If we look at sustainable development as different partial ways of correcting the traditional market, then sustainable development based markets follow the maximization rule too. But true sustainability is a full correction of the traditional market, not a partial one, which leads to the question: Is true sustainability consistent with the concept of maximization too? I think no, true sustainability is inconsistent with maximization.
If someone thinks that true sustainability is consistent with maximization, please show me analytically or graphically that I am wrong.
Please share your own views on the question for a positive exchange of ideas.
Somewhere , it has to address maximisation . If not maximization , lets address optimisation to sustain sustainability for much longer time.....
Good day Anoop and Emmanuel.
Anoop, it can not be both.... if you agree with me that sustainability is not consistent with the concept of maximization, can you show analytically why? If you disagree with me and think that sustainability can be maximized, can you show analytically how that works?
We are here to exchange ideas in a respectful environment, and hopefully advance the growth of knowledge....
Keep in mind, any sustainabile development based markets can be shown to be consistent with the idea of maximization...
Dear Anil, thank you for your comment.
Yes, optimization goes with sustainability and sustainability markets, and maximization go with both one component based sustainable development models(deep models) and two component based sustainable development models(partial partnership models).
True sustainability is also inconsistent with the concept of cost externalization.
Anil, can you think of an analytical way to show that this is the case? If you know please share it, just to exchange ideas
Dear Lucio, I am assuming that by "true" sustainability you mean "strong" sustainability from the perspective of natural wealth accounting literature. That is, the conservation of natural capital (water, soil, forests, biodiversity, etc...) to avoid its depletion (depreciation) and certainly obtain all its ecosystem services potential returns (i.e. water provision, pollination, climate regulation, soil nutrients....). The concept of maximization under this approach is related to welfare and conservation close inter-linkages. A key argument is that natural capital and ecosystem services must be valued (economically) and properly priced in order to make a sustainable use of those natural assets (natural wealth) and incorporate them explicitly into markets from a production and consumption perspective. Thus, welfare maximization from a sustainable development perspective would be achieved. Human welfare and ecosystems conservation are therefore part of the same equation and directly related to production and consumption systems which internalize the value of natural assets into their maximization objectives. Please take a look at these sources, from various perspectives: methodological, policy and business oriented. Best regards.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2018/01/30/the-changing-wealth-of-nations
https://seea.un.org/
https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/
Dear Luis, good observation. Only true sustainability is consistent with strong sustainability a la world bank.... any sustainable development model is consistent with weak sustainability alla world bank
Dear friends, In 2002 I wrote some ideas about maximization and sustainability that relate to this question and that some of you may find interesting with some good food for thoughts.....I am sharing it here below, check it when you have time...
If you have access to this journal you can check this article here
Maximization, partial regulation, and system dominance: Can they be drivers of true sustainability?, year 2002
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235270181_Maximization_partial_regulation_and_system_dominance_Can_they_be_drivers_of_true_sustainability
If you have no access to the journal you can download my copy filed and look at it
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337172322_Maximization_Partial_Regulation_and_System_Dominance_Can_They_Be_Drivers_of_True_Sustainability
Lucio , I have already opined , if not maximization, atleast ensure optimisation.
Whenever s variety is developed by a breeder , it is released only after developing package of practices which covers yield maximization package by the economist. And if you can sustain , it's nothing like that . But surely , optimisation package is needed , if you have not addressed maximization..
While working in Fruit crops , yield maximization doesn't work, it reduces the fruit size . Therefore, we advocate yield optimisation...
Dear Anoop, thank you for your comment. We are just exchanging ideas here Anoop, and I was just trying to say the what drives sustainable development based models is the idea of maximization and what drives sustainability models is the idea of optimization....
I think that what you are doing there is what I called "maximization ceiling", at the maximization ceiling production is or tends to optimal.... Something similar happens with sustainability, at the sustainability pareto point the optimal is the maximun you can get, be it production, or consumption or profits....again the point is that under sustainability optimization is the goal, not maximization, and perhaps in your case it can be said that yield optimization is the goal, not maximization to have an impact on the desire size of fruits.....
Respectfully yours;
Dear Lucio,
" what drives sustainable development based models is the idea of maximization and what drives sustainability models is the idea of optimization " capture the usual motivations in sustainability intensification activities, Having a circular economic elements in the activities should enhance the optimization. Fact any sustainability intensification activities will not be sustainable if the cashflow is not positive (and need government subsidies) and better than the business as usual scenario.
Dear Chean, thank you for your comment. I agree, your comment is consistent I think with Anoop's contribution,
To avoid moving away from the center of this question and since there seems to be agreement that only sustainable development based models are consistent with the concept of maximization, can you think of a way to show analytically that sustainability models can not be maximized and that sustainable development models can not be optimized? We are here just to share ideas.
Dear Lusi, since you are interested in the link true sustainability and strong sustainability you may find the following article interesting as it provides food for thoughts on that link:
Introducing a Simple Qualitative Comparative Dichotomy Approach to State and Clarify Sustainable Development and Sustainability Related Concepts and Issues
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244558_Introducing_a_Simple_Qualitative_Comparative_Dichotomy_Approach_to_State_and_Clarify_Sustainable_Development_and_Sustainability_Related_Concepts_and_Issues
Dear Lucio,
Currently I am building an Economic model based on a case study of a sustainability intensification activity in the Agriculture sector that exhibit circular economic elements (being in commercial operations since 2009). When compare to the business as usual scenario, the case study's sustainability intensifications approach in Agriculture not only addressing the fundamentals in food securities and soil remediation, but also exhibiting optimization in terms of social, environmental (carbon foot print) and economic performance. If the sustainability development is linear, then your question "....that sustainability models can not be maximized and that sustainable development models can not be optimized?" might be supported
Dear Chean, thank you for your comment.
Another way of saying the same is that sustainability models are not additive models, they are codependency based models; and any type of sustainable development based model come from an additive structure that is based on full independent choice......
Imagine for example and simplification that we have a system with two components A and B, then the full variability of that system can be captured as follows:
a) M = A + AB + B
If we assume full independency, so AB = 0 then we have
b) M1 = A + B
1) We can maximize A at the expense of B since M11 = A = Ab
2) We can maximize B at the expense of A since M12 = B = aB
3) M1 is the summation of two closed systems, A does not care about B and B does not care about A
4) You can not optimize(*) additive independent interactions
M1* not (A + B)*
5) M1 has only necessary conditions to exist
If we assume full codependence so A = B = 0, then
c) M2 = AB
1) You can not maximize A, A cares about B
2) You can not maximize B, B care about A
3) M2 is a full codependence based model, hence,
MAX M2 not MAX(AB) as you can not maximize codependency.
4) you can only optimize M2
M2* = (AB)* = A*B* since over all sustainability and optimality requires component specific sustainability and optimality
5) M2 has a necessary and sufficient condition to exist
Let's leave it here Chean
Respectfully yours
I dont think so. In fact in many cases maximization lead to unsustainable use of resources. I would rather suggest optimization
"Maximize SHAREholder WEALTH" was the mantra of 20th century corporations. The purpose of 21st century corporations is to "maximize STAKEholder WELLBEING," including the environment and society-at-large as special case stakeholders. Striving to maximize stakeholder wellbeing is a good thing. It requires companies to be be truly sustainable.
Bob, good day. Thank you for your comment.
Capitalism is non-systematic model and that is why maximization is central engine of profit making...for perfect maximizers....like corporations
It turned out to be that the perfect market of Adam Smith was a trojan horse in terms of social and environmental impacts that corporations were using without challenge from 1776/The Wealth of Nations to 1987 Bruntland commission report in 1987/Our Common Future.... The highlight of the commission's work can be said to be that the perfect market was in fact a fully distorted markets in social and environmental terms and needed to be corrected to move away from business as normal....they were right in identifying the root cause of social and environmental sustainability affecting the traditional market, which means that "we had a true sustainability problem"; and that needed to be corrected, but they reccomended the wrong solution.....they recommended a sustainable development solution to a sustainability problem...violating that way the theory-poractice consistency principle....Sustainability theory to sustainabilty practice, you can not solve a system problem with a non-system solution....you can not solve sustainability problems with sustainable development solutions....if you try you are leaving science behind....you are living perfect market thinking behind....
You can fine some good food for thouthgts about this in the following articles....you can take a look at them when you have time:
Did Adam Smith Miss the Chance to State the Goal and Structure of Sustainability Markets in His Time? If Yes, Which Could Be Some of the Possible Reasons Behind That?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286625136_Did_Adam_Smith_Miss_the_Chance_to_State_the_Goal_and_Structure_of_Sustainability_Markets_in_His_Time_If_Yes_Which_Could_Be_Some_of_the_Possible_Reasons_Behind_That
Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s model: Was Going Green the Only Option? If not, Is This Option the Most Sustainable One?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291523109_Understanding_the_Death_and_Paradigm_Shift_of_Adam_Smith's_model_Was_Going_Green_the_Only_Option_If_not_Is_This_Option_the_Most_Sustainable_One
Adam Smith Vrs Karl Marx: Stating the Structure and Implications of the Paradigm Clash that Led to the Death of Karl Marx’s World, to the Fall of the Soviet Bloc, and to the Rise of Socially Friendly Capitalism.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292359802_Adam_Smith_Vrs_Karl_Marx_Stating_the_Structure_and_Implications_of_the_Paradigm_Clash_that_Led_to_the_Death_of_Karl_Marx's_World_to_the_Fall_of_the_Soviet_Bloc_and_to_the_Rise_of_Socially_Friendly_Cap
Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Pointing Out and Comparing the Sustainability Gaps Behind these Two Great Simplification Failures
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299885202_Adam_Smith_and_Karl_Marx_Under_the_Sustainability_Eye_Pointing_Out_and_Comparing_the_Sustainability_Gaps_Behind_these_Two_Great_Simplification_Failures
Sustainability thoughts 101: What was wrong with the structure of Adam Smith’s traditional market model? What are the main implications of this?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339213828_Sustainability_thoughts_101_What_was_wrong_with_the_structure_of_Adam_Smith's_traditional_market_model_What_are_the_main_implications_of_this
Sustainability thoughts 106: Can we solve an environmental sustainability problem by managing the consequences of that problem? If not, why not?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340442676_Sustainability_thoughts_106_Can_we_solve_an_environmental_sustainability_problem_by_managing_the_consequences_of_that_problem_If_not_why_not
Good day Maripaz!
Thank you for your comment... keep in mind, any sustainable development model is driven by maximization towards full unsustainability...
Any sustainability model is driven by optimization towards full sustainability....
In my opinion, 'sustainability' has lost its true meaning as we have stretched the natural system beyond its potential to recover. What we can address at this juncture is the 'extended period of certain degree of sustainability' that is left over. If you look at the resources themselves in comparison to the yester years, they are not the same. Technological advancement may help in this attempt.
Dear A.K. Thank you for sharing this. However, it seems to be outside of the scope of the question as the question is about true sustainability and maximization.
But your comment led me to think, how can a concept so poorly understood like true sustainability lose meaning as there is a deep sustainability based paradigm shift knowledge gap which most people can not see today and so they could not see it yesterday?
Just see the way you are using "sustainability" there in your comment, it appears to be as environmental sustainability, which as you may know it is not true sustainability. Environmental sustainability as economic sustainability and as social sustainability are deep sustainable development based models driven by maximization forces. If passive components of systems are collapsing it is because they are at the mercy of the maximization processes of the dominant components of that system,,,,
You should have said "In my opinion, environmental sustainability has lost its true meaning", and I would have agreed with you as in 2012 perfect environmentalism lost the green cold war....Today, imperfect environmentalism rules....
Respectfully yours;
Dear A.K. Thank you for writing. I think you may find interesting some recent work by me, some on the way to publication and others published dealing with how paradigm shift knowledge gaps are creating in general and in the environmental/green market area in particular; and other dealing about the declining relevance of environmentalism since 2012 Rio + 20, they provide some good food for thoughts. You can check any of them when you have time:
Sustainability thoughts 120: How are paradigm shift knowledge gaps created? In which ways can they lead to the mishandling of expected paradigm shifts?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342654767_Sustainability_thoughts_120_How_are_paradigm_shift_knowledge_gaps_created_In_which_ways_can_they_lead_to_the_mishandling_of_expected_paradigm_shifts
Sustainability thoughts 123: How are green market paradigm shift knowledge gaps created from the pure capitalism angle? In which ways can they lead to the mishandling of the expected paradigm shift from pure capitalism to environmentally friendly capitalism?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343470915_Sustainability_thoughts_123_How_are_green_market_paradigm_shift_knowledge_gaps_created_from_the_pure_capitalism_angle_In_which_ways_can_they_lead_to_the_mishandling_of_the_expected_paradigm_shift_from
Sustainability thoughts 118: how can the green cold war, the 2012 Rio +20 conference actions, and the fall of perfect environmentalism be linked? What are the implications of this in terms of winners and losers and of environmental sustainability?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342299479_Sustainability_thoughts_118_how_can_the_green_cold_war_the_2012_Rio_20_conference_actions_and_the_fall_of_perfect_environmentalism_be_linked_What_are_the_implications_of_this_in_terms_of_winners_and_l
Sustainability thoughts 119: How can the 2012 green cold war be stated graphically in terms of sustainability gaps? What are the implications of this in terms of the only possible science based resolution to the green cold war?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342158454_Sustainability_thoughts_119_How_can_the_2012_green_cold_war_be_stated_graphically_in_terms_of_sustainability_gaps_What_are_the_implications_of_this_in_terms_of_the_only_possible_science_based_resoluti
Respectfully yours;
Dear Lucio Muñoz
These scientific contributions provide various analyzes on this topic, which I find very interesting. I hope that the study of these documents will be useful to you. I really appreciate this interesting discussion.
- Evaluating the applicability of ESM (Ecotourism Sustainability Maximization) model to assess, monitor, and manage the ecotourism sustainability in mountain ecosystem (Mt. Kangchendzonga Base Camp Trek, India)
- Evaluation of city sustainability using the deviation maximization method
- Sustainability and the evolution of the shareholder wealth maximization paradigm
- Board Accountability and the Entity Maximization and Sustainability Approach
- COMPROMISING LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY FOR SHORT-TERM PROFIT MAXIMIZATION: UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICE
- From system cost minimization to sustainability maximization-A new fuzzy program approach to energy systems analysis
- Pareto optimization of an industrial ecosystem: sustainability maximization
- Pareto Optimization of an Industrial Ecosystem: Sustainability Maximization
- Environmental sustainability versus profit maximization: Overcoming systemic constraints on implementing normatively preferable alternatives
Dear D. Bravo, I appreciate you sharing this, but given the fact that sustainability can not be maximized, only optimized, tells me that the authors of these documents take the word "sustainability" as sustainable development, which can be maximized, but this take is wrong....as they are not the same....
A comment with all my respect:
All those topics in each document above seem to be in the form of eco-economic sustainability as they refer to ecosystems and economics, an specific sustainable development model and market that must be handle through perfect green market thinking at the core as they seem to be, win environment-win economy models...
If sustainability maximization here means sustainable development maximization a la eco-economic type of market, then they make sense....but using concepts with different meanings as they mean the same to address the same issue is a scientific inconsistency.... since sustainability works different than sustainable development that means that optimization works different than maximization....
That is something the authors need to think about as we should be able to defend any methodology we choose to use....
I think you may find the following articles intereting as they have some good food for thoughts related to the comments made above.. You can take a look at them when you have time:
The road towards sustainability markets: Linking cost externalization to market structure and price structure using qualitative comparative means
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338169136_The_road_towards_sustainability_markets_Linking_cost_externalization_to_market_structure_and_price_structure_using_qualitative_comparative_means
From Traditional Markets to Sustainability Markets: A Look at Markets Under Perfect Sustainability Market Competition
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331344497_From_Traditional_Markets_to_Sustainability_Markets_A_Look_at_Markets_Under_Perfect_Sustainability_Market_Competition
Beyond Green Market Thinking: What would be the Structure of the Perfect Sustainability Market?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303014272_Beyond_Green_Market_Thinking_What_would_be_the_Structure_of_the_Perfect_Sustainability_Market
From Traditional Markets to Green Markets: A Look at Markets Under Perfect Green Market Competition
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330617155_From_Traditional_Markets_to_Green_Markets_A_Look_at_Markets_Under_Perfect_Green_Market_Competition
Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Green market?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302025169_Beyond_Traditional_Market_Thinking_What_is_the_Structure_of_the_Perfect_Green_market
In fisheries science, maximum sustainable yield describes a rate of harvest which is less than the maximum yield. Chapter Maximum Sustainable Yield
Dear Albert, thank you for writing.....
If left on its own maximization can lead to very bad consequences like fish extinction or undesirable products or degraded environments or degraded societies..,,, In any market, producing at zero cost leads to full unsustainability as maximization has no limits, and lead to market collapse at the end... consistent with perfect market competition thinking.... So limiting the maximization process to what can be sustained is at the heart of sustainable thinking, including in fisheries....Limited maximization is still maximization
So the notion of "maximum sustainable yield" makes the fishery market be a sustainable economic development market, a form of sustainable development market....where only economic cost of production are accounted for....
If fisheries were a sustainability market or a green market, their optimal yield would be less than the maximum sustainable yield as not only economic cost of production would be accounted for....
Respectfully yours;
Dear A.K, with all my respect, please read carefully,...
Albert is talking about "maximum sustainable yield" in a sustainable development type of market/industry..,the fishery market,,,.where limited maximization rules..,so he is not talking about sustainability or sustainability markets....
Just seeing you writing "sustainability maximization " is wrong as it indicates you are having difficulty understanding that sustainability is not sustainable development; and therefore, sustainability is not consistent with maximization, but sustainable development is.
Have a nice day
So, like all other problems, this question is dependent on the definitions being used.
I would suggest that Sustainability is the capacity of the people of a community to meet all of their needs using their own skills and the resource/ecological functions of the land that they are stewards of, beyond any rational planning horizon.
I would also suggest that Sustainability Engineering is a process of maximizing social benefit while minimizing negative ecological impacts. 'Social benefit' may be better described as 'quality of life', but as there are many, many different understandings of what that means, it can be hard to use. Social benefit may be measured in a variety of ways, but I suspect (I have no data to support this, so it is purely conjecture) that decreasing chronic stress within the community would be a common symptom of increasing social benefit, regardless of how measured. I suspect chronic stress in a community can not be reduced to 0.
On the same bent, Sustainable Development would be an increase in quality of life of the population of a community between two points in time, using the skills of the population and the resources/ecological functions from the landmass they are stewards of, in a manner that can be maintained in perpetuity.
Due to the limits of both the skills of the population and resources/ecological functions of the landmass being stewarded, there must be an upper limit to the potential increase in quality of life in the community. So I agree; Sustainable Development, as defined above, will follow a maximization rule. Sustainability, as a 'capacity', doesn't have to. In absolute terms, the community either is, or is not, sustainable.
I have attached a graphic below, with a description of what it represents. There is a local maximum in the graph, but to 'be sustainable' only requires a positive value for the community, not a maximal value.
Dear Douglas, can you maximize your concept of sustainability?
Yes or no, and why
I think, sort of, but maybe not directly. Certainly not in the classical sense.
When I think of max-min problems, one is looking at setting the derivative of benefit / burden to equal 0. But we really have d(benefit/effort) and d(burden/effort), and that becomes harder to solve for. The math becomes unsolvable if both the d(benefit/effort) and the d(burden/effort) approach 0. At that point, the effort stops while the ratio between benefit and burden is still non-zero. This produces asymptotic solutions to systems that don't appear asymptotic at first glance.
In any given community, one could increase the number of people that are living sustainably until everyone is. After that, the community can't really be "more sustainable". One could increase the effectiveness of the people at meeting their needs, up to 100%, so that everyone can reach the Potential Quality of Life, which is governed by culture, climate, resource availability, etc. Both of these limits are finite, with a discontinuity in the derivative function. The curve is truncated at 100%.
One could decrease disparity, which increases quality of life within the community as a whole, but I doubt that can be 'maximized'. At best, that will achieve a dynamic equilibrium, with oscillations within the society that occur over time.
At the same time, we could invest in better, greener infrastructure (of all kinds - technological, social, ecological, etc) so that the time-resource curve is shifted down. Again, this has limits based on the culture, technology, scale of community, etc. We could increase resilience and robustness, often at the expense of classic 'efficiency', but again, within limits. And those limits will be approached asymptotically.
Sustainable Development, as described above, can be maximized - the improvements in quality of life can reach some theoretical maximum rate with respect to time, effort, etc. - but I don't think Sustainability can be. I think it is not a maximal state, but rather a 'sufficient' state. It is a capacity, and while it can be changed, and increased or decreased, I don't think it can be considered to be 'maximizable' (if that is a word).
So Douglas your answer is NO, as there are no MAYBEs, keep in mind, if you can not maximize sustainability, you can not minimize sustainability....you can only optimize it.....
I know is hard for you to see this or to accept this Douglas....as it affects your model/thinking...
But facts are facts....
If you look carefully at your definition of sustainability, the part:
"a process of maximizing social benefit while minimizing negative ecological impacts. "
That tells me you are using sustainability as equivalent to a general sustainable development model....
As you may know true sustainability or general sustainability requires component specific and subcomponent specific sustainability too, so the conCept is the same all the way through, the scale changes....and because of that you can link the pieces to the whole and the whole to the individual pieces...and optimality is the LINK...
You are trying to use two different and separate concepts, sustainability and sustainable development, to solve the same problem...can you see the inconsistency in terms of the theory-practice consistency principle?....
Have a nice day Douglas!
Nope, you are mixing up the definitions. Sustainability engineering is the process you are describing, not sustainability. Sustainability engineering would be a process that could produce sustainable development, but they are not the same.
- Badges
- Science topic