In sustainability science, we often speak about \u201cthresholds\u201d or \u201ctipping points,\u201d those that move ecosystems or the processes therein to new stable (or unstable) states.\u00a0\u00a0My own interest in pursuing this discipline did not originate as identifiable milestones, epiphanies or single moments of enlightenment, but rather from individually small, cumulative impacts that gradually drew me into the field.<\/p>\n
Among these are my life-long interest in nature, not necessarily as an environmentalist, but as an individual who likes being outdoors and participating in outdoor activities. Over a five year period, when I was between the age of eight and twelve, my parents rented a summer cottage at Rockaway Beach, Queens;\u00a0\u00a0while I enjoyed the beachfront and swimming, I became a true denizen of the Jamaica Bay salt marshes, spending endless hours (to my parents\u2019 consternation) exploring the flora and fauna of these wondrous ecosystems.\u00a0\u00a0It is no surprise, therefore, that my professional training and research discipline focuses on coastal ecology and the links between tidal wetlands and fisheries production.\u00a0\u00a0As an avid follower of Ray Forrest\u2019s children\u2019s show, the\u00a0Forrest Rangers<\/em> in the late 1940s, I became a biologist by age six.<\/p>\n In my latter professional years, somewhat influenced by graduate student descriptors of aging (i.e., highly experienced) faculty as “silverbacks,\u201d I have become conscious of my own mortality and possessed by the drive to take forty plus years of learning and turn it into some kind of legacy. After all, I must have learned\u00a0something<\/em> in that time that might constitute “sage advice” for future generations.<\/p>\n But I try to not be a hypocrite. I believe in a balance between ecology\u00a0and<\/em> economy, together protecting the ecosystems that sustain us and afford humankind maximal quality of life.\u00a0\u00a0I am also keenly aware that we cannot have it both ways.\u00a0\u00a0Creating the balance requires compromise, sacrifice and trade-offs that will leave some stakeholders unhappy — the root cause of the “we versus them\u201d mentality that too often pervades the dialogue of sustainable development.<\/p>\n The solutions to resolving the emerging differences that will arise on the path to long-term sustainability will, in part, require the continued development and refinement of conflict management and social learning.\u00a0\u00a0Nowhere is this more manifest than in the call for a new “social contract for science” championed by Jane Lubchenco, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — better communication of existing knowledge, and better guidance about decision making in the face of uncertainty.<\/p>\n Toward that end, I believe there must be\u00a0transdisciplinary<\/em> training of a new generation of scientists with the “savvy to work at the policy-science interface,” along with changes in university curricula to accommodate this training.\u00a0\u00a0The \u201cnew contract\u201d will be predicated on scientists\u2019 willingness to engage the public and address the urgent needs of society; disseminate new knowledge widely in order to inform decision-making; exercise good judgment, wisdom and, most importantly, humility (often scientists appear arrogant and “above the masses” in assessing their own importance); and, finally, recognize the magnitude of human domination of the planet.<\/p>\n