Slade wrote:

“My contention for a little over a decade now, is that the Green Movement stumbled badly when moving from resource protection (of air, water, and soil) into ecosystem protection where the required science is both data-intensive and computation-intensive, not to mention interdisciplinary.”

Absolutely. It’s also interesting to note that the Green Movement has within it a deep anti-hierarchical sort of “return to the local” orientation. If the global environmental problems such as climate change are as significant as they insist, they will require extensive collaboration in order to be realized. This, of course, can only be accomplished through the wealth produced via the development of large, interrelated economic systems.

The systems thinking that the ecological movement has been helpful, however. Gaia talk might seem a little silly. But our culture is becoming more aware of the interlocking, interdependent nature of the world. Pairing up with strains of thinking from complexity theory, chaos theory, and all the rest has broadened our thinking considerably. And for the better, I believe. The ecology movement is to be thanked for adding to this, if only in a minor way. But i find it quite amusing as it will most likely ultimately lead to entirely different conclusions about politics and the world than the Green Movement was hoping for.