{"id":148,"date":"2023-02-15T14:39:00","date_gmt":"2023-02-15T12:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/?p=148"},"modified":"2023-11-23T10:53:31","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T08:53:31","slug":"dialectic-bias-in-the-logging-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/dialectic-bias-in-the-logging-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Dialectic Bias in the Logging Science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/strong>. Despite numerous analyses of the Pros and Cons of the Logging Industry<\/a>, here I analyze it from the perspective of universal dialectic. A starting thesis and antithesis – “selective logging” and “conservation” – are provided with pros and cons from several perspectives (logger’s, environmentalist’s, climatologist’s, physicist’s, and traditionalist’s). Each perspective is converted into “control statements” that identify its intrinsic consistence. All positive sides are further analyzed in terms of “two-party” complementarity matrix for identifying the root causes of the controversy. Finally, the general steps are suggested for uniting all positive sides into a common “success story”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Column A<\/strong> represents the loggers’ view. Selective logging brings profits (1A), while incurring social pressure and sustainability costs (2A). Not logging yields mental health and well-being (3A, see scientifically proven facts<\/a>), but also vanishing profits (4A)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combining (1A \u2013 4A) yields the following. Profits without mental health yield social pressure (5A). Mental health without profits yield stagnation (6A). The fact that we face social pressure indicates the conflicting situation. Profits from logging and social well-being are hardly compatible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Selective<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Column B<\/strong> represents the environmentalist’s view. Selective logging provides renewable materials and stimulates forest regeneration (1B), but also decreases biodiversity, through replacing natural habitats with industrial plantations (2B). Conservation restores biodiversity (3B), but slows down forests’ regeneration and increases risks of disasters (4B).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combining (1B – 4B) yields the following. Renewability without self-regulation decreases biodiversity (5B). Self-regulation without renewability slows down the tree growth (6B). The last statement suggests that slow self-regulation is hurting the logging industry in the same way that parenting is hurting the state. See How trees talk to each other | Suzanne Simard<\/a>. Of course, we can accelerate the growth of children by killing their parents, but will the achieved “renewability” be what we want?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Column C<\/strong> provides the view of climatologist from the “global warming<\/a>” perspective. Selective logging saves trees from rotting, thereby “locking carbon” in timber and furniture (1C), but also increases carbon footprint (2C). Conservation increases carbon absorption via<\/em> photosynthesis (3C), but reduces carbon sequestration via<\/em> slower growth of trees (4C).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combining (1C – 4C) yields the following. Saving trees from rotting without self-regulation increases carbon emissions (5C). Self-regulation with rotting reduces carbon sequestration (6C). Both of these statements are contradictive. Saving trees from rotting automatically disrupts self-regulation, thus increases carbon emissions, contrary to the statement (1c). And how can natural self-regulation endanger climate change which in itself is of anthropogenic origin<\/a>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This raises questions to the scientific consensus on climate change<\/a>.  Recall that \u201cThere is no such thing as consensus science. If it\u2019s consensus, it isn\u2019t science. If it\u2019s science, it isn\u2019t consensus.” (see Consensus is not science<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Column D<\/strong> represents the “biotic pump<\/a>” model, insisting that forests attract rain through global atmospheric currents. These bring water from the oceans deeply into continents, thus expanding the scope of self-regulation far beyond the classic view of logging science. This model agrees that logging accelerates forest regeneration (1D), but it also disrupts atmospheric regulation, thus causing droughts, fires, and possibly other disasters (2D). Conservation restores climate regulation, thus preventing draughts and other disasters (3D), but also slowing down regeneration (4D).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note, that (2D) and (3D) contradict to the classic environmentalists’ view, in which logging protects forests from disasters (1B, 4B). Quite simply, dry forests are vulnerable to the fire and diseases, whereas Rain forests are safe from such disasters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combining (1D – 4D) we obtain: Logging that disrupts atmospheric regulation yields droughts and disasters (5D). Atmospheric regulation  without selective logging slows down regeneration (6D). The first claim (5D) makes much more sense than (5B) and (5C), whereas the second claim (6D) is comparable to (6B) and preferable to (6C). This means that the biotic pump model is preferable to the environmental and climate models currently used in the forestry science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The last column (E)<\/strong> presents the point of view of cultural traditionalists insisting that forest is a natural habitat not only for animals, but also for humans. Forest is associated with the Holy Spirit and Higher Consciousness, yielding social cohesion, peace and wisdom. Such views are popular in many cultures, like Shintoism<\/a>, Taoism<\/a> and Shamanism<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this view, selective logging creates infrastructure for natural living and cohesion (1E), but excessive logging yields moral and spiritual degradation (2E). Conservation yields higher consciousness (3E), but lower infrastructure and isolation (4E). Logging without consciousness yields spiritual degradation (5E), consciousness without logging yields asceticism and isolation (6E).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Two Ideologies. <\/strong>The following matrix represents probabilities of synthesis of the better future between all pairs of positive statements (L+) and (C+). Green cells indicate complementarity, red – incompatibility, yellow – neutrality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It represents two opposing views separated by a diagonal line. The uppermost right represents “dialectical spiritualism”, while the lower left part represents “dialectical materialism” (modeled by GPT-4). (Earlier GPT versions produced “more materialistic” view, favoring profits 1A and downplaying the importance of culture 1E.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first view is antagonistic to the profits (which are inseparable from heavy machinery and greed) and “not-rotting” (which suppresses biodiversity) – see two horizontal reddish lines (1A and 1C).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second view is antagonistic to the concepts of social Wellbeing and Higher Consciousness – see two horizontal and one vertical reddish lines (3A and 3C).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each ideology has two claims (denoted by red rows or columns) that could form the basis of negotiations. If one shows some flexibility in their requirements, the other must demonstrate the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Understanding the deeper causes<\/strong>. The table on the right explains meanings of all quadrants of the \u201csynthesis matrix\u201d. The 1st quadrant is about combining Logging with Conservation. Both views agree that such a combination is indeed possible. The 2nd and 3rd quadrants are about getting the most out of Logging and Conservation, respectively. GPT suggests that logging is detrimental in both cases, perhaps because logging profits are outweighed by the eco-industry losses. The idealistic (“spiritual”) view gives more plusses to the logging, as it assumes that each tree is selected and cut “by hands”, without using heavy machinery, and preserving ecology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The last three quadrants estimate the future potential. Again, GPT sees only slight benefits of logging (II-II quadrant), but large problems in Conservation (III-III) and changing lifestyle (II-III). The idealistic “spiritual” view sees everything in “green”, as it believes more in human potential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Conflict Resolution. <\/strong>If all parties agree on general positive statements (L+ and C+), then it is relatively easy to suggest practical steps toward a common “success story”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Table on the right shows that (L+) must come from alternative livelihoods, like ecotourism and timber replacements (A+). (C+) must come from sustainable logging that prioritizes the health and longevity of the forest (R+). The particulars were obtained from Chat-GPT, by asking what steps could unite all (L+) and (C+) statements. The answer is in Appendix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point is, that given (L+) and (C+), it is not so difficult to define (A+) and (R+). These can be further analyzed in above-mentioned complementarity matrix, along with (L+) and (C+).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Exposing Bias (Vaccination)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dialectic in Conflict Resolution<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dialectic Board Game<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Multilevel App<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Appendix<\/strong>. Chat-GPTs suggestions on how to unite all (L+) and (C+):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Implement sustainable logging practices: Selective logging can be done in a way that prioritizes the health and longevity of the forest. By only harvesting certain trees and leaving others to grow, the forest can continue to regenerate and support biodiversity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Protect key areas: Even in areas where logging is allowed, certain areas can be protected for their ecological or cultural value. This can help preserve biodiversity, cultural traditions, and spiritual practices, while still allowing for sustainable economic activity in other parts of the forest.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Promote alternative livelihoods, such as ecotourism, sustainable agriculture, or non-timber forest products. By promoting these alternatives, communities can continue to thrive while reducing their reliance on logging.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Educate and engage local communities for building social cohesion and a sense of ownership over the forest, while also ensuring that conservation and logging practices are sustainable and effective.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    In addition consider the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Forest Therapy<\/a> (maybe creating special cards for “recreational introspection” on the topic “what does the forest mean to me?”)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Designated board games (Photosynthesis<\/a>,  Wingspan<\/a>, Terra<\/a>) and computer games (Minecraft \/ EcoCraft, Forest<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Propagation of old philosophies, like Taoism<\/a> and Shintoism<\/a>,
    Books like     Walden<\/a>, movies like Mononoke<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Re-inventing Science through the prisms of Universal Dialectic<\/a>, Panpsychism<\/a>, Gaia hypothesis<\/a>, Morphic Resonance<\/a>, and similar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ecological alternatives to logging in the construction, paper, packaging and other wood industries (Bamboo, Hempcrete, Flax and other natural fibers, such as cotton, linen, jute, Agricultural residues, such as straw and bagasse, Recycled materials)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Summary. Despite numerous analyses of the Pros and Cons of the Logging Industry, here I analyze it from the perspective […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,8],"tags":[27,13,25,26,19],"class_list":["post-148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","category-modern-dialectics","tag-analysis","tag-chatgpt","tag-conflict-resolution","tag-dialectic-bias","tag-dialectics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=148"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":200,"href":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148\/revisions\/200"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dialexity.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}