The Issues with Ingenuity

One of the early beliefs of human growth and development is focused on the idea that humans are adaptable creatures. Faced with adversity in our environments since the first homo sapians were born, humans continue to use their superior intellect to fashion tools for survival. These practices began with basic tools and fire, but continue conceptually as we continue to develop new ways to produce food and energy. Named for the Greek god believed to give the gift of fire to mankind, Promethean thinkers believe that population growth is one of our most powerful tools to prepare for the future.

This idea is explored in regards to environmental policy as well. Homer-Dixon described social ingenuity as "ideas applied to solve practical social and technical problems" and claimed it key to the creation and reform of policies impacting public goods. These ideas are linked in with cultural factors. Homer-Dixon explores the idea that educated individuals contribute towards combating environmental problems, specifically dealing with scarcity of resources. In short, he believes that as more educated people are created, humans will be better equipped to deal with the issues of scarcity that face us. I have issue with Homer-Dixon's ideas for two main reasons - his inability to acknowledge ingenuity outside of a developed, western idea as well as using his definition of social ingenuity in real world policy discussions. These issues are explored Hartmann's excerpts in the book Violent Environments

First, the definition of the word. Even in his paragraph-long definition of what "social ingenuity" is, Homer-Dixon defines something so broad it is functionally useless. This is an issue we often hear with the word "sustainability" - a term that has had several definitions, each consecutive one including more and more within its terms. When sustainability became broadly defined as "meeting the needs of today without compromising the needs of tomorrow," people realized that this phrase could be used to justify almost any action as sustainable. The same holds true for this social ingenuity. There's no specific identification of this - just the idea that people will contribute ideas that help. What types of ideas are these? Are they result from scholastic endeavors or real world learning?  Furthermore, who are the people that contribute to these ideas? In Homer-Dixon's world, he seems to exclude the endeavors of those that do not come from a non-western, non developed individuals. As Hartmann points out, Homer-Dixon implies that those not operating along those lines are only detriments to the environment. His theory does not allow for these individuals to contribute and discredits much of the work those in developing countries may supply/

Second, this definition of "social ingenuity" holds little water in the world of politics. When deciding how to operate, states must weigh options relating to money, natural resources and representation. Facing issues such as climate change and resource scarcity, it is not possible to truly quantify the value of social ingenuity. When comparing the costs of different management plans, we can see how much money the practices will cost. When deciding on trade off between pollution and damage, we can use economic principles to see if the benefits outweigh the needs. Social ingenuity does not fall into these quantifiable lines because of such a broad definition. Definitions by nature require an understanding of the phenomenon being explained - it's clear Homer-Dixon doesn't have a grasp on what he wants.

Social Ingenuity is a concept we can benefit from. Humans have a capacity to overcome obstacles and thrive. It is only when we blindly assume that ingenuity will save us that a problem arises. We should continue to look for solutions instead of assuming that future populations will have a better understanding. This is especially true in environmental policy, which benefits from starting earlier rather than waiting for supposed solutions in the future.