<b>Future shock in forestry</b> Where have we come from; where are we going; is there a "right way" to manage forests? Lessons from Thoreau, Leopold, Toffler, Botkin and Nature
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Future shock (Toffler 1970) occurs when the rate of change in society exceeds the willingness or ability of individuals and institutions to adapt to the change. The rapid increase in human population and change in expectations of forestry over the past 40 years has created future shock in our profession. A similar situation has developed in the social and biophysical sciences. Future shock is threatening to divert the evolution of forestry from its path towards site-specific, multi-value social forestry that respects both ecological and biological diversity. It is doing so by forcing change ahead of our knowledge and experience of the outcomes of the change. This is threatening to replace the site-specific, professional decision making that respects nature and social values and is needed to achieve a sustainable relationship between humans and forests, by rigid, administrative, regulation-based forestry. It may even encourage a return to what in reality can become exploitative forestry under the guise of aesthetics, beauty and care for the environment. Forestry has always been changing as society's expectations, needs and desires with respect to forests have changed. This is appropriate and should continue, but it should be the right change—change that respects the ecology and sociology of the desired new balance of values. This new balance includes, as it should, a variety of non-traditional values, but these should be additive to, rather than a replacement for, such important social values as employment, wood products and wealth creation. There is a variety of new paradigms and new institutional arrangements that could guide this change in forestry, but first there needs to be a clear statement of a desired forest future. Lacking the 100-year experience of the outcomes of these new paradigms, we need to develop and use credible, ecologically based, forest ecosystem management models based on both experience and knowledge to help guide the evolution of forestry towards the desired goal. Appropriately trained professional foresters should remain the foundation for the design and implementation of forestry that achieves the desired new balance of values, while a much wider representation of social interests will be involved in setting the new forestry goals. There is merit in listening to the words and philosophies of the great thinkers on forestry and conservation issues. Important lessons can be learned. However, there has been a pervasive misinterpretation of many of the wise thoughts of writers like Thoreau and Leopold. When carefully revisited, their wisdom supports the balanced view of forestry and nature that appears to be the only way forward towards the future that we think our grandchildren and their grandchildren will want. Key words: future shock, development of forestry, respect for nature, paradigms for forestry, forecasting the future, Leopold, Thoreau, Botkin
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».