Ecological entanglement (part 2 of 3)
Part of the slow uptake in systems sciences, have various underlying causes, chief of which is our “default-mechanistic thinking protocol”. In other words, being trained and schooled in mechanical linearity, we have produced neural pathways or search patterns that seeks out quick fixes and simplistic answers. A model and mindset that only works for simple problem types, not complex or wicked type problems that confront us today. This deeply ingrained, flawed response further support a major misconception that our problem solving skills have improved. This is clearly not the case if we look at global poverty, joblessness, inequality and the destruction of our oceans, soil, and air1. We have yet to admit that our developmental challenges are indeed wicked in nature. The fluidity of global socio-ecological problems reveals a gap between our environmental problems and our abilities to solve them5. Add, to this, our known limitations regarding wicked, messy, fluid type problems1, then the delusion is even clearer (e.g. mechanical leadership suggesting we grow ourselves out of poverty and inequality1, 10). The concept of constant or continuous growth defy our basic scientific laws (2nd law of thermodynamics), and as such, is a fairy-tale, to expect the global economy to “grow” itself out of poverty, inequality, and environmental ruin9, 1. Just consider that earth have finite renewable and non-renewable resources – a fact that remain absent from economic models? – reveals the scale of our dilemma. Economic activity is directly dependent upon earth’s ecosystems, underscoring the ignorance of searching for perpetual growth? Renewable resources have limited regenerative capacities (renewal abilities), a key underlying limitation making continuous growth impossible10, 11. Earth’s natural dynamics have intrinsic limits, like the maximum number of trees that can possibly grow, thus dictating maximum photosynthesis volumes. We are already using 25% of global photosynthesis8, which suggest a clear path toward self-induced extinction – literally growing ourselves to death. We must re-learn the vitality of Biophyllia and living within our natural boundaries10. Biophilia relates to our innate biological drive or desire to connect with nature14 since it is allied to human wellbeing and survival. Biophilia hypothesis explain the human need and desire to associate with biological or life processes14.
Since we are systemically linked to natural boundaries, much like predator-prey relations – i.e. the cyclic linkages between interdependent systems where over-feeding or exploitation by one, can lead to the extinction of both species. We must genuinely value systemic exploitation models and build the assurance that harvest rates will never equal regeneration rates; and also that our waste does not exceed the natural assimilation thresholds11. Such systemic integration holds multiple rewards like equality, and being sensitive to environmental limits12. Economics of Happiness12, is another systemic effort to undo the negative effects of globalisation, where conceptions of our apparent inferiorities serve selfish, gluttonous consumption motives. Constant messages to buy and consume now cover our entire life-spectrum, from cradle to grave - how we understand (education), to how we look (appearance), keenly turning us into mindless consumers1. This synthetic commercial culture is prolifically exported and deeply entrenched everywhere, the costs of which are known to damage the environment, whilst causing stress and illness in humans. To reverse these effects, researchers are investing in systemic-based solutions, like economic localisation, which bring economic activity closer to home, by supporting local communities versus distant and faceless corporations12. These efforts aim to change the structural flaws of industrialisation. It advances real, close contact between producers and consumers, which creates social cohesion and a sense of community, linking directly to happiness. Important, is the connection to nature, as a key factor influencing happiness. Research suggest “nature deficit disorder” (NDD), to describe humans deprived from contact with the living or biological world due to our constant technological exposure - computers, TV’s, smartphones, etc.
Udemans, F., 2008, The golden thread: escaping socio-economic subjugation, an experiment in applied complexity science, Authorhouse UK;
2. Vanbergen, G., 2017, The crises of trust in Democracy & Globalisation, The European Financial Review, July 26, 2017, http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=1726; Smith, J.W., 1989, The World’s Wasted Wealth: the political economy of waste, New World’s Press, 1989, pp.44,45;
3. de Puydt, P.E., 1860, Panarchy (http://www.panarchy.org/depuydt/1860.eng.html), first published in French in the Revue Trimestrielle, Bruxelles, July 1860; Etymology of Panarchy, http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Panarchy_Etymology, from James P. Sewell and Mark B. Salter, "Panarchy and Other Norms for Global Governance: Boutros-Ghali, Rosenau, and Beyond", Global Governance, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 373-382, 1995;
4. Folke, C., 2016, Framing Concepts in Environmental Science Online Publication Date: Sep 2016, 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.8, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science; (Folke, C., 2018, The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University);
5. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2003, Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK;
6. Holing, C.S., 2001, Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems, Ecosystems, Spinger-Verlag;
7. Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Schoon, M.L., 2015. Principles for building resilience: sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316014240
8. Vitousek, M.P., Ehrlich, R.P., Ehrlich, H.A., Matson, A.P., 1986, Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis, BioScience, Vol. 36, No. 6, June, 1986, page 368-373, University of California Press, American Institute of Biological Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1310258;
9. Wahl, C.D., 2018, Building Capacity for the Re-design of our Economic Systems, Gaia Education, 16 March, 2018;
10. Daly. E.H., 2017, Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem, Gaian Economics: Living Well within Planetary Limits, Second volume, Gaia Education, Four Keys to Sustainable Communities series; https://medium.com/@gaiaeducation/sustainable-growth-an-impossibility-theorem-d78178dcac9c;
11. Brundtland et al, 1987, Brundtland Commission, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BrundtlandCommission&oldid=847324915;
12. Norberg-Hodge. H, 2007, The Economics of Happiness, Gaian Economics: Living Well within Planetary Limits, Volume 2, Gaia Education’s Four Keys to Sustainable Communities series; The Economics of Happiness By Helena Norberg-Hodge Printed in Resurgence magazine 2007; http://www.skalaecovillage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gaian_Economics.pdf#page=162;
13. Korten, D., 2006, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, Berrett-Koehler Publishers,2006; Gaian Economics, Volume 2, Gaia Education, Four Keys to Sustainable Communities series; Korten, D., 2006, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, Ready for a Change?, The Case for Earth Community, YES! A Journal of Positive Futures Summer 2006 17, 206/842-0216, www.yesmagazine.org;
14. Lumber R, Richardson M, Sheffield D, 2017, Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection, PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186;
