Since time immemorial human development on this planet has been like a virus in its lysogenic cycle. We consume resources at a rapid pace than nature can replenish and we are yet to find a solution.
This question gives me another chance, as I did under other questions, to recall the classic work of Donella Meadows (1941 – 2001), late research fellow at MIT, on how we can and should change the structure of systems we live in to produce more of what we want (sustainable) and less of that which is undesirable (unsustainable). Donella was a pioneering American environmental scientist, teacher and writer an best known as lead author of the influential book "The Limits to Growth", which made headlines around the world. She proposed a list of places (leverage points) to intervene in complex systems in increasing order of effectiveness. Here they are (from Meadows 2009):
• 12. Numbers: Constants and parameters such as subsidies, taxes, and standards
• 11. Buffers:The sizes of stabilizing stocks relative to their flows
• 10. Stock-and-Flow Structures: Physical systems and their nodes of intersection
• 9. Delays: The lengths of time relative to the rates of system changes
• 8. Balancing Feedback Loops: The strength of the feedbacks relative to the impacts they are trying to correct
• 7. Reinforcing Feedback Loops: The strength of the gain of driving loops
• 6. Information Flows:The structure of who does and does not have access to information
• 5. Rules: Incentives, punishments, constraints
• 4. Self-Organization: The power to add, change, or evolve system structure
• 3. Goals:The purpose or function of the system
• 2. Paradigms: The mindset out of which the system—its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters—arises.
• 1. Transcending Paradigms
As you can see the most effective leverage points are paradigms and trascending paradigms, very difficult to change but the most effective for a really sustainable change. In the words of Donella "the shared ideas in the minds of society, the great big unstated assumptions, constitute that society’s paradigm, or deepest set of beliefs about how the world works. These beliefs are unstated because it is unnecessary to state them—everyone already knows them. Money measures something real and has real meaning; therefore, people who are paid less are literally worth less. Growth is good. One can “own” land. Those are just a few of the paradigmatic assumptions of our current culture, all of which have utterly dumbfounded other cultures, who thought them not the least bit obvious". Notice, however, that most of the current sustainability research, even the most advanced on complex systems, instead, is focused on the least effective leverage points like the economical aspects likely because decision makers and politicians believe that sustainability is mainly an economic problem and it is more approachable in this way. So, "Numbers" like constants and parameters such as subsidies, taxes, and standards become the main focus. This happens for sustainability in environmental protection science too, by just providing numbers, standards, thresholds for pollutants that should not be trespassed, and for species diversity too. However this is a quite myopic viewpoint and I doubt that it can lead to sustainability ever.
Here is the link for Donella's work www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/419.
Dear Abesh
Sustainability of the environment and development may seem to conflict with each other in the short term. For example, industrial growth might conflict with preserving natural resources. However, in the long term, responsible use of natural resources now will help ensure that there are resources available for sustained industrial growth far into the future. As the human population is increasing, the harvested amount of the resources need to be modified to fit the carrying capacity of the resources. It is impossible to keep increasing production to meet the increasing demand of humans. I feel that sustainability means to sustainably use the resources so that the same amount can be harvested over the time, but if the resource users are increasing then the share of the individuals become less with time.
Abesh
Unfortunately this is a problem when people do not take a holistic view of a given situation. Anytime if you are considering to look at human development it is necessary to consider all the consequences before implementing a solution. What normally happens is people try to take a method that they think is the best, but do not consider all the ramifications of such an action. If proper care is taken at the very stage of familiarizing the problem and if careful thought is given to consider all possible options, it is possible to consider a solution that is not only environmentally sound but also would be economical in the long run. It is necessary when you would like to look at a solution, think of its long term effects. Don’t take a short term view. Problem with many of the political solutions is that they are not scientifically sound, and people push them for their short term gains.
If by development we mean industrial development or economic growth then I think the answer is it cannot easily do so in economies that demand growth.
Economists often refer to growth as growing ‘value’ (often measured in GDP terms). Environmentalists may focus on growth as growing the ‘quantity of stuff’. They are two quite different things which may or may not be related. House price value is an example of value growth without an increase in the quantity of stuff. A third use of growth is that of population growth. Daniel Ben-Ami in 'Ferraris for All' appears to be making the case for growing GDP (value) and for growing ‘stuff’ while accepting rising levels of population growth for the next 30 years. This i feel is unsustainable.
Limits to growth/development include both the material and energy that are extracted from the Earth, and the capacity of the planet to absorb the pollutants that are generated as those materials and energy are used. Streams of material and energy flow from the planetary sources through the economic system to the planetary sinks where wastes and pollutants end up. There are limits, however, to the rates at which sources can produce these materials and energy without harm to people, the economy, or the earth's processes of regeneration and regulation. Ben-Ami argues that limits can be overcome by human ingenuity based on economic development as a precondition for this ingenuity and creativity.
He goes on to argue:
"The best way to address the challenges is to go for economic growth which encourages affluence. This is the “precondition for resolving challenges..rather than their cause” (p3).
The main points argued are:
• Growth 1: Humanity has gained enormously from economic growth.
• Growth 2: is correlated with technological and scientific progress.
• Growth 3: can put humanity in a stronger position to deal with population and environmental challenges as it provides more resources combined with human ingenuity.
• Growth 4: Economic Inequality in itself is not an argument against growth. An answer is to raise the living standards of everyone so that poor countries should experience economic transformation such as that enjoyed by rich countries.
Limits.
The growth sceptic case is based on limits which Ben-Ami argues:
• Limits 1: What appear to be fixed natural limits can be overcome. nature is to be subjugated, more control is needed not less.
• Limits 2: ‘Scarcity of resource’ and ‘overpopulation’ are myths.
• Limits 3: Moral limits are not imposed by affluence and materialism: The pursuit of happiness ought to be linked with progress, affluence is worth pursuing to achieve more happiness and does not make us ill. Sustainability is inherently conservative and privileges the elite.
A statistical challenge to growth:
The first challenge is a statistical one, i.e. one devoid of value or judgment, it is the numerical expression of exponential growth. For more than a century, the world has been experiencing exponential growth in a number of areas, including population and industrial production. In 1650, the world's population had a doubling time of 240 years. By 1900, the doubling time was 100 years. In 1972 when The Limits to Growth was first published (Meadows et al 1972), there were under 4 billion people in the world. Today, there are more than 7 billion. An important concept is that of doubling time: A quantity, growing according to a pure exponential growth equation, doubles in a constant time period. There is a simple relationship between the % rate of growth and the time it will take that quantity to double:
Growth Rate (% per year) Approximate Doubling Times (years)
0.1 720
0.5 144
1.0 72
2.0 36
3.0 24
4.0 18
5.0 14
6.0 12
7.0 10
10.0 7
If the world economy grows at 3% we will have doubled capacity in 24 years. Growth from a small base can show this exponential feature. For example China’s economy grew at nearly 10% in the third quarter of 2010 (Trading Economics 2011) which means at this rate it will double GDP in 7 years! Its demand for copper (for example) may double in 7 years (without substitution or efficiencies in copper use). There is only so much copper in the world, so where is the limit? Mining for copper will also be affected by the technical developments, and socio-political choices made across the globe and so its scarcity will be determined by various political and cultural factors. Overarching these decisions, exponential growth cannot occur in finite systems...there are limits. China’s growth rate of 10% each quarter is not being sustained. Ben-Ami does not discuss this statistical relationship or its implications for growth and resources.
I think we need to consider what exponential growth and development looks like and if Rockstrom et al (2009) are correct, then we are already crossing planetary boundaries which delineate a safe operating space for humanity. Ben Ami for me is over optimistic.
I expand on this here: http://www.academia.edu/404897/A_critique_of_Ferraris_for_All_In_defence_of_economic_prgress_by_Daniel_Ben-Ami
This question gives me another chance, as I did under other questions, to recall the classic work of Donella Meadows (1941 – 2001), late research fellow at MIT, on how we can and should change the structure of systems we live in to produce more of what we want (sustainable) and less of that which is undesirable (unsustainable). Donella was a pioneering American environmental scientist, teacher and writer an best known as lead author of the influential book "The Limits to Growth", which made headlines around the world. She proposed a list of places (leverage points) to intervene in complex systems in increasing order of effectiveness. Here they are (from Meadows 2009):
• 12. Numbers: Constants and parameters such as subsidies, taxes, and standards
• 11. Buffers:The sizes of stabilizing stocks relative to their flows
• 10. Stock-and-Flow Structures: Physical systems and their nodes of intersection
• 9. Delays: The lengths of time relative to the rates of system changes
• 8. Balancing Feedback Loops: The strength of the feedbacks relative to the impacts they are trying to correct
• 7. Reinforcing Feedback Loops: The strength of the gain of driving loops
• 6. Information Flows:The structure of who does and does not have access to information
• 5. Rules: Incentives, punishments, constraints
• 4. Self-Organization: The power to add, change, or evolve system structure
• 3. Goals:The purpose or function of the system
• 2. Paradigms: The mindset out of which the system—its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters—arises.
• 1. Transcending Paradigms
As you can see the most effective leverage points are paradigms and trascending paradigms, very difficult to change but the most effective for a really sustainable change. In the words of Donella "the shared ideas in the minds of society, the great big unstated assumptions, constitute that society’s paradigm, or deepest set of beliefs about how the world works. These beliefs are unstated because it is unnecessary to state them—everyone already knows them. Money measures something real and has real meaning; therefore, people who are paid less are literally worth less. Growth is good. One can “own” land. Those are just a few of the paradigmatic assumptions of our current culture, all of which have utterly dumbfounded other cultures, who thought them not the least bit obvious". Notice, however, that most of the current sustainability research, even the most advanced on complex systems, instead, is focused on the least effective leverage points like the economical aspects likely because decision makers and politicians believe that sustainability is mainly an economic problem and it is more approachable in this way. So, "Numbers" like constants and parameters such as subsidies, taxes, and standards become the main focus. This happens for sustainability in environmental protection science too, by just providing numbers, standards, thresholds for pollutants that should not be trespassed, and for species diversity too. However this is a quite myopic viewpoint and I doubt that it can lead to sustainability ever.
Here is the link for Donella's work www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/419.
Dear All,
I agree perfectly with Giovanni.
Unfortunately, policy makers know very well that economic growth is the general reason of all (environmental) problems, but they drive with all their might our systems in Earth into the wrong direction as D. Maedows put it.
Please read: Donella Meadows: Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/
Ah, yes...Donella Meadows. Thanks Giovanni and Andras, I need to read even more of their work! Growth is another aspect of the current paradigm but is beginning to be questioned more and more, thanks to writers such as Tim Jackson. However, i will bet that the UK 2015 election will see a consensus on the need for growth. politically nothing has yet been transcended.
Abesh, of course in many developing economies the two can go hand in hand, it is the developed rich industrial nations that require change. Until the point where developing economies become carbon intense they should develop, as there is room for their growth, overall though bill mckibbens rule of three exists: 2 degrees, 575 gigatons, and 2795 gigatons. That's the limit as far as we know.
Solution and idea possible. The challenge is to have spatial thinking of development and sustainability re-modelling of economic philosophy of wealth creation in 21 century.
- Badges
- Science topic