Professions and people NOT to ask how to solve our environmental situation
I have a PhD in physics, the most advanced degree in the most fundamental science. It was my priority for most of a decade. I loved and still love the field. I believe if you want to understand our situation, you must understand science or at least its findings. I also consider nature among the most beautiful thing to learn about.
Scientists found out about our environmental situation. They project possible resolutions.
Nonetheless, I don’t consider scientists people to ask how to solve our environmental problem. Why not?
Here’s an example. When I started graduate school at Penn, there was a professor there, Howard Brody, who studied the physics of tennis. In his youth he played varsity tennis. He apparently led the field of the science of tennis. I understood that his book, Tennis Science for Tennis Players, helped many players and coaches.
Would you expect Brody himself to play world-class competitive tennis? Of course not. According to the Economist, “Professor Brody’s love of tennis, perhaps like Newton’s, was never quite matched by his skill.” Mastering the science of tennis doesn’t mean mastering the playing of tennis. On the contrary, it can detract from it.
Mastering tennis comes from practice, in particular practicing the basics. Mastering the science of tennis also requires practice, but practicing different basics.
You wouldn’t want Brody as a tennis teaching or coach either. You’d want someone who mastered how to teach and coach. You’d hope your coach would learn from Brody some fine tuning of whatever mechanics and other science was relevant, but you’d also want that coach to translate that learning for you into how to implement it.
Is it obvious that mastering the science of our environmental situation doesn’t mean mastering the skills and experience of creating a movement? I value science and scientists, but not to play world-class tennis, no matter how well they know the science of tennis, nor to change global culture, no matter how well they know our environmental situation.
Other fields unskilled and inexperienced at sustainability leadership
Other fields unskilled and inexperienced at sustainability leadership include the following. I’m not saying they are useless to help. Some of their skills and experience is critical, but they haven’t practiced the basics of leadership applied to sustainability.
Most practitioners and experts in the fields almost certainly lack hands-on practical experience of leading even themselves to practice sustainability (or even try), credibility, and integrity. Betting on any of them to lead effectively on sustainability is like betting on a physics professor to win Wimbledon.
- Teachers
- Politicians
- Scientists
- Engineers
- Entrepreneurs
- Silicon Valley business people
- Business executives
- Journalists
- Teachers
- Preachers
- Lawyers
- Science fiction writers
- Students
- Artists
- Acticists
- Economists
You get the idea.
It’s safe to bet that only people who will succeed are those with relevant credibility, integrity, and hands-on practical experience in leading movements based in science. The rest won’t really know what they’re talking about or what to do.
Their work may be essential to the movement, but I wouldn’t expect them to lead effectively. I’d love counterexamples.
They can learn to lead
All of them can learn to lead. Sustainability needs leadership more than anything. We can all learn to lead. We can all learn to love leading, by which I mean helping people do what they already wanted to but haven’t figured out how. It means helping people live by their values. It starts by living by our own values.
Read my weekly newsletter
On initiative, leadership, the environment, and burpees