You’re on to something useful Write. The more pieces of the knowledge puzzle we have in place, the faster we can place the rest of the pieces. It’s a process which feeds on itself.
If we describe the modern world as knowledge=>power=>change unfolding at faster and faster rates, surely there sooner or later comes a point where human beings can’t manage the process.
What branch of science studies what rate of knowledge development would be ideal? Which specific scientists study this specific subject?
I liked your analogy of a “puzzle”. We have an abundance of pieces but as far as I know there is no framework to fit these pieces together and form an emerging picture.
There is no lack of information about specific problems of human caused instabilities at regional or even global levels. IMO, the problem lies in the lack of coordination between all these separate endeavors.
We have thousands of scientific studies and good approximations of the results of these studies. But they are always treated a separate scientific conclusions, which is what the scientists were tasked to do. There is no problem with the scientific disciplines in and of themselves.
One of my favorite links in my library is the “Worldometer” site. It gives us a “realtime” estimate of statistical information about major global areas of public concern.
While it provides us with some pertinent anticipated results of these statistics, such as “estimated end of oil” , which today stands at about ~46 years, and the amount of chemical pollutants introduced in the environments
5,035,763 Toxic chemicals released in the environment this year (tons)
, it gives no further analysis, but refers to the agencies which keep track of this specific problem. But these statistics are oriented to the activities of humans only, and it provides no information about the relationship of these human activities and their impact to the global ecosystem, such as the disappearance of pollinating insects and the long term projections of the global impact of this phenomenon and a host of other “seemingly” non-related natural phenomena.
We know and often cite Huxley, that everything is connected to everything else. But in practice we are not trying to fit these individual pieces of information into a comprehensive study of the puzzle of the State of the Earth itself.
I am proposing an independent body which gathers all information of not only human activities, but which incorporates everything we know about the natural changes occurring on earth and giving us a single source of reference.
We have managed to construct models of dictionaries and encyclopedias and their instant translation in all languages. These are major works and have taken years to compile, but they are useful in communication.
Is there any reason why we could not fashion an Encyclopedia of the State of the Earth, where all the reliable knowledge of the earth sciences is compiled, along with deep analysis of the connections and projected models of future results?
One could say this information is already available on the internet. But the net is a library, with many books and research in even one specific area may take days and then must be sorted for fact and fiction.
Is it possible to provide a picture of the completed puzzle (allowing for update or refinement), instead of just the pieces as found in Worldometers?