Contending sustainability agencements and the future world

Kenneth R. Zimmerman
{"title":"Contending sustainability agencements and the future world","authors":"Kenneth R. Zimmerman","doi":"10.1109/ISTAS.2009.5155913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Almost the entire history of philosophy during the late 20th and early 21st centuries has consisted of efforts to correct and update the philosophical heritage of the 17th and 18th centuries, the heritage that provided the outline and substance for the science and technology we know today. Similarly, much of the current work of science and the study of science and technology by Anthropology and science and technologies studies focuses on correcting and updating the physical and social sciences that emerged from the now being reformed 17th and 18th centuries philosophy. It should come as no surprise then that the current “sociotechnical agencement” that is dominant for sustainability is based on the challenged 17th and 18th philosophy and the science and technology that sprang from it. It should also not be a surprise that this situation has led to a very lively challenge to this dominant sociotechnical agencement and the presentation of literally dozens of proposed replacement agencements for sustainability. This paper attempts to describe the current situation “on the ground” in this ongoing clash. First, I attempt to describe the sociotechnical agencement that currently dominates sustainability and a little of its history? Second, I attempt to describe why this agencement is now failing and what the consequences of its failure are? Third, I attempt to describe the basics of the agencements that are now contending to control sustainability? Finally, I seek to describe the various convergences and divergences of these contending agencements, and possible combinations of the contending agencements, as well as their potential consequences for people and planet earth?","PeriodicalId":262750,"journal":{"name":"2009 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2009 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS.2009.5155913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Almost the entire history of philosophy during the late 20th and early 21st centuries has consisted of efforts to correct and update the philosophical heritage of the 17th and 18th centuries, the heritage that provided the outline and substance for the science and technology we know today. Similarly, much of the current work of science and the study of science and technology by Anthropology and science and technologies studies focuses on correcting and updating the physical and social sciences that emerged from the now being reformed 17th and 18th centuries philosophy. It should come as no surprise then that the current “sociotechnical agencement” that is dominant for sustainability is based on the challenged 17th and 18th philosophy and the science and technology that sprang from it. It should also not be a surprise that this situation has led to a very lively challenge to this dominant sociotechnical agencement and the presentation of literally dozens of proposed replacement agencements for sustainability. This paper attempts to describe the current situation “on the ground” in this ongoing clash. First, I attempt to describe the sociotechnical agencement that currently dominates sustainability and a little of its history? Second, I attempt to describe why this agencement is now failing and what the consequences of its failure are? Third, I attempt to describe the basics of the agencements that are now contending to control sustainability? Finally, I seek to describe the various convergences and divergences of these contending agencements, and possible combinations of the contending agencements, as well as their potential consequences for people and planet earth?
相互竞争的可持续性协议和未来世界
在20世纪末和21世纪初,几乎整个哲学史都在努力纠正和更新17世纪和18世纪的哲学遗产,这些遗产为我们今天所知道的科学和技术提供了轮廓和实质。同样,目前的许多科学工作以及人类学和科学技术研究的科学和技术研究都集中在纠正和更新从现在正在改革的17和18世纪哲学中产生的物理科学和社会科学。因此,毫不奇怪,目前主导可持续发展的“社会技术协定”是基于受到挑战的17世纪和18世纪哲学以及由此产生的科学和技术。这种情况导致了对这种占主导地位的社会技术协议的非常活跃的挑战,并提出了数十种可持续性替代协议,这也不应该令人惊讶。本文试图描述这场持续冲突的“现场”现状。首先,我试图描述当前主导可持续发展的社会技术协议及其历史。第二,我试图描述为什么这个协议现在失败了,它失败的后果是什么?第三,我试图描述目前正在争夺控制可持续性的协议的基本内容。最后,我试图描述这些竞争协议的各种趋同和分歧,以及竞争协议的可能组合,以及它们对人类和地球的潜在后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信