Discuţie extraordinară pe un forum LCA

LCA este numele unui instrument logic folosit în Ecologia Industrială pentru evaluarea impactului ambiental. Este un mijloc intelectual utilizat de lucrătorii ecologici reali, dar care rămâne complet necunoscut unor pseudoecologişti care se cheamă Dragoş Bucurenci, Silviu Prigoană, ori primarul Constanţei, Radu Mazăre.

LCA este acronimul de la expresia englezească Life Cycle Assessment sau, alternativ, de  la expresia Life Cycle Analysis. Pe româneşte înseamnă analiza produsului de consum pe ciclul lui de viaţă, de la început până la sfârşit, ori from-cradle-to-grave.

Discuţia pe care o relatez începea cu mesajul :

“Hello all,

I’m new to this discussion list and also relatively new to LCA.  Although I find the topics discussed in the lists, the list format doesn’t strike  me as very practical. Very often also receive lists with a lot of garbled  text, which makes it difficult to read. The Discussion Board format seems to be much more appropriate for these discussions. The topics can be neatly organized, searched for and kept for a long period of time.

So my questions are:

1) Could Pre Consultants create and maintain a discussion board on LCA?

 This is, of course, if the other recipients agree to that.

2) Are there already discussion boards on LCA operating on the Web?

3) I also want to suggest to the members to join LinkedIn.com, so we can keep linked to each other and easily keep track and exchange information. Each one can publish a CV there and a list of activities and projects they are working on at the moment or are interested in.

Kind regards to all,

Cristiano Richers/DASAG Consultoria Ltda./Brazil”

Am fost primul ce a reacţionat:

“Dear Cristiano:

I think the way it is, the “discussion list on LCA”  already is an excellent epistemic community on Internet. Perhaps  some new additional instruments could increase the force of this community. I think the moderators of this “discussion list” will make the best judgment.

Best regards,

Titus Filipas / University of Craiova, Romania”

Eu scriam şi îmi exprimam opiniile ca simplu cetăţean European. Un cetăţean American are altă opinie :

“I agree with Cristiano. A blog or BBS based forum would be MUCH easier to use and allow for more open communication. There are many ‘free’ sites such as Google or Yahoo groups and a few paid sites that are inexpensive with lots of features. I find that I do not reply to a lot of topics when I have something to say because of the system.  Some advantages to a BBS / Forum:

-          Track multiple ‘threads’. -          Easily search for topics -          HTML format, allowing for pictures etc. -          On-line and e-mail capable … best of both worlds. -          Can easily be made secure. -          A modern, updated way to allow clients to interact. Stacked (FILO) e-mail lists are left-overs from DOS based technology.

 

I think the users should have a lot to say about a system… after all we are the ones using the system…… who else would know what’s best?

Den Spiess, Research Fellow /LCA Team Lead/Surface Care & Germ Protection Category/Reckitt Benckiser, Inc./Montvale, NJ , USA, Planet Earth”

Dar nu era singurul în favoarea lui Cristiano! Iată alt mesaj, care venea din Europa:

“I fully agree with Christian.

Henrik Fred Larsen/Associate Professor, M.Sc., Ph.D./Section for Innovation and Sustainability (IOB)/Department of Management Engineering (MAN) /Technical University of Denmark (DTU)/Building 424, room 126/DK-2800 Lyngby/Denmark.”

Am replicat mesajului american:

“Dear  Dennis,

we are not “clients” (the American point of view), we are just “users” (the European point of view). Some users savvy LCA more than others. This, fortunately, is the force of this “LCA discussion list”,  making it a real epistemic community. Let we admit that every difficult question on LCA from  an “user” is  finally clarified here, by some of the best world experts, for free! A “client” should pay for the good advice. I think some of the opinions expressed here (not mine)  are beyond any money price! I am not against changes, but the net character of epistemic community should be kept. Also finally, after the changes,  we should know the names of the referees that evaluate professionally a colleague’s opinion.  Now we know. But in the future?

Best regards,

Titus Filipas,/ University of Craiova, Romania”

Mi s -a răspuns din Polonia (sic!):

“Dear Titus,

The word ‘client’ is used in the computer science to denote the ‘person using a service’. A ’service’ could be, for instance, a discussion list like this one. In this context it has nothing to do with money.

Best regards

Malgorzata Goralczyk (Ms)/Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow/tel. +48 601 313 379 http://min-pan.krakow.pl/pbs”

Am replicat politicos :

“Dear Malgorzata,

thank you for the remark. In Romania we use the word “client” just in the french meaning. According with http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/customer, “customer (buyer, client) acheteur, client.”

This LCA discussion list is a great epistemic community!

My sincere regards,

Titus Filipas”

A fost ultima mea intervenţie. Pe forum urmează mesajele numerotate de  mine (dar nu sînt responsabil pentru calitatea dubioasă a limbii engleze folosite în unele dintre aceste mesaje):

1.)

”Hi all,

As I understood the proposal it would not affect the way of communication. The Emails would still be sent to all users. The only difference would be that they would end up in a well structured database so that any user can search for older emails without having to store it on the personal Harddrive. This could help to get an immediate answer on certain questions/topics… Unfortunately I don’t know how much effort this would be.

Cheers,

Daniel”

2.)

 

“I´m fully agree with Christian and Henrik Fred !

Fernando Jose Novaes / Polilab Consultoria Empresarial /55 11 9688 8841 /Sao Paulo – Brasil “

3.)

“I tend to agree with Henrik and Christian and like the attempt by Den to list advantages and disadvantages of different ways to communicate. By using the same subject header threads can be followed today and regarding the “search” possibility I have to admit that lots of question to the list prove that neither Google nor the nice search tool for LCA reports by PRé are used to the extent possible. What does PRé think about comparing the options?

Cheers

Patrick / Patrick Hofstetter, Dr./BAO – Büro für Analyse & Ökologie/Zelghalde 15/CH-8046 Zuerich”

4.)

“Regarding the use of free discussion boards by Yahoo and others, please note that many corporate IT departments will not allow employees access to them or even to receive emails as the fear ‘inappropriate’ content. We had this problem with Sustainability Practice Network (www.sustainabilitypractice,net) and converted to our own hosted site with a list server and archive run on MailMan, which is freeware.

Michael Gresty”

5.)

“LinkedIn

Hello All,

I´m sending this invitation for all that might be interested in getting to know this “Networking Helper System” called LinkedIn. It´s NOT supposed to substituite the Discussion List. Just an additional tool to keep in touch with each other and exchange valuable information to help increase the use of LCA worldwide.

Kind regards to all,

Cristiano Richers / DASAG Consultoria Ltda. /Brazil.

Learn more:

https://www.linkedin.com/e/isd/234974137/VLheVO6A/

WHAT IS LINKEDIN?

Maintain and develop your professional network: Like Cristiano Richers, you can stay connected to past and present colleagues and classmates who you respect.”

Am intrat pe Linkedin. Ce am găsit?

“LinkedIn: Relationships Matter

Join Today / Sign In

LinkedIn brings together your professional network / Find people from your company /  Find people from your school. Start/Your company name: e.g., Google, Procter & Gamble, Bank of America/ Your school name : e.g., Stanford, Penn State, University of Cambridge. Join now and connect with them. Search for someone by name:First Name Last Name /People directory:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z “

LinkedIn este evident destinat snobilor. Situl conectează tipi care au terminat la Stanford University,  University of Cambridge etc. Am privit peste LinkedIn People directory. Predomină numele unor arabi, evident că este vorba despre tipi bogaţi, care au avut toate mijloacele să studieze la universităţile cele mai  prestigioase.

6.)

În fine, un răspuns de la un “greu” European, unul dintre cei mari specialişti din lume în materie de LCA pentru diverse produse şi servicii:

“Hello Christiano,

I’m not really sure if I understand what you refer to as “list format” and “Discussion Board format”. Here is how I use the LCA mail-list, which I think is the “list format”: I recieve each message as a separate e-mail in my mail program. If I search for a topic from the list, I can easily do that with the search function of my mail program. This is the easiest way for me. I hardly ever go back to old messages, but I keep them stored in a separate folder anyway. I don’t use the current archive at http://lists.lyris.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=lca

I don’t know what a “Discussion Board format” is. Could anyone point out an existing topical “Discussion Board”, where one could see what it is? I imagine it is a website, where I can read the messages and contribute, without the use of mail. I can hardly see much advantage of this, over the present system. The mail messages I have in my mail program can  be “neatly organized, searched and kept for a long period of time” as well. Maybe the DB provides  a better archive system. All LCA list messages are already archived at lyris.net. I don’t want to go to a internet site, to write my contributions (Daniel tells us, this is not the case). I do not miss that messages lack pictures, animations, sounds etc. If I need a CV from a contributor, I can google it. I don’t think a central repository is needed (although I can see how that would be heaven for marketing purposes…. Jay! more spam ). I don’t know what you mean by “garbled text”. I never seen such things. Is it mails in HTML code? Do you mean meassages with layers and layers of quoted text? The only complaint I have is that few messages seem not to arrive at my mail program. I realise that when there is an answer to a message, but I have not recieved the original question. But this is a very rare occurrence.

I think, the things to consider are

1) workload for pre to maintain the forum/discussion list

2) shall the list be absolutely open to anyone (Google searchable archive?), or is a registration required (like it is now)?

3) If desired, a better system to refer to old messages in an archive (eg. for “This question was already answered in a contribution of May 05 here:[URL]“)

4) maybe a netiquette for the list

ad 1) keep it low

ad 2) the lca list is focussed on LCA people and I’m very glad that we do not get advertising or general environmental debates on this list. A registration helps this imho.

ad 3) this is imho not possible with the current archive.

ad 4) e.g. I usually don’t just hit ‘reply’ and write my answer, but I edit the quoted text to the last message or the relevant portions I refer to and I remove unnecessary footers. I don’t find it necessary that each mail has the whole history of the exchange (thread) included, because I assume others can look up previous messages as they want, like I do. Also I try to have appropriate subject lines.

If there are specific complaints, Pre should consider them, as I’m sure they will, and decide on possible remedies, but I’m against switching to a new system with additional functionalities (and that always means also new ways for dis-functionality) for no good reason or simply because it’s new. The list does work well in my perception, questions are being answered, and that is the main goal. The list does not try to be anything more.

I think another advantage of keeping it simple is also that the accessability barriers are low (think of people in developing countries, who may have the before-last generation computers and slow internet connections). Currently there is a limit to text length and attachments that can be sent, which I think sustains this notion.

best regards,

Gabor Doka,/Switzerland”

7.)

“Hello Gabor,

Thank you for your extensive answer. Based on it and most of the other answers, I guess we should leave the list as it is. As I mentioned on  my message, I just joined the list and certainly don’t want to  complicate something that’s been working well apparently since 1999. It was just an idea, mainly because I received many messages like the one below, which makes them very hard to read. Sue O’Mahony’s answer was helpful to me : +When I first subscribed, I chose to use the digest. Many of the  digests were indigestible, because of formatting issues and repeats in the  text. I also tried to use the archives, but found them difficult to navigate. I changed my settings to realtime delivery! So now I changed my settings to real time delivery also. I hope it  helps. Thank you, Sue.+

Sorry to stir up the community like that with my first mail! I promise to stick to LCA matters from now on.

Kind regards and peace to all,

Cristiano Richers/DASAG Consultoria Ltda./Brazil”

8.)

“Dear All,

I have stayed out of this discussion because I see the merits of both sides of the argument. But I feel compelled to write now as Christiano invites us all to explore this alternative approach.  She does this with nothing but best intentions and my first thought was to sign up right away.  But then I got to thinking – which will I look at and get responses from and it suddenly dawned on me that there is a real danger of splitting our community into the existing listserve users and the LinkedIn users and this would be a disaster.  Splitting this community is the last thing we should permit to happen.  So, I urge Pre to provide leadership for us about which system to follow or whether they can put something in place that responds to Christianos legitimate suggestions.  I would hope that all on the current listserve would follow Pre’s lead and stay with the existing community and not fragment it.

Nigel Howard”

9.)

“From Josh Stack

I am at best a quiet and appreciative observer to this community.  I write only to suggest what I consider a better alternative to Linked In, should the group decide to create a second means of communication. www.wiserearth.org Here’s a description of its intent and capacities: 

 

http://www.wiserearth.org/article/b83fcefdf556ee4ba1a620a7b1d3ff79#WhatisWiserEarth”

10.)

“WOW! +The path to hell is paved with good intentions.+

I certainly had no idea my suggestions would create such a reaction! Nothing is worth splitting the commuity. The list may not be perfect (nothing is) but it has worked well for a very long time. So please let’s forget about the suggestions and just go on as it always was!

Let’s go back to what really matters: LCA!

All the best,

Cristiano Richers”  

 

 

11.)

În fine, un comentariu extrem de înţelept soseşte de la un tînăr student ecologist din Brazilia :

“Hello all

Let’s say I’ve been a privileged observer and would like to say the wiser decision finally was made according to the “KISS”(*) process, wich follows one of the systems theory basic principles called “Occam’s Razor”. This principle says:  

 

“one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything”

Occam’s razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam’s razor helps us to “shave off” those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

+This principle is part of epistemology, and can be motivated by the requirement of maximal simplicity of cognitive models. However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that “nature” prefers simplicity. Author F. Heylighen, Source: Principia Cybernetica Project: ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be ) +

(*) By the way, the popular translation for this principle is the “KISS” principle (just a joke, don’t be mad about this): Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Let’s focus on LCA, enjoy the day (carpe diem)

Ari Costa /PhD Student/UNICAMP – State University of Campinas/Brazil”

Discuţia noastră arată cât de dificilă este latura intelectualistă necesară pentru atingerea succesului real al unei organizaţii, fie un ONG, fie organizaţie de stat, în managementul ambiental. Aceasta, cum  puteţi observa, este o abordare cu totul diferită de supergonflatele clamări de succes ale falsului ecologist Dragoş Bucurenci. Aţi întâlnit cumva comentarii despre aceste abordări logice instrumentale, sau altele de valoare comparabilă, şi pe blogul pseudoecologic întreţinut de acest incontestabil personaj  de succes în universul People ? Pentru aceasta, continuarea acţiunii Debunking Dragoş Bucurenci este absolut necesară. Şi în universul People acţionează echivalentul legii lui Gresham.

În discuţie, observaţi, am fost primul şi singurul care a folosit termenul “comunitate epistemică”. Ulterior, alţi comentatori LCA de pe forum au folosit doar termenul “comunitate”, vorbind puternic în favoarea ei.

Acel student doctorand din Brazilia, Ari Costa, face trimiteri la epistemologie, dă o definiţie a principiului denumit alternativ “briciul lui Occam” sau “principiul KISS”.

Comentariile domnului Ari Costa pe un forum despre analiza produsului de consum pe ciclul lui de viaţă arată din nou că filosofia aplicată este realmente importantă pentru Ecologia Industrială şi Ecologia Urbană. Aşa ceva am susţinut în permanenţă pe acest blogecologic, pe care l – aş dori transformat într– o comunitate epistemică pentru Ecologia Industrială şi Urbană în România. Discuţiile şi comentariile pe acest blogecologic sunt libere. Însă moderatorul va respecta mereu condiţia dialogului real, anume parcurgerea obligatorie a unui minim segment discursiv dintr– un subiect.

Titus Filipas

 

 

Etichete briciul lui Occam, Comunitate epistemică, Debunking Dragoş Bucurenci, Ecologia Industrială, epistemic community, epistemologie, evaluarea impactului ambiental, from-cradle-to-grave, Gabor Doka, instrument logic, latură intelectualistă, LCA, legea lui Gresham, Life Cycle Analysis, LinkedIn, management ambiental, Netiquette, Nigel Howard, organizaţie de mediu, Patrick Hofstetter, segment discursiv, Titus Filipas