Is there any real value in controversy?
Surely anything that challenges our traditional ways of thinking, that stimulates debate and fosters the reassessment of accepted wisdoms that have slipped surreptitiously into perceived self-evidency can be no bad thing? In fact, it’s tempting to even think that it’s an integral part of the scientific process.
Of course, when any controversial new theory hits the open forum there are always myriad obstacles to overcome before any meaningful discussion can get underway. Many controversial theories are promptly squashed before they can provoke anything - if the argument is too wild or farfetched there is always the risk of incredulity, ridicule, or worst of all, pointed indifference.
However, if the argument is not sufficiently bold or challenging enough there is the danger that it will be received as little more than an addendum, an interesting footnote on an existing school of thought that will ricochet off into the ongoing discourse without sparking the potential for any kind of radical re-think.
Worse still, when controversy is artificially stirred up for the sake of just trying to get attention, it is most definitely not a good thing. It can be a distraction, distinctly unhelpful, and can overshadow far more valuable, if less incendiary, emerging scientific theses.
Controversy it seems then is something of a controversial subject, as it were. No more so perhaps than in the case of one of our forthcoming books.
I have to say, in ‘The Sustainability Mirage’ John Foster seems to get it just about right. While making no apologies or concessions for his argument that our current model of sustainable development is distinctly unsustainable (due to inherent flaws in its application and structure), at no point does his theory read like a polemic.
Foster goes to great lengths to acknowledge the profoundly positive impact sustainable development has had on our way of thinking, but argues that its current conception is in urgent need of review. According to Foster, the problem of sustainable development as it now stands is that,
“Its deal between present and future will always bend under pressure, since it is always the present that strikes the deal. Inevitably, that means floating standards, movable targets and action that will always fall short. Sustainable development is the pursuit of a mirage, the politics of never getting there.”
What Foster is advocating is a ‘new understanding’ of sustainability if we are to defeat climate change while we still have time to make a difference. But does he have a point?
Meticulously researched and compellingly argued, there is certainly enough to engage with on an intellectual and scientific level. And whether you agree with his argument or not, you can’t doubt his sincerity.
As for the controversial nature of Foster’s theory, and the question of its value for the scientific community, I can’t imagine someone putting it better than Professor Robin Grove-White, former Chair of Greenpeace UK -
‘I suspect this is a seminal piece of work.’
The Sustainability Mirage: Illusion and Reality in the Coming War on Climate Change by John Foster is out now.
Read more about it on the Earthscan website: http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=26730
