Discussion: View Thread

Natural capital includes the world's renewable and finite resources, living systems, and public parks and gardens. It is a shared inheritance we all depend upon.

Universities have long had a strong association with natural capital. For example biologists study living systems, agricultural scientists improve farming practices, climatologist model global warming, and engineers develop renewable energy systems. Now, many university faculty are working on mitigating the effects of Covid-19 and inventing a vaccine.

The pandemic has closed labs and shifted billions of research funds to Covid-19. The disruption of research on natural capital issues has come at a time when we face global warming, which is by far a greater threat to humans than a pandemic because of rising temperatures, sea level rises, ocean acidity, and bio-diversity loss. There is no hope of an emissions vaccine, and we have now learned that many are unwilling to accept behavioral changes, such as social distancing, that seem relatively innocuous compared to the projected required changes  (e.g., Project Drawdown) to dramatically reduce carbon emissions.

Natural capital is not just a benign provider of food and raw materials for making goods.  It can be predatory, poisonous, parasitic, and pathogen generating. High population density and sharing space with animals have been a breeding ground for pathogens since the early days of agriculture when humans started to live closely with domesticated animals.

Pathogens can have an impact on daily life in ways we might not realize. For example, New Scientist reports on an analysis of US students that discovered that those infected with a brain parasite passed by cats to humans are more likely to major in business. Their favorite majors are management and entrepreneurship. Might business schools therefore have a disproportionate number of students who are unwilling to wear masks or socially distance?

Many of the changes forced upon have been good for natural capital restoration as carbon emissions have dropped. This is an opportunity for AIS to learn from online conferences and reinvent perhaps our most environmentally impactful practices. Conferences are exclusionary as many in the less developed economies cannot afford to attend and even in the developed economies some academics have at most support for a local conferences. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) reckons it can reduces its carbon emission by 90% by moving to a biennial meeting in a central location with a virtual attendance option.

Do we resurrect the old conference model or refine our exigency actions to create a globally inclusive IS community with a minimal carbon footprint? I opt for a more inclusionary and greener set of conferences. Good for people and the planet.