Philosophy.Com

Roots of philosophy.com

I notice that Jonathon Delacour in his post 'Welcome back to not blogging, Mike' makes a distinction between the traditional link+quote+comment weblog—and a thinking+feeling+writing weblog. I reckon its an important distinction, probably more so than the distinction between an up market sophisticated weblog, such as Jonathons, and the mass culture one exemplified by a heap of junk for code blogspot. For some reflections on the history of Jonathon's distinction, see Shelly's From the ashes came the reborn, born dying. There are interesting comments on this history and the geek weblogger's interest on the technical apparatus of running a weblog. There is also an essay on the history of weblogging as a form of writing at Rebecca's Pocket

When I stated up public opinion on Blogger l naively started from the thinking, feeling+ writing weblog; naively because I did not know much about what was happening in the weblog world. That style was a recoil from the academic writing that had pretty much wandered into irrelevance because it was so difficult to read.

I noticed the way I started weblog writing when I returned to the old public opinion weblog looking for an entry on different kinds of a humanities-orientated philosophy. (I could not find that post, due to Blogger screwing up the archives. But I will keep looking).

What I did come across was the first post of public opinion . I re-read it in the light of Jonathon's distinction and saw it through different eyes---as a way of weblog writing. Some reflections by Mike Saunders on writing weblogs---why blog?---can be found on his interesting Keep Trying blogspot.

I have reposted it below. I have done so in order to indicate the roots of philosophy.com in terms of a particular way of writing on a weblog.

What did I notice in my re-reading of this text? There has been a shift from working in isolation (my experience of academia) to writing within a virtual community. Against the Flow was written in isolation from other webloggers. Now philosophy.com is slowly becoming a part of a community of webloggers and so a part of a civic conversation across nations. It is that on-going conversation in civil society that is a crucial feature of the weblog.

If we want to put it in more academic terms this writing as a civic dialogue represents the reinvention of the old humanities in the knowledge economy.

Against the Flow

I was on an airplane the other day flying into Canberra from Adelaide. I was in a window seat, just down from business class where all the pollies were, factional heavies and high tech boosters included. I was to meet Bob for breakfast. He believed in the abstract economic flows of the global market, mathematics and the utilitarian calculus. Numbers spoke to him and he thought in terms of mathematical equations. It was a working breakfast as we were to talk about value, the water wars breaking out in NSW and compensation for the loss of water entitlements---what irrigators these days are prone to call property rights. I was to read a popular report on water in the Australian economy for the discussion.

It was an early morning flight, the sun was up and there was little cloud cover. We circled over the Murray Mouth, Coorong and Lower Lakes before setting off for the hustle and bustle, the enframing media flows and power plays of the policy capital of the nation. My nose was pressed to the window, as I was fascinated by the ecology of the vast estuary, the curving lines of the River and the human footprint in the river basin's landscape. What was noticeable about my reaction was not the aesthetics of the bird's eye view of the landscape, but my sense of belonging to this place. This was where I belonged. My roots were down there, I said to myself.

My companion saw things differently. She glanced through the window every now and again as she flicked through the morning paper. She was heading home via Canberra to her home in the northern part of the Basin: the Condamine-Balonne, one of the headwaters of the River Murray so to speak. North and South. Such different countries, yet part of the same basin. What we shared was that we both knew that the river was no longer flowing, and we understand that big changes in the agricultural practices of the Basin had to take place over the next decade.

Why do I mention this? Well, looking down at that human footprint I was reminded of a report I was reading about water in the Australian economy. It began by assuming that the water in the river country I was seeing below me was a scarce and finite resource to be utilised for economic development, and then it quickly moved on to consider opportunities for economic advancement. There was some stuff about methodology, simulation modelling, the MONASH model, spatial units and different macro-economic scenarios which I skipped. I was meant to write a one page, dot point summary of the report, but heck this was my own time. I had an hour or so to myself before I was expected to perform.

I have to admit that I just couldn't get past 'resource' and 'spatial unit' . That was economic speak for my 'ecology' and 'place'. The very word resource took the econocrats away from seeing the ecology of the river country as a life-support system for society. What their economic speak occluded was what we Adelaideans 'knew' in our bones: that we have to preserve the natural life-support system and processes of the river country if we were to sustain our own existence. The passionate water politics that has been coming out of Adelaide for the last couiple of years is driven by the acute recognition that it was vital to prevent the further degradation of these ecological support systems. Because they live downstream, people in Adelaide are intuitively aware that there is threshold point in the alteration and destruction of the ecological character or integrity of ecosystems when these will no longer be capable of providing the services to use (eg clean water). With the river gone Adelaide will become dependent on desalinisation plants for its drinking and irrigation water.

Resource' was too narrow to capture the value of ecosystems providing goods and services to human beings---the purifaction of water by wetlands, the detoxification and decompositon of wastes, the generation of soil and soil fertility, the role of trees in the hydrology of the basin, the maintenance of biodiversity and the provision of freshwater, fish and water for recreation etc. Did the econocrats actually understand that natural ecosystems help to support the economy and society?

Well, it was clear that those in Canberra who called themselves the decision makers did not. They had little idea that what they called 'the economy' was a part of the ecosystem, and onlya vague glimmer that the economy was dependent on the services provided by natural ecosystems. The 'economy' ruled Canberra. The Economy did this and that; and the politicians were always feeling its pulse to see how it was travelling. Their reputations depended on the 'economy' being in blooming health. For something so robust and magical---it ruled the world according to the decision-makers in Canberra---it always seemed to suffer from such a wide variety of ailments. How could something so divinely ordained be in need of constant massaging?

No one, just no one talked about the value of ecosystems. They did not recognize the high value of these ecosystems services to the economy.

In flickering through the report, it was clear that water was seen to be an input in the Australian economy, and the focus was on water's future role in an expanding economy. The report's argument was along the flowing lines. The greatest user of water in the Murray-Darling Basin was irrigated agriculture. This was concentrated in the southern part of the Basin, which only had a small faction of the resource. Water was fully allocated in the Basin, and if current growth trends in irrigated agriculture development continue, then water requirements would increase by 50%. This is clearly unsustainable. Water however, is not a limiting factor in economic growth, since the re-allocation of existing water entitlements can deliver increased wealth through shifting water to high value producers. Water trading is essential for re-allocation to high value users. Water trading will go part of the way toward the structural adjustment process of driving irrigators outof the industry. here is plenty of scope of new water development with increased efficiencies in the use of water by an irrigated agriculture using adaptive management systems. Water for environmental flows will come from improving the efficiency of the water distribution systems. Markets will deliver a bountiful future within enviromental constraints.

There was nothing here about ecology as a life-support system or ecosystems services. The report's message for Canberra is that policies need to be developed that ensure water is used to maximise its value to an expanding economy, with a bit on the side for the environment. The message of this market-driven politics was designed to appeal to the policy makers in Canberra. The market would do the trick in terms of water reform; and requiring water authorities to get a commercial rate of return on their assets was the right way to go.

The deeper hidden message that slips by without noticing was left unsaid. It is that public water services should become deeply, if not completely privatised, and that commercial imperatives should govern the supply of water. What is tacitly rejected is that water services should be returned to the government in order to protect the public interest. This is the dark shadow across our future.

The plane was landing. Canberra was covered in cloud. A short taxi ride and then it was time to perform.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at March 2, 2003 11:16 AM | TrackBack