Abstract This article explores the question how rationally and wisely humanity
might in the coming decades hammer out solutions to global problems. In particular,
how, it might rethink the challenges the global knowledge-based climate economy
(KBCE) is currently confronted with, and, how crucial it is for the sciences to heed
the methodology and strategy of knowledge resources dynamics (Pandit and
Meusburger “University and knowledge environment: A study in knowledge
resources dynamics”, 2015), a newly introduced research tool, in order to accelerate
the scientific response to these challenges. If equitable growth and reduced climate
change risks are to go together hand-in-hand, the building of the new KBCE with a
political-economical framework for economic growth that is also able to tackle the
climate change risks is imperative. We can no more avoid discussing how convergence, and more importantly, the knowledge resources dynamics might interface
with the KBCE, to develop efficient sustainable solutions to the problems confronting society and humanity at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
Keywords Knowledge resources dynamics (KRDs) Á Knowledge-based climate
economy (KBCE) Á Global climate model (GCM) Á Global value chains (GVCs) Á
Green house gases emissions (GHGs emissions) Á Risk society Á Ecology of
knowledge Á Environmental nesting Á Strategic interface-building and multidisciplinarity Á Rethink-tanks Á Carbon sink capacity Á Culture of wisdom
A rethinking is imperative as science is increasingly being seen as part of the
complex problems that we are belatedly addressing now (Pandit 2013). However, it
can be argued that science is also a part of the solution, if not the solution, that
humanity must hammer out for the next half a century and beyond. In other words,
the global challenges that confront the humanity at many frontiers today should be
seen, first, as a warning against the fragmented knowledge of the universe that
science produces without being able to prevent its abuse, and, second, as offering
science an opportunity to ‘self-heal’ through dynamic interface-building. Thus, they
should be seen as offering an opportunity to science, society, political economy and
state to move forwards, fostering path-breaking interface-building linkages between
biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, on the one hand, and between research,
discovery, innovation and entrepreneurship, on the other. Just think of the first two
revolutions in the life sciences (Alan 1978) that started with the discovery of the
structure of DNA in 1953 and genomics in the 1980s that lead to the mapping of the
human genetic blueprint in 2000s,
1 in turn blueprinting a host of innovations. There
1
When Watson and Crick (1953; Allen 1978, pp. 187–249) discovered the double helical structure
of the DNA, deducing how in cell division genetic information is transmitted, it revolutionized the
life sciences, extending vertically Darwin’s theory of evolution and Mendel’s discovery of the
transmission of the genes. This first revolution in life sciences was followed, 10 years later, by the
discovery of the steps in the flow of information from the DNA to proteins through the intermediate of RNA, by the French biologists Jacob, Lwoff and Monod. The Nobel Prize in
Physiology or Medicine 1965, that was awarded jointly to François Jacob, André Lwoff and
134
G.L. Pandit
might in the coming decades hammer out solutions to global problems. In particular,
how, it might rethink the challenges the global knowledge-based climate economy
(KBCE) is currently confronted with, and, how crucial it is for the sciences to heed
the methodology and strategy of knowledge resources dynamics (Pandit and
Meusburger “University and knowledge environment: A study in knowledge
resources dynamics”, 2015), a newly introduced research tool, in order to accelerate
the scientific response to these challenges. If equitable growth and reduced climate
change risks are to go together hand-in-hand, the building of the new KBCE with a
political-economical framework for economic growth that is also able to tackle the
climate change risks is imperative. We can no more avoid discussing how convergence, and more importantly, the knowledge resources dynamics might interface
with the KBCE, to develop efficient sustainable solutions to the problems confronting society and humanity at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
Keywords Knowledge resources dynamics (KRDs) Á Knowledge-based climate
economy (KBCE) Á Global climate model (GCM) Á Global value chains (GVCs) Á
Green house gases emissions (GHGs emissions) Á Risk society Á Ecology of
knowledge Á Environmental nesting Á Strategic interface-building and multidisciplinarity Á Rethink-tanks Á Carbon sink capacity Á Culture of wisdom
A rethinking is imperative as science is increasingly being seen as part of the
complex problems that we are belatedly addressing now (Pandit 2013). However, it
can be argued that science is also a part of the solution, if not the solution, that
humanity must hammer out for the next half a century and beyond. In other words,
the global challenges that confront the humanity at many frontiers today should be
seen, first, as a warning against the fragmented knowledge of the universe that
science produces without being able to prevent its abuse, and, second, as offering
science an opportunity to ‘self-heal’ through dynamic interface-building. Thus, they
should be seen as offering an opportunity to science, society, political economy and
state to move forwards, fostering path-breaking interface-building linkages between
biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, on the one hand, and between research,
discovery, innovation and entrepreneurship, on the other. Just think of the first two
revolutions in the life sciences (Alan 1978) that started with the discovery of the
structure of DNA in 1953 and genomics in the 1980s that lead to the mapping of the
human genetic blueprint in 2000s,
1 in turn blueprinting a host of innovations. There
1
When Watson and Crick (1953; Allen 1978, pp. 187–249) discovered the double helical structure
of the DNA, deducing how in cell division genetic information is transmitted, it revolutionized the
life sciences, extending vertically Darwin’s theory of evolution and Mendel’s discovery of the
transmission of the genes. This first revolution in life sciences was followed, 10 years later, by the
discovery of the steps in the flow of information from the DNA to proteins through the intermediate of RNA, by the French biologists Jacob, Lwoff and Monod. The Nobel Prize in
Physiology or Medicine 1965, that was awarded jointly to François Jacob, André Lwoff and
134
G.L. Pandit