How ideas change

[Martin Bailey]

In the early 1980's I was at a seminar organized by Jim Bright at Castine,
Maine.  The seminar was on anticipating social and technological change.
One of the speakers - Graham T.T. Molitor of General Mills - had what I have
found to be useful insights in the march from original idea to general
acceptance.

Nationally countries with a high level of affluence, urbanization and
literacy will be the first to adopt new ideas and create public policies to
embrace these new ways of dealing with the world.  As a caveat to this,
social solutions to problems will more likely be espoused in western Europe
than in North America, technical solutions take precedent in America.

The discussions on butterflies flying at night has shown this bias.  The
majority of posting on this thread from American contributors suggest the
need for technical and mathematical aids to definitively prove that some
butterflies do fly at night on migration.  European contributors feel that
inferences based on independent observations of competent observers is
adequate to prove the point.

There are other threads on this listserv that could be viewed from Graham
Molitor's perspective:

New ideas come from uninhibited visionaries.  However, their causes only go
forward when they come together in informal groups.    They then are seen as
crusaders and start building coalitions between like-minded individuals.  A
group of amateurs and part-time advocates.

If the idea continues to gather steam paid full-time champions are engaged
to work for a formally organized organization.   Or in the case of  the work
that is presently being carried on to save a little blue butterfly in south
Florida, co-opting  the state and federal bureaucracies may work as well.
Bureaucracies provide continuity of effort.  A balm to potential amateur
burnout.

Studying bugs has been around for a long time now.  But for argument sake,
let's start in the 1800's when agricultural colleges became the centers for
the remarkable advances in food production that we are still achieving.  Non
domesticated flora and fauna were seen as either weeds, pests or vermin if
they were getting in the way of increased food production. The same skills
are required to understand moths and butterflies that are of no economic
benefit as to control insects that decrease agricultural production however,
do it on your own time.

And so it was.  Collections were created.  Monographs and treatises were
written and highly specialized narrow viewpoint magazines were published.
(Yes, I know about the Smithsonian.)

But as an idea grows - in this case - the love of nature for its own sake,
it spreads out to more and more people.  Scientific American is interested,
then what is said is condensed by Reader's Digest and  becomes a feature in
the New York Times.

As an idea diffuses outward to more and more people, the rigour with which
it was originally described with is diluted.  And so is the fear that the
success of the NABA will replace  more focused  interests with warm fuzzes.
It won't.

Martin Bailey,

greetings from:  Weyburn, SK., Canada.
                         49.39N  103.51W






 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl