There is an air of apology surrounding GIS and remote sensing. Every time we give a course here at the lab, there is always someone who demands that the lab director admit that it doesn’t really work all that well, and each time, the director says ‘yes, GIS has been oversold in the past, it has limits…’. When I was getting taught ecology, the single instance in which GIS was even mentioned was when our methodology professors allowed someone from the GIS department to give a one hour overview of some work being done to the class. The next class was taken up in part by our professor pointing out why we shouldn’t put too much trust in those GIS people.

I get the impression that I got here late and missed something. I get the impression that that something was a whole lot of people in the GIS and remote sensing fields mouthing off about how they were going to solve the world’s ecology and environmental monitoring problems. I get the impression that they failed to entirely do this, and now everyone over 30 who uses spatial tools uses 30% of their outside interaction energy apologizing and making it clear that there will be no further bad behaviour.

Well screw that. GIS and remote sensing have already made massive contributions to our monitoring of the state of the earth’s environment. In fact, GIS and remote sensing are the only reason we have monitoring of the environment on the important scale of the whole earth. Of course there are problems, of course the maps have inaccuracies, we’re making them from SATELLITES people. SATELLITES. Orbiting hundreds of miles above the earth.

Increasingly, remote sensing and yes, GIS, is giving us tools to do experimental research that can extend ecological theory faster and in new and useful directions.

Maybe if our otherwise excellent ecology instructors had given us a decent grounding in spatial techniques and remote sensing, instead of tyring to shield us from it’s hubris, we would be able to intelligently interpret it and assess it’s successes and limitations on a case by case basis. Like we do with every other method of gathering data for study.

I’m wary of analogy, but it’s a lot like statistics. Statistics gives us the power to measure and experiment in ways otherwise unattainable. When it was new, statistics was presumably regarded as niche. Eventually people found it useful in practically every existing field of study. In these ways, GIS is like statistics (but less so).

Furthermore, the power of statistics is dangerously seductive. If someone who doesn’t well understand the inner workings of statistics uses it (maybe they have a statistical software package) they can convince themselves of things that aren’t true. Numbers can be almost irrationally convincing. Someone with an agenda who does understand something about statistics can use it to generate numbers which will convince people who aren’t stats savvy of things which aren’t true.

Substitute ‘numbers’ for ‘maps’ and you’ve got the main objections to GIS. In these ways, GIS is like statistics, but more so.

So what? Do we convince people to avoid studying statistics because it’s dangerous? Au contraire, very sensibly we try and get people to learn as much statistics as possible, because it’s useful and because it’s dangerous.

So I have a proposal. I was listening to some Iggy Pop. From his song, I suggest a slogan for our lab, and maybe for remote sensing, and maybe for GIS.

Look out honey, cause I’m using technology,
Ain’t got time to make no apology.