notes and thoughts

these past two days I attended a seminar on the subject of the climate change, the sustainable development and the renewable sources of energy.

how can one approach this, or in fact, any wide as such issue? what is the meaning of the detail, where does the unravelling lose contact with the totalness, how is a clear vision developed and constituted if, indeed, such a vision is claimed to be needed? these are questions to be asked.

i see the thought behind our arrangements. Yes. We can cut and cut and cut the slices out of an issue, remaining certain that our approach is the only reliable, capable of producing a chain of changes until, ideally speaking, the initial issue is finally solved. In fact, I can make a research on how one building may work better on account of its energy consumption and its emissions, and that might be the answer to a particular problem if it is fully carried out on a wider scale. I may produce a mechanism to reuse the waste waters and this might make all cities find a precious different source of energy. I can make a plan about the social use of the outlines of one lake and then all lakes might become socially beneficial. This is a vital arrangement between us. We cannot do it all by ourselves. Each one has to focus on a small part of the problem. And then pronounce the findings and suggested solutions.
But because we are working on a part of the problem, we cannot work alone. But we cannot work with everyone involved either.
The idea of many scientists working together is an obvious necessity, which has been made essential because of the complexity of the current issues (even the case of one building is greatly complex if you pay more attention to analysing it). We have to cooperate. Who are "we"?

the next brilliant idea is introduced especially by those who work on the sustainable development: since this kind of development is constituted on the basis of the (survival and) development of the environment, the economy and the society, there can be no vital solution without the cooperation of economic stakeholders, representatives of the society and of course scientists.

So, a group of scientists working together can produce half (or one third) of an answer to that particular slice of the problem.

I go no further. There is so much to tell and so much pain behind these seemingly indifferent words. Behind the common place there stands a lack of discussion and communication, or even democracy as one might feel like saying.
Some people say we can only discuss if we are willing to give up even a little of our expectations. I detest all these phrases that I hear spreading from mouth to mouth and being said easily.

being so deeply specialized we work and speak and live under the given labels of our roles. How can we reclaim our ears, our language, our eyes, our hands, our faith, our humanity?