Slow Knowledge - Wild Apricot · and world views that might slow the speed of change to manageable rates. The results is that the system of fast knowledge creates social traps in

Jionservation Education

Slow KnowledgeThere is no hurry, there is no hurry whatever.

—El-win Chargaff

It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.—Lewis Carroll

Between 1978 and 1984 the AsianDevelopment Bank spent $24 mil-lion to improve agriculture on the is-land of Bali. The target for improve-ment was an ancient agriculturalsystem organized around 173 villagecooperatives linked by a network oftemples operated by "w^ater priests"working in service to the water god-dess, Dewi Danu, a diet}' seldom in-cluded in the pantheon of develop-ment economists. Not surprisingly,the new plan called for large capitalinvestment to build dams and canalsand to purchase pesticides and fertil-izers. The plan also included effortsto make idle resources, both the Ba-linese and their land, productiveyear-round. Old practices of fallow-ing were ended, along with commu-nit)' celebrations and rituals. Theresults were remarkable but incon-venient: yields declined, pests prolif-erated, and the village society beganto unravel. On later examination(Lansing 1991), it tums out that thepriests' role in the religion of AgamaTirtha was that of ecological masterplanners whose task it was to keep afmely timed system operating pro-ductively. Westem development ex-perts dismantled a system that hadworked well for more than a millen-nium and replaced it with some-thing that did not work at all. Thepriests have reportedly resumedcontrol.

The stor)' is a parable for much ofthe history of the twentieth century,in which increasingly homogenized

knowledge is acquired and usedmore rapidly and on a larger scalethan ever before and often with di-sastrous and unforeseeable conse-quences. The twentieth centur>' isthe age of fast knowledge driven byrapid technological change and therise of the global economy. Tliis hasundermined communities, cultures,and religions that once slowed therate of change and filtered appropri-ate knowledge from the cacophonyof new information.

The culture of fast knowledgerests on many assumptions:

- only that which can be measuredis true knowledge;

- the more of it we have the better;- knowledge that lends itself to use

is superior to that which is merelycontemplative;

- the scale of effects of appliedknowledge is unimportant;

- there are no significant distinc-tions between information andknowledge;

- wisdom is an undefinable, henceunimportant, category;

- there are no limits to our abilit)' toassimilate growing mountains ofinformation, and none to our abil-ity' to separate essential knowl-edge from that wliich is trivial oreven dangerous;

- we will be able to retrieve theright bit of knowledge at the righttime and fit it into its proper so-cial, ecological, ethical, and eco-nomic context;

- we will not forget old knowledge,but if we do, the new will be bet-ter than the old;

- whatever mistakes and blundersoccur along the way can be recti-fied by yet more knowledge;

- the level of human ingenuit)' willremain high;

- the acquisition of knowledge car-ries with it no obligation to seethat it is used responsibly;

- the generation of knowledge canbe separated from its application;

- all knowledge is general in nature,not specific to or limited by par-ticular places, times, and circum-stances.

Fast knowledge is now widely be-lieved to represent the ver}' essenceof human progress. While many ac-knowledge the problems caused bythe accumulation of knowledge,most believe that we have littlechoice but to keep on. After all it sjust human nature to be inquisitive.Moreover, research on ne^' weap-ons and corporate products is justi-fied on the grounds that if we don tdo it, someone else wiU and so wemust. Others, of course, operate onidentical assumptions. And, increas-ingly, fast knowledge is justified onpurportedly humanitarian groundsthat we must hurr}- the pace of re-search in order to meet the needs ofa growing population.

Fast knowledge has a lot going forit. Because it is effective and power-ful it is reshaping education, com-

699

Conservation Biology, Pages 699-702Volume 10, No. 3. June 1996

700 Conservation Education

liiunities, cultures, lifestyles, trans-portation, economies, weaponsdevelopment, and politics. For thoseat the top of the information societyit is also exhilarating, perhaps intoxi-cating, and, for the few at the verytop, it is highly profitable.

The increasing velocity' of knowl-edge is widely accepted as sure evi-dence of human mastery andprogress. But many if not most ofthe ecological, economic, social,and psychological ailments that be-set contemporary society can be at-tributed directly or indirectly toknowledge acquired and applied be-fore we had time to think it throughcarefully. We rushed into the fossil-fuel age only to discover problemsof acid precipitation and climatechange. We rushed to develop nu-clear energy without the faintestidea of what to do with the radioac-tive wastes. Nuclear weapons werecreated before w e had time to pon-der their full implications. BCnowl-edge of how to kill more efficientlyis rushed from research to applica-tion without much question aboutits effects on the perceptions and be-havior of others, on our own behav-ior, or about better and cheaperw ays to achieve real security. CFCs,a host of carcinogenic, mutagenic,and hormone-disrupting chemicals,too, are products of fast knowledge.High-input, energy-intensive agricul-ture is also a product of knowledgeapplied before much considerationof its full ecological and social costs.Economic growth is driven in largemeasure, by fast knowledge, with re-sults everywhere evident in environ-mental problems, social disintegra-tion, tuinecessar)' costs, and injustice.

Fast knowledge undermines long-term sustainability for tw o funda-mental reasons. First, for all of thehype about the information age andthe speed at ^vhich humans are pur-ported to learn, the facts say that ourcollective learning rate is about whatit has always been: rather slow. Ahalf-centur>' after their deaths, forexample, we have scarcely begun to

fathom the full meaning of Gandhi sideas about nonviolence or that ofAldo Leopold's land ethic. Nearly acentury and a half after The Originof Species we are still struggling tocomprehend the full implications ofevolution. And several millennia af-ter Moses, Jesus, and Buddha we areabout as spiritually inept as ever.The problem is that the rate atwhich we collectively learn and as-similate new ideas has little to dowith the speed of our communica-tions technology or with the volumeof information available to us, but ithas everything to do with humanlimitations and those of our social,economic, and political institutions.Indeed, the slowness of our learn-ing—or at least of our willingness tochange—may itself be an evolvedadaptation; shortcircuiting this limi-tation reduces our fitness.

Fven if humans were able to leammore rapidly, the application of fastknowledge generates complicatedproblems much faster than we canidentify' them and respond. We sim-ply cannot foresee all of the wayscomplex natural systems wül reactto human-initiated changes at theirpresent scale and velocity. The orga-nization of knowledge by a minutedivision of labor further limits ourcapacity to comprehend whole-sys-tems effects, especially when thecreation of fast knowledge in onearea creates problems elsewhere at alater time. Consequently, we areplaying catch-up, but falling fartherand farther behind. Finally, for rea-sons once described by ThomasKuhn, fast knowledge creates powerstructures whose function it is tohold at bay alternative paradigmsand world views that might slow thespeed of change to manageablerates. The results is that the systemof fast knowledge creates socialtraps in which the benefits occur inthe near term while the costs are de-ferred to others at a later time.

The fact is that the only knowl-edge we ve ever been able to coimton for consistently good effect over

the long run is knowledge that hasbeen acquired slowly through cul-tural maturation. Slow knowledge isknowledge shaped and calibrated tofit a particular ecological and cul-tural context. If does not imply leth-argy but rather thoroughness and pa-tience. The aim of slow knowledgeis resilience, harmony, and the pres-ervation of "patterns that connect."Fvolution is the archetypal exampleof slow knowledge. Except for rareepisodes of punctuated equilibrium,evolution seems to work by the slowtrial-and-error testing of smallchanges. Nature seldom, if ever, betsit all on a single throw of the dice.Similarly, every human culture thathas artftiUy adapted itself to the chal-lenges and opportunities of a partic-ular landscape fias done so by thepatient and painstaking accumtila-tion of knowledge over many gener-ations; an "age-long effort to fit closeand ever closer" into a particularplace.* Unlike fast knowledge gener-ated in universities, think-tanks, andcorporations, slo^v kno^edge oc-curs incrementall)' through the pro-cess of communir\' learning moti-vated more by affection than by idlecuriosity, greed, or ambition.

The worldwide inherent in slowknowledge rests on beliefs that

- wisdom, not cleverness, is theproper aim of all true learning;

- the velocity- of kno^'ledge is in-versely related to tlie acquisitionof wisdom;

- the careless application of knowl-edge can destroy the conditionsthat permit knowledge of anykind to fiourish (a nuclear war, forexample, made possible by thestudy of physics, would be detri-mental to the further study ofphysics);

*77.?e words are those of George Sturt, one ofthe last English wheelwrights quoted fromhis We KJieeltviights Shop (p. 66. I92y1984) Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, United Kingdom.

Conservation BiologyVolume 10, No. 3. June 1996

Conservation Education 701

- what ails us has less to do with> lack of knowledge but with too

much irrelevant knowledge andthe difficulty of assimilation, re-trieval, and application, as well aslack of compassion and goodjudgment;

- the rising volume of knowledgecannot compensate for a risingvolume of errors caused by mal-feasance and stupidity generatedin large part by inappropriateknowledge;

- the good character of knowledgecreators is not irrelevant to thetruth they intend to advance andits wider effects;

- human ignorance is not an en-tirely solvable problem; it is,rather, an inescapable part of thehviman condition.

The differences between fastknowledge and slow^ knowledgecould not be more striking. Fastknowledge is focused on solvingproblems, usually by one teclinologi-cal fix or another; slow knowledgehas to do with avoiding problems inthe first place. Fast knowledge dealswith discrete things; slow knowl-edge deals with context, pattems,and connections. Fast knowledgearises from liierarchy and competi-tion; slow knowledge is freelyshared within a community. Fastknowledge is about know-how; slowknowledge is about know-how andknow-why. Fast knowledge is about"competitive edges" and individualand organizational profit; slowknowledge is about communityprosperity. Fast knowledge is mostlylinear; slow knowledge is complexand ecological. Fast knowledge ischaracterized by power and instabil-ity; slow knowledge is known by itselegance, complexity, and resil-ience. Fast knowledge is often re-garded as private property; slowknowledge is owned by no one. Inthe culture of fast knowledge "manis the measure of all things." Slowknowledge, in contrast, occurs as aco-evolutionary process among hu-

mans, other species, and a sharedhabitat. Fast knowledge is often ab-stract and theoretical, engaging onlya portion of the mind. Slow knowl-edge engages all of the senses andthe full range of our mental powers.Fast knowledge is alw ays new; slowknowledge often is very old. The be-setting sin inherent in fast knowl-edge is hubris, the belief in humanomnipotence now evident on a glo-bal scale. That of slow knowledgecan be parochialism and resistanceto needed change.

Are there occasions when w eneed fast knowledge? Yes, but withthe caveat that many of the prob-lems w e no^v attempt to solvequickly through complex and in-creasingly expensive means havetheir origins in the prior applicationsof fast knowledge. Tlie point, as ev-ery accountant know s, is the differ-ence between gross and net. Afterall of the costs of fast kno^edge aresubtracted, the net gains in manyfields have been considerably lessthan w e have been led to believe.

What can be done? Until thesources of power that fuel fastknowledge run dry, perhaps not athing. Then again, maybe we are notquite so powerless as that. The prob-lem is clear: we need no more fastknowledge cut off from its ecologi-cal and social context—no more ig-norant knowledge. In principle, thesolution is equally clear: We need todiscover and sometimes rediscoverthe knowledge of things Uke howthe Earth works, how to build sus-tainable and sustaining communi-ties that fit their regions, how toraise and educate children to be de-cent people, and how to provisionourselves justly and within ecologi-cal limits. We need to remember allof those things as means b)' which torepair a world fractured by competi-tion, fear, greed, and shortsighted-ness. If there is no quick cure,neither are we w itliout the where-withal to create a better balance be-tween the real needs of society andthe pace and kind of knowledge

generated. For colleges and universi-ties, in particular, I propose the fol-lowing steps aimed at improving thequality of knowledge by slowing itsaccjuisition to a manageable rate.

First, scholars ought to be encour-aged to include practitioners andthose affected in setting prioritiesand standards for the acquisition ofknowledge. Professionalized knowl-edge is increasingly isolated fromthe needs of real people and, to thatextent, it is dangerous to our largerprospects. It makes no sense to railabout participation in the politicaland social affairs of the communityand nation while allowing the pur-veyors of fast knowledge to deter-mine the actual conditions in whichwe live without so much as a vhim-per. Knowledge has social, eco-nomic, political, and ecological con-sequences as surely as any act ofCongress, and we ought to demandrepresentation in the setting of re-search agendas for the same reasonthat we demand it in matters of taxa-tion. Inclusiveness would slow re-search to more manageable rateswhile improving its qualit)'. Andthere are good examples of partici-pator)' research involving practi-tioners in agriculture (Hassanein &Kloppenburg 1995), forestr)' (Banuri& MargUn 1993), land use (Appala-cliian Land Ownership Task Force1983), and urban policy (Br)ant1995). Tliere should be many more.

Second, faculty ought to be en-couraged in ever)' way possible totake the time necessar)' to broadentheir research and scholarsliip to in-clude its ecological, etliical, and so-cial context. Tliey ouglit to be en-couraged to rediscover old and trueknowledge and to respect prior wis-dom. And colleagues and universi-ties could do much more to encour-age and reward efforts by theirfacvilt)' to teach well and to apply ex-isting knowledge to solve real prob-lems in their communities.

Third, colleges and universitiesought to foster a genuine and ongo-ing debate about the velocit)' of

Conservation Biolog)'Volume 10. No. 3, June 1996

702 Conservation Education

knowledge and its effects on ourlarger prospects. We bought in tothe idea that faster is better withouttaking the time to think it through.Increasingly, we communicate elec-tronically by quick-mail and internet.As a conseqtience, I believe that onecan detect a decline in the salienceof our communication and perhapsin its civility in direct proportion toits velocity and volume. It is cer-tainly possible to detect a growingfrustration among faculty with thetime it takes to service the risingdeluge of electronic messages, pro-nouncements, and directives, and toseparate chaff from grain. For com-parison, consider the collected cor-respondence of, say, Thomas Jeffer-son and James Madison, letterswritten slowly by quill pen, perhapsby candlelight, delivered by horse,and still full of magic and power

nearly 200 years later. Would thatmagic and power be present stillhad Tom and James correspondedby e-mail? Somehow, I doubt it.

Conclusion

Fast knowledge has played havoc inthe world because Homo sapiens isjust not smart enough to manage ev-erything that it is possible for the hu-man mind to discover and create. InWendell Berry's words, there is aking of idiocy inherent in the belief"that we can first set demons atlarge, and then, somehow, becomesmart enough to control them"(Berry 1983:65).

Slow knowledge really isn't slowat all. It is know ledge acquired andapplied as rapidly as humans cancomprehend it and put it to consis-

tently good use. Given the complex-ity of the worid and the depth of ourhuman frailties, true knowledge takestime, and it always will. "There is nohurry, there is no hurry whatever."

David W. On-

Literature Cited

The Appalachian Land Ownership TaskForce. 1983. Who owns Appalachia? Um-versity of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Banuri, T., and A. Marglin. 1993. Who wUIsave the forests? ZED, London.

Berr)', W. 1983. Standing by words. NorthPoint Press, San Francisco.

Br>ant, B. 1995. Pollution prevention and par-ticipatory research as a methodology forenvironmental justice. Virginia Environ-mental Law Journal.

Hassanein, N.. and J. Kloppenburg. 1995.Where the grass grows again. Unpublished.

Lansing, S. 1991. Priests and programmers.Princeton University Press, Princeton,New Jersey.

Conservation Biolog)'Volume 10, No. 3, June 1996

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.