First, a very important point of agreement with Ruth: I concur that people from all walks of life, diverse political perspectives, and varying action orientations, observe and act on environmental disruption, as she describes has been the case in her family going back to the 1960s. My expectation is that the imbalance between people and nature is likely to endure, and (sigh) probably worsen for the foreseeable future, so we can also expect that lots of people will continue to observe this disruption, and that many will act on their observations.

I hope and expect that this will continue to drive some people to contest corporate, government and other leaders on occasions when they dispense rhetoric that is designed to give the appearance of environmental action, when in fact they are charging full speed ahead with the agenda that got us into this mess in the first place. I also recognize that there is no stable “truth” about when this is and is not happenning, so vigorous debate of these issues is very important. That’s why I’m concerned about framings of the most industrial of human endeavors in ecological terms. I’m OK with with an open conceptualization of human production in general, and advanced scientific and technological activities in particular, that acknowledges the current existence and future possibility of ecologically beneficial endeavors within these institutions. But labeling the innovation system as ecological asserts its characteristics, rather than conceptualizing it in a neutral way that leaves an assessment of these characteristics up to empirical and normative inquiry.

The prescient observation about Wal Mart’s labor practices highlights how green rhetoric, and even green action, can obscure other unsavory corporate policies. Let me cite a specific example of the intellectual dynamics that can transpire when we get a little too excited about going green: earlier this year, the faculty and trustees of Pomona College took our biannual retreat, this one focused on sustainability. A distinguished environmental researcher and advocate, L. Hunter Lovins, was a guest for most of the retreat and in one lecture to the plenary provided extensive detail on Wal Mart’s progressive environmental practices. Of the many issues raised in the Q&A, from a pretty informed and very concerned audience of not just academics, but industry leaders and others who populate our board of trustees, only one person had the presence of mind (and I’m sorry to admit it wasn’t me) to ask about labor relations in the context of Wal Mart’s greening. Despite an active research agenda on Wal Mart, Ms. Lovins had to acknowledge that she had not thought about the issue, but would look into it. Were this an isolated incident, it would not be worth noting. But I see a pattern here.

Finally, here’s a quote from a different author who describes technological innovation in ecosystem terms: “…no one institution, sector or indeed country can go it alone: what will be required is a new level and era of open sourced collaboration; success in large part will depend on aligning an ecosystem of communities aligned by a framework of trust, protocols and incentives.” This is from the abstract of a talk by Romanus Berg of Ashoka given at the “Emerging Technologies/Emerging Economies” conference (organized by the UC Santa Barbara Center for Nanotechnology and Society and held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington in early November of this year), where I also heard Dr. Roco and others describe industrial innovation as an ecosystem.

I agree with Andrew that a range of motivations, rationales and interests are probably involved in “innovation as ecosystem” discourses. If the discussion on this blog directs some attention toward these issues, I’ll count the experience as a success.

I suspect it’s a bit of all three. But in the main my experience has been that people adopt terms like “ecosystem” in a desperate attempt to define and grapple with the unknown – rather than to control and obfuscate the discussion.

Nevertheless, it’s probably worth being aware than even well-intentioned co-opting of established terms comes at a price.

Second, the poster child for the environmental movement for the bulk of the last quarter of the 20th C was Greenpeace, an organization that adopted the radical tactics popularized by protests against the war in Vietnam. The consequences of this approach – which demonized pretty much all industry without providing any real or concrete solutions and was an anti- movement rather than a pro- movement – led to the polarization you describe between industry and environmentalists. As for greenwashing – I’m glad Walmart has cleaned up its act somewhat in terms of its carbon imprint. Now if only it would stop either hiring slave labour or treating its employees like slaves I might consider shopping there. But I am pretty sure the demonization finger was first pointed not by industry, but by radical environmentalists.

As for this sentence: ‘Now, the system of technology-driven economic growth that currently has nanotechnology as its poster child is depicted to actually be an ecosystem,’ – I don’t see any actual textual support for this argument in your blog post, nor can I say I’ve noticed it myself amongst the nanotech folks with whom I interact, some of whom are actually involved with the commercialization of nano ventures (and who continue to sound warning bells about how long it takes to get products to market and to quibble with the lofty $x trillion-dollar industry by 2012 statements). If you want to kill a fly you can burn down the house in which the fly resides or you can use a fly swatter (I’m thinking here of the amazing promise of nanomedicine to target only cancer cells, not the healthy ones that surround them).

Or have I read this piece before being sufficiently caffeinated?