So many resonated deeply with my recent conversation with John Hausdoerffer, Ph.D., that I wanted to weave in some of the most profound questions the episode has inspired me to ponder. Specifically, there are two questions, which are related. What kind of ancestor do I want to be? What is my “rice”?
Kamea, on the podcast you or John mentioned measuring and tracking 30 chemical compounds instead of just CO2 to get a more holistic and place-based understanding of changes to make. Is there any established framework for doing something like this? Is it just staying in touch with what environmental issues are local to yourself or is there a more comprehensive way of measuring change through measuring crucial chemical compounds?
Hi Kevin! I'm going to be brief here but I love the question and we can chat more about it in an upcoming live discussion! I personally am not aware of established frameworks like this. My take on it is that measuring 30 chemical compounds is much better than fixating on 1. Yet at the same time, it still ultimately reduces complex, synergistic, dynamic living systems into isolated chemical compounds, so it's more holistic but I would still find it insufficient to help people know a landscape deeply enough. (The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of their parts comes up for me here.) That said, any tool of measurement attempting to add complexity in our understanding has its value, and I don't want to dismiss any framework that researchers likely would have spent years or decades developing! Hope this helps at least a little :)
Kamea, on the podcast you or John mentioned measuring and tracking 30 chemical compounds instead of just CO2 to get a more holistic and place-based understanding of changes to make. Is there any established framework for doing something like this? Is it just staying in touch with what environmental issues are local to yourself or is there a more comprehensive way of measuring change through measuring crucial chemical compounds?
Hi Kevin! I'm going to be brief here but I love the question and we can chat more about it in an upcoming live discussion! I personally am not aware of established frameworks like this. My take on it is that measuring 30 chemical compounds is much better than fixating on 1. Yet at the same time, it still ultimately reduces complex, synergistic, dynamic living systems into isolated chemical compounds, so it's more holistic but I would still find it insufficient to help people know a landscape deeply enough. (The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of their parts comes up for me here.) That said, any tool of measurement attempting to add complexity in our understanding has its value, and I don't want to dismiss any framework that researchers likely would have spent years or decades developing! Hope this helps at least a little :)