“This commentary is styled in the form of the “Warning to Humanity” series, a series of scientific declarations about the environmental crisis facing the planet that was initiated by a 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” (Union of Concerned Scientists, Citation1992). It calls for transformative approaches to smart cities and urban technology”. (…) "Drawing on interdisciplinary scholarship, this article establishes the need for three paradigm shifts necessary to guide future smart city innovation:
(1) by arguing for a transition from efficiency-driven models to nature-positive and climate-positive approaches that require systemic reforms in regulatory, economic, and governance frameworks;
(2) by highlighting the need to reconcile positivist urban science with constructivist epistemologies in urban studies with the goal of strengthening the value of local and Indigenous knowledge in creating more inclusive, just, and context-sensitive urban governance;
(3) by exploring a posthuman shift in design, which advocates for more-than-human perspectives that recognize the agency and needs of non-human life in cities. These paradigm shifts provide a conceptual foundation for rethinking the role of smart cities and urban technology in fostering more desirable futures that are oriented toward environmental regeneration, multispecies justice, and long-term planetary well-being".
Do you have any pepper-parmesan dressing for that word salad?
Standard academic jargon.
More of a “Warning to Academics”-style than “Warning to Humanity”-style.
A call to free the minds of public officials from the grip of “smart business” lobbyists. More democracy and broader horizons for life—both literally and figuratively.
A call to whom? Who is going to read this? This is just masturbatory in-group status seeking.
I’ve read it, along with a little over 2,500 other people.
I view both of your comments the same way: as a display of cynicism. Thank you for your attention, but I’m not looking for it from people who write comments like that.It’s not cynicism so much as frustration that my side is more interested in being smugly intellectual than actually putting forward convincing arguments to the public.
Why can’t people see the need to reconcile positivist urban science with constructivist epistemologies in urban studies with the goal of strengthening the value of local and Indigenous knowledge in creating more inclusive, just, and context-sensitive urban governance? Are they stupid?
Edit: I guess this is for people in academic urban studies. Which does not include me, or 99% of the people that live in cities.
Well, thanks for your willingness to try to understand what’s going on here. I’ll be back tomorrow.
