It may sound odd to you but my impression of the next paradigm shift in manufacturing is 3D printing. It is in infancy stage today. Manufacturing range is limited by its technology and materials it can use to print. However, once the technology evolve, the manufacturing process efficiency will be close to perfection. Note that in reality, it is not the technology that is inefficient but how people use the technology and how people manage the resources. In the end, it is a human being that is a factor in efficiency. For example, one person uses a car to drive 2 km to a store to buy milk. Then next day, the same person runs a treadmill for 20 km to loose weight. Where is the efficiency?

Hello Adam Szewczyk, thank you for contributing to the question of paradigm shift. 3D printing is indeed an interesting Technology. I was surprised by the 3D-consumer-printers being sold already by a Company. I was similarly impressed by the robots and androids which are presented at international industry fairs nowadays. I have the impression, it will not take long until we will get in contact with robots and androids in our daily life more often / more intensively (some of the science fiction movie story topics might become quite real).

You are welcome Ruediger,

Another paradigm shift that I forgot to mention is manufacturing process that I do not have a word or term to describe it. It is common in biological process. Their manufacturing process does not require a lot of heat. A kind of cold manufacturing process. I recommend that you follow up on reading these two books at your leisure or vacation time:

1) Biomimicry by Janine M. Benyus

2) Pulse by Robert Frenay

They will give you some ideas and inspirations for your research work and for your students.

Thank you ones again, Adam Szewczyk, for your ideas and Stimulation.

Most sustainable energy sources plagued by strong area limitation. For example, if you estimate the area needed for PV technology to meet electricity demands of a city with 1,000,000 population you would need about 42-210 km2 for the plant. However, solar energy is not available 365/7/24. The grid energy storage technologies could solve this problem but already high price of energy (actually this is most expensive energy) will become more expensive. I think the same goes for a wind energy. This leaves us to relay only on three energy sources: hydropower, geothermal power and biomass energy. Limitations for hydropower are obvious. Geothermal energy is relatively cheap only in places there magma is close to the surface. Biomass could have become a way out, but with a current earth population the area needed for energy crop plantations would be so big that this technology hardly could be considered eco-friendly. I am afraid we have already passed the point of no return and the next energy crisis is imminent. No matter how much we will improve energy efficiency. The limited energy sources and infinite energy demand growth cannot be balanced.

The subject is very important. The people talk about it the more they understand it. Thank you, Dr. Rentsch for your efforts to bring this up.

Dear Vadim Kuznetsov, thank you for your comment. I would like to express my appreciation for your contribution.

To address limitations of the present sustainability discussion and "new" paradigms for sustainability, I advance here what I posted already elsewhere where I recall the classic work of Donella Meadows (1941 – 2001), late research fellow at MIT, on how do we change the structure of systems 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 even in the case of sustainability and energy efficiency discussion where technology takes the lead. 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, related to manufacturing or production in general that is viewed by many governments and industries in various countries as the basis or key for a sustainable future by just providing numbers, standards, thresholds for pollutants that should not be trespassed. However this is a quite myopic viewpoint and I doubt that it can lead to sustainability ever. We have, in my opinion, to put in the right place the issues of our list of priorities if we want to foster a "sustainable" future.

Here is the link for Donella's work www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/419

I do consider this resource as a valuable one for this thread.

Sustainability Science in a Global Landscape!

"As the first of a series of activities that aim to provide valuable insights into the global research landscape surrounding the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, this report, conducted by Elsevier in collaboration with SciDev.Net, contributes to the understanding of sustainability science as a research field and the dialogue between science and society in sustainable development.

In this relatively young field, this study establishes a baseline, both in the definition and the understanding of sustainability science, from which we may follow its progression and trajectory. Six key themes that encompass the 17 United Nations Sustainability Development Goals are examined in the report: Dignity, People, Prosperity, Planet, Justice and Partnership..."

The following video brings an excellent discussion about energy sustainability!

How can we make energy sustainable?

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/videos-how-can-we-make-energy-sustainable

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzayTLXhEGzQazlyQmtDWFQ5UGM/view?usp=sharing_eid&invite=COvTmPIP&ts=57654b3d