Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
bastardised/plundered physical geography; the implementation of remote sensing
in Earth observation; and various Gaian or sub-Gaian homeostatic theories (of
whatever strength). Most perceptions probably sit somewhere in a continuum
between these versions. In many respects, ESS parallels - and should probably be
informed by - developments in complexity science, which is still a highly contested
topic (Manson and O'Sullivan, 2006). However, improved understanding can only
emerge through debate and dialogue, which have been impeded by the lack of a
common scientifi c language (beyond mathematics, whose use is also contested in
some quarters) and the heterogeneous and multidisciplinary nature of ESS
enterprise.
As geographers, should we be involved more in this dialogue, or have we already
missed the boat on which it is taking place? Certainly, ESS sits in the nexus of the
physical and human worlds, which was the traditional defi nition of the discipline,
despite much subsequent drift. In terms of studies of applied environmental change,
few geographers would disagree with Bretherton's conclusion that '[d]aunting
though these tasks may be, they are matched by the signifi cance of the goal. Human-
kind is pressing on its environment in unprecendented ways, and we do not under-
stand the implications. We must try, for we may not have a second opportunity'
(Bretherton, 1985, p. 1127). The development of an ESS perspective would also
speak to an approach using concepts of globalisation as discussed by Davies (2004).
If 'one of the most disconcerting aspects of ESS . . . is its apparently homogenizing,
normative and nomothetic project, possibly as an unconscious attempt to “make”
a more complex world more manageable' (Clifford and Richards, 2005, p. 382),
should it not be the role of geographers to enter into a contestation with this nor-
mative approach and show the advantages of plurality? To enter the debate, though,
we must ensure that geographers are at least ESS-literate (e.g. Church, 2005;
Pitman, 2005) and indeed prepared to enter it (Thrift, 2002; Murphy, 2006). Or
as Johnston (2006, p. 10) has noted (in response to Pitman, 2005), geographers
must 'rid ourselves of the paranoia and inferiority complex' and get on with making
a contribution.
If we return to the caveats expressed by Bretherton (1985) about the original
blueprint for ESS, then this contribution can address all four. First, geographers
are inherently aware of issues of scale and space. Interaction with scientists from
other disciplines that also consider these issues (notably ecology) will provide an
improved understanding of how Earth systems can be conceptualised in a non-
reductionist way and still effect closure to allow scientifi c investigation. Secondly,
geographers are used to looking at the world from a range of different perspectives
and spend more time in the fi eld than the average mathematical modeller. They
are thus ideally placed to inform 'bottom-up' approaches (i.e., allowing system
properties to emerge from its behaviour at a smaller scale) rather than the typical
'top-down' (for some, hegemonising) approaches (i.e., a defi nition of the system
that then structures the resulting behavioural responses). While completeness is not
the same as everything, everywhere, all the time, the bottom-up approach is inher-
ently useful (as in complexity theory) for identifying general patterns or at least
missing links. Thirdly, geographers have long recognised that humankind
cannot
be regarded as being external to the system. It is part of, interacts with, and strongly
affects the Earth system on a range of scales, while also being strongly affected by
it. Fourthly, predictability is often no longer an issue in geography, where a concern
for rich understanding by diverse means has developed. These points need to be
revisited at least if ESS is to mature beyond the vague continuum noted above. For
