need to do is developing right science and getting rid of the wrong one, according to this view.
A key question is raised by the ‘new generation’ in EE: do human behaviours (and hence policy) really listen to objective facts? Is the relationship strong enough so that we can happily rest our future on science? Psychologists may say ‘No’. Lots of psychological researches have showed that it is people’s perception over the facts in question that determines human behaviours rather than the facts per se. For example, an American may be convinced by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” but is unwilling to pay any eco-tax because s/he hates this politician and the dirty political game he is playing.
The new wave starts with a more social scientific perspective. They seek to explore the potentials of understanding human perceptions (or the economics's wrong assumption of it) and behaviours which have no necessary linkage with an objective 'truth'. They research on the subjectivity of environmental value, which is recognized as variable, dynamic and multidimentional. There is no single ‘truth’, but changing contexts depending on spatial and temporal variations. Further, individuals are assumed to be capable of acting rationally and reacting ‘correctly’ to scientific evidence (neoclassical economists hold a view similar to this, i.e. defining utility-motivated actions as rational while excluding ethics). But this finds little support from social psychologists, like Icek Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviours which puts individual’s attitude, subjective norms and perceived behaviour control as the key determinants. Attitude may affect the extent to which people trust an institution and accept a particular piece of scientific ‘fact’ regarding global warming funded by, for instance, Exxon, a big oil company. Norms may also implicitly influence how individuals define what is ‘rational’, so fengshui (風水)is a rational and legitimate belief in Chinese societies and fengshui forest can be most effectively protected by cultural reasons rather than ecological ones. The new comers argue that wrong policy comes from a wrong value model, and wrong science is in turn more like an outcome of both these two, so one has make sure the value system is on the right track for informing science development. While science is necessary, it is subjective value that precludes as well as informs a big move.
生態經濟學是以可持續發展為目標的一門學問，其近30年的發展提示了對環境問題的另一個看法 (當然這裡包含了其他領域的貢獻)。轉變的重點是在於認識到客觀科學不是解決問題關鍵，雖然它仍的確扮演一個角色，我們要著眼於人類對『價值』的定義 - 問題的最終來源。 當可持續性這門學問出現在70年代，它主要從自然科學的角度出發多於社會或哲學的。在生態經濟學的範疇裡，早期旳研究人員嘗試建基於生物/物理的現實，來重新連接生態學和經濟學兩門有著很多共通點的學科。他們透過指出，由於過份簡化及脫離事實，現行經濟模式是無法反映地球的實際運作情況，來評估現行經濟模型的環境可持續性。他們從能量和物質流分析開始，揭示出新古典經濟學的可笑。在一系列的學術爭論中，新古典經濟學的假設，如天然資源的無限供應和資源使用過程的可回逆性等等，被批評為歪曲了現實世界裡經濟規模受生物物理限制這一事實。 當中有部份人比較強調社會或哲學觀點，遂形一個新的學派分支。他們做這方面的工作以較新的角度來看 – 不過目前仍然處於起步階段，他們強調環境價值是由主觀概念，而非客觀。他們以各種非科學的觀點，如心理學，政治學和應用哲學，來解釋和釐清環境價值的定義，而這些觀點在以前是被忽略了的。早期的生態經濟學者很多有生態學或經濟學背景，他們堅持把有關環境的科學'真理'放做政策制定的最主要考慮，並提出解決途徑例如能量價值理論或生態關稅。這曾被認為是（其實現在仍然是）最好的方法:要建設一個可持續發展的道路，就是要摸清現有的、客觀的科學'真理' (例如全球氣溫上升)，並將之展示世人，於是人們就會自然地為了解決這個問題而作出正面回應。政策和人類的行為大改變於是被看成建基於某種科學客觀性。根據這一觀點，我們需要做的是發展正確的科學和擺脫錯誤的那些。 生態經濟學的'新一代'提出了一個關鍵問題：人類行為（和政策）是否真的受眼前客觀事實所影響？這個關係是否真的那麼明顯，而使到我們能夠安心地把人類的將來寄託於科學？心理學家可能會說'不' 。大量的心理學研究表明，是人們對某個事實的主觀的價值態度決定著人的行為，而非客觀事實本身。舉例來說，一個美國人可能會信服戈爾的"Inconvenient Truth" ，但同時因為他/她不喜歡這位政治家和骯髒的政治遊戲，而不願意支付任何生態稅。
新一代生態經濟學家先從社會科學的角度來看。他們尋求對人類認知和行為的了解（或經濟學對此的錯誤假設），並認這些與客觀的'真理'沒有必然的聯繫。他們研究的環境價值的主觀性，及其可變性、互動性和多維性。這裡不存在單一的'真理'，而只有取決於空間和時間因素的不斷變化。此外，人類往往被假定為有能力作出理性行為和正確地對科學證據作出回應（新古典主義經濟學家持類似觀點，即認為純基於利益的行為是理性，而排除道德）。但這種認定對沒有得到社會心理學的實證支持，像Icek Ajzen的計劃行為理論 - 把個人的信念，主觀社會規範和自覺行為控制為決定人類行為因素。個人信念可能會影響到人們有多信任的某個制度或機構，並有多少接受某項科學證據 ，例如由埃克森公司贊助的關於全球變暖的科學研究 (誰會信石油公司提出的『證據』?)。社會規範也可暗地裡影響個人如何界定什麼是'合理' ，是故在中國人社會風水被認為是一種理性和合理的信仰，因此保護風水林最有效的方法是建基於文化方面，而多於生態科學的。新一代生態經濟學家認為錯誤的政策來自於一個錯誤的價值系統，是錯誤的科學的又是二者的結果，所以當前的任務是要確保價值系統沒有走歪，從而提示正面的科學發展。當然科學是重要的，但最終卻是主觀價值阻礙而又能夠推動大改變。
When the science of sustainability emerged in 70s, it was more closely associated with physical scientific perspectives than social or philosophical ones. Earlier researchers in ecological economics (EE) took part in this endeavour by re-connecting ecology and economics and based their works on the biophysical reality. They assessed the sustain-ability of our economy by showing people the failure of the current economic model in accounting for the earth’s operation. They began with energy and material flow analysis, and used this to show the ridiculousness of neoclassical economics. In a series of academic debates, mainstream economic assumptions, like indefinite supply of natural resources and reversible process of resource use, were criticized as misrepresenting the real world in which the scale of economy is subject to biophysical constraints.
Those with a greater emphasis on social or philosophical sides form a new school of thought. They work on this newer perspective, which is still in its infancy, by addressing what value is in subjective terms rather than objective ones. They address the meaning of environmental value based on various non-science viewpoints, like psychology, political science and applied philosophy, which the earlier researchers in EE did not pay as much attention as they do. Some of the earlier researchers who have an ecology or economics background insisted on incorporating the 'truth' of the Earth into policymaking through adopting approaches like energy theory of value or ecological tariffs. It was (and still is) suggested that the best way to build a sustainable path is to find out the existing, objective ‘truth’ and show it to all people, they will then become aware of the problems and do something good. Big changes in policy and human behaviours are thus a viewed as a function of an objectivity. What we need to do is developing right science and getting rid of the wrong one, according to this view.
A key question is raised by the ‘new generation’ in EE: do human behaviours (and hence policy) really listen to objective facts? Is the relationship strong enough so that we can happily rest our future on science? Psychologists may say ‘No’. Lots of psychological researches have showed that it is people’s perception over the facts in question that determines human behaviours rather than the facts per se. For example, an American may be convinced by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” but is unwilling to pay any eco-tax because s/he hates this politician and the dirty political game he is playing.
The new wave starts with a more social scientific perspective. They seek to explore the potentials of understanding human perceptions (or the economics's wrong assumption of it) and behaviours which have no necessary linkage with an objective 'truth'. They research on the subjectivity of environmental value, which is recognized as variable, dynamic and multidimentional. There is no single ‘truth’, but changing contexts depending on spatial and temporal variations. Further, individuals are assumed to be capable of acting rationally and reacting ‘correctly’ to scientific evidence (neoclassical economists hold a view similar to this, i.e. defining utility-motivated actions as rational while excluding ethics). But this finds little support from social psychologists, like Icek Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviours which puts individual’s attitude, subjective norms and perceived behaviour control as the key determinants. Attitude may affect the extent to which people trust an institution and accept a particular piece of scientific ‘fact’ regarding global warming funded by, for instance, Exxon, a big oil company. Norms may also implicitly influence how individuals define what is ‘rational’, so fengshui (風水)is a rational and legitimate belief in Chinese societies and fengshui forest can be most effectively protected by cultural reasons rather than ecological ones. The new comers argue that wrong policy comes from a wrong value model, and wrong science is in turn more like an outcome of both these two, so one has make sure the value system is on the right track for informing science development. While science is necessary, it is subjective value that precludes as well as informs a big move.
生態經濟學是以可持續發展為目標的一門學問，其近30年的發展提示了對環境問題的另一個看法 (當然這裡包含了其他領域的貢獻)。轉變的重點是在於認識到客觀科學不是解決問題關鍵，雖然它仍的確扮演一個角色，我們要著眼於人類對『價值』的定義 - 問題的最終來源。 當可持續性這門學問出現在70年代，它主要從自然科學的角度出發多於社會或哲學的。在生態經濟學的範疇裡，早期旳研究人員嘗試建基於生物/物理的現實，來重新連接生態學和經濟學兩門有著很多共通點的學科。他們透過指出，由於過份簡化及脫離事實，現行經濟模式是無法反映地球的實際運作情況，來評估現行經濟模型的環境可持續性。他們從能量和物質流分析開始，揭示出新古典經濟學的可笑。在一系列的學術爭論中，新古典經濟學的假設，如天然資源的無限供應和資源使用過程的可回逆性等等，被批評為歪曲了現實世界裡經濟規模受生物物理限制這一事實。 當中有部份人比較強調社會或哲學觀點，遂形一個新的學派分支。他們做這方面的工作以較新的角度來看 – 不過目前仍然處於起步階段，他們強調環境價值是由主觀概念，而非客觀。他們以各種非科學的觀點，如心理學，政治學和應用哲學，來解釋和釐清環境價值的定義，而這些觀點在以前是被忽略了的。早期的生態經濟學者很多有生態學或經濟學背景，他們堅持把有關環境的科學'真理'放做政策制定的最主要考慮，並提出解決途徑例如能量價值理論或生態關稅。這曾被認為是（其實現在仍然是）最好的方法:要建設一個可持續發展的道路，就是要摸清現有的、客觀的科學'真理' (例如全球氣溫上升)，並將之展示世人，於是人們就會自然地為了解決這個問題而作出正面回應。政策和人類的行為大改變於是被看成建基於某種科學客觀性。根據這一觀點，我們需要做的是發展正確的科學和擺脫錯誤的那些。 生態經濟學的'新一代'提出了一個關鍵問題：人類行為（和政策）是否真的受眼前客觀事實所影響？這個關係是否真的那麼明顯，而使到我們能夠安心地把人類的將來寄託於科學？心理學家可能會說'不' 。大量的心理學研究表明，是人們對某個事實的主觀的價值態度決定著人的行為，而非客觀事實本身。舉例來說，一個美國人可能會信服戈爾的"Inconvenient Truth" ，但同時因為他/她不喜歡這位政治家和骯髒的政治遊戲，而不願意支付任何生態稅。
新一代生態經濟學家先從社會科學的角度來看。他們尋求對人類認知和行為的了解（或經濟學對此的錯誤假設），並認這些與客觀的'真理'沒有必然的聯繫。他們研究的環境價值的主觀性，及其可變性、互動性和多維性。這裡不存在單一的'真理'，而只有取決於空間和時間因素的不斷變化。此外，人類往往被假定為有能力作出理性行為和正確地對科學證據作出回應（新古典主義經濟學家持類似觀點，即認為純基於利益的行為是理性，而排除道德）。但這種認定對沒有得到社會心理學的實證支持，像Icek Ajzen的計劃行為理論 - 把個人的信念，主觀社會規範和自覺行為控制為決定人類行為因素。個人信念可能會影響到人們有多信任的某個制度或機構，並有多少接受某項科學證據 ，例如由埃克森公司贊助的關於全球變暖的科學研究 (誰會信石油公司提出的『證據』?)。社會規範也可暗地裡影響個人如何界定什麼是'合理' ，是故在中國人社會風水被認為是一種理性和合理的信仰，因此保護風水林最有效的方法是建基於文化方面，而多於生態科學的。新一代生態經濟學家認為錯誤的政策來自於一個錯誤的價值系統，是錯誤的科學的又是二者的結果，所以當前的任務是要確保價值系統沒有走歪，從而提示正面的科學發展。當然科學是重要的，但最終卻是主觀價值阻礙而又能夠推動大改變。
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Preparing for my PhD (2)
Talked to my MPhil supervisor this Monday. He was not quite happy about my decision to leave earlier. No doubt this is my fault to leave without completing the degree, so I have nothing to defend. But I know it is a right decision from my point of view, since I think I won't be able to get such an attractive scholarship even I have a MPhil degree and a few publications. CSIRO offers me a package which covers internationship student fee plus stipend (> HK$300,000 p.a., for three years), not to mention the opportunity to work with two renowned scholars in my field. My supervisor suggested that I can apply for Edward Youde Scholarship offered by HK government after MPhil. But I am not confident about this since I got a IIB honour degree and it is apparently uncompetitive.
To my surprise, he suggested me to leave as soon as possible. It is because if I hold the current studentship until August, the department may lose one research studentship place in the coming years. This is due to an unreasonable policy of the university that the department may be penalized if its research student withdraws from the programme (and the student will be ridiculously counted as 'failed'). My department (and my supersior) don't want to get penalized, so they asked me to leave asap if I really decide to go Australia. I was not quite happy about this. My reply was that I need to get a written confirmation from the ANU before making a final decision, and not now.
Maybe he feels like being betrayed. At the same time I also feel uncomfortable. But I will insist on making this hard decision if time goes back, although it ruins our mutual trust.
Seems that I have to give up so many things for this PhD and an uncertain future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)