#appliedcomplexityscience; ecosystem; systemscience

[c-institute]

Growing to death: A punctuated extinction (part 2 of 3)

The extravagant lifestyles that consumers are “required” to pursue, are allied to constant growth models. A model that demand compulsive consumption to be supremely pervasive, despite it being scientifically impossible (since it breaches both first and second laws of thermodynamics). It is must therefore be anti-leadership that continue to direct us to chase impossible lifestyles?

We are bombarded across media platforms, to pursue the unattainable – a misdirection that keep us occupied, whilst surreptitiously ensuring we remain unthinking gluttonous consuming machines. This elaborate ruse covers factory-styled value chains that are end-to-end, from: manufacturers, retailers, advertisers, financiers, advisors, and consumers - all being equally blind and daft to believe in continuous growth? The global focus upon constant growth (e.g. GDP of nations), are relentlessly pursued by destroying Global Public Goods (GPG’s). A global public good (GPG) is a good that can be used, but not be destroyed for future generations – more exactly, a GPG has 2 key properties: (1) non-rival and (2) non-excludable12. Non-rival imply consuming the good by one person, does not diminish obtainability of the good for consumption by another. Non-excludable imply none can be excluded from using the good. If both requirements are completely satisfied, a public good is said to be pure13. Typical examples of GPG’s include the earth’s air, water, oceans, forests, animals, space, GPS, etc. Importantly, GPG’s are known to be a poorly managed global problem14.

 All of these “free” vitally, inter-locked life-sustaining resources continue to be abused by inward and selfish leadership, unwilling to grasp the true cost of “big-is-better” developmental premise. To put it bluntly, even if each human on earth, theoretically had sufficient financial capital to afford a “1%-lifestyle”, the direct impact upon GPG’s would result in ecological collapse. In other words, our physical and finite planet, does not have the resource capacity to sustain it. Sadly, very few leaders are willing to admit this since all of humanity, from City to Village, are still sold a lifestyle that can only end in devouring the planet4. The opulent, hi-tech lifestyles we are “required” to pursue under continuous consumption models, have inherent threats, like: defying earths limits; increase inequality; increase poverty and oppression; and most vitally - destroying the planet’s ability to sustain complex life4. So, our mechanistic leadership across public and private sphere’s endorse corrosive development models that murder living systems (ecosystem). As an example, if everyone in the world today could enjoy a lavish lifestyle, then we would need 5 planets (5 earths)14, to support it. Planetary viability (earth’s survival) requires us to change the thinking from the dominant mechanical stupidity, to systemic enlightenment1, for this is the only way to fundamentally change our relationship with one another and the ecosystem.

 References:

1.     Udemans, F., 2008, The golden thread: escaping socio-economic subjugation, an experiment in applied complexity science, Authorhouse UK;

2.     Smith, J.W., 1989, The World’s Wasted Wealth: the political economy of waste, New World’s Press, 1989, pp.44,45;

3.     Turner, G., and Alexander, C., 2014, The Guardian: Limits to growth was right. New research shows we’re nearing collapse;

4.     Tokar, B., 2008, On Bookchin’s Social Ecology and its Contributions to Social Movements; Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 19, Number 1;

5.     Randers, J., 2012, The Real Message of The Limits to Growth, A Plea for Forward-Looking Global Policy, GAIA, 21/2, 2012: 102;

6.     Tawney, R.H., 1920, The Acquisitive Society, Quotes taken from the 1920 edition (http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/33741), published by Harcourt, Brace and Company; and, Tawney, R.H., 1960, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Tawney;

7.     Brown, H., 1954, The challenge of man’s future, Engineering and Science Vil.17 (6), pp.22-32, Caltech office of Relations; http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechES:17.6.brown; Available: Folinsbee, R. E., and Leech, A.P., 1974, Energy – Challenge of man’s future (Part I), Journal of the Geological Association of Canada, Vol. 1 (1);

8.     Quinn, S., 2018, Global Species Extinction: Humans Are Now the Asteroid Hitting the Earth, Indigenous populations are taking the lead in protecting the environment, Global Research, July 31, 2018;

9.     Dawson, J., Jackson, R., Norberg-Hodge. H., 2010, Economic Key: Gaian Economics – living well within planetary limits, Permanent Publications, First edition, © 2010, Gaia Education, ISBN 978185623056 8;

10.  Grossi , G., Goglio, P., Vitali, A., Williams, A.G., 2018, Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies, Animal Frontiers: Volume 9, Issue 1, January 2019, Pages 69–76, https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy034;


11.  Mottet, A., and Steinfeld, H., 2018, Cars or livestock: which contribute more to climate change? FAO Tuesday, 18 September 2018 08:36 GMT;

12.  Cornes, R. and Sandler T., 1996, The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;

13.  Kocks, A., 2005, The Financing of UN Peace Operations – An Analysis from a Global Public Good Perspective, INEF Report, Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden der UniversitätDuisburg-Essen / Campus Duisburg, Heft 77;

14.  Chen, L ; Evans, T. & Cash, R., 1999, Health as a Global Public Good, In: Global Public Goods: International Co-operation in the 21st Century, Kaul, I; Grunberg, I & Stern, M (Ed.), New York: Oxford University Press; Cornes, R. and Sandler T., 1996, The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Sandler, T., 1997, Global Challenges: An Approach to Environmental, Political and Economic Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: chapter 5;

15.  Global footprint network, 2019, (https://www.footprintnetwork.org);

[c-institute]

Growing to death: A punctuated extinction (part 1 of 3)

Most of our discussion papers have a purposeful focus upon our embedded thinking patterns that cause vast ruin to our societies and our ecosystem1. Today weakness in thought leadership are reflected in the aversion of both impotent governments and voracious corporations to adopt real empathetic change. The advanced warnings from wide research areas, like for example, “limits to growth” - published more than 30 years ago, expose our unspoken approval to overshoot the carrying capacity of earth. A destructive pattern of human development and exploitation, called the Anthropocene. It represents our greatest embarrassment yet – a human induced extinction event?

To put this into perspective, earth’s geological records contain evidence of 5 major extinction events1, each time killing off most life forms when they occur. An extinction event that struck in the Cretaceous period, was popularised for wiping out the dinosaurs. Indeed, earth’s fossil records contain punctuated equilibria (evidence of massive and rapid evolutionary change), as part of its geological storyline1. The Anthropocene is now considered to equal these events in terms of the scale of destruction – meaning humans have over-exploited earths capacities to a point where it equals an extinction event.

Unsurprisingly, much research warns about selfish, mercenary development themes causing ruin and collapse of ecosystems1, 3. A central message being we immediately cease and desist with lies and deceptions of constant growth models and theories, since it purposefully ignores the natural limitations of our ecosystem2. Today still, prevailing development models remain mechanistic, inward and selfish replicas of high consumption. Concerns have been raised as far back as WW1, called the rise of the synthetic world4, offering detailed analysis of pollution, urban migration, and chemical agriculture4. It argued for holism and systemic integrative thought and action4. Most essentially, it described the drive to dominate the natural world as a destructive byproduct of social grading and elitism4. Insight from this research promote practices of systemic principles of non-hierarchical, organic societies, having features like: interdependence; usufruct; unity-in-diversity; complementarity; irreducible minimum (principle where communities are responsible for meeting their members most basic needs)9. This directly opposes modern industrialisation themes that only promote large, grand, scaled, factory type solutions, be it in sectors of education, infrastructure, health, farming, etc. Critically, our business and economic thinking remain the driver of this flawed mentality of “big is better” – which automatically embed solutions that remove localised jobs, causing ecological ruin via concentration and value chain domination1.

 A case in point is today’s factory-type cattle farming that generate carbon emissions, comparable to the transport sector10. Mega-production livestock has become a major contributor to global warming (14.5% of total emissions)10. Although emission comparisons between livestock and transport may suffer from various biases (lobby groups, corporate research, etc.); whilst comparison methods are often flawed (e.g. comparing direct emissions from one sector to both direct and indirect emissions of another)11 - the point however is that both sectors (transport and livestock) are serious contributors to global warming. This is because of “big-is-better” type central economic planning, where mechanistic leadership advance faulty development models having weakly constructed solutions like technology and green capitalism? Ideas that remain rooted in continuous growth and consumption, requiring us to consume excessively, without thought. The crucial affair is excessive consumption, so fanatically promoted by both corporations and governments. We see it in stock markets whereby listed companies opt to use false data and fake news to prop up their share prices; we see it in product design where we are compelled to continuously consume by replacing and upgrading gadgets, cars, clothes, etc.; we see it in the grand, extravagant lifestyles promoted to us all?

  References:

1.     Udemans, F., 2008, The golden thread: escaping socio-economic subjugation, an experiment in applied complexity science, Authorhouse UK;

2.     Smith, J.W., 1989, The World’s Wasted Wealth: the political economy of waste, New World’s Press, 1989, pp.44,45;

3.     Turner, G., and Alexander, C., 2014, The Guardian: Limits to growth was right. New research shows we’re nearing collapse;

4.     Tokar, B., 2008, On Bookchin’s Social Ecology and its Contributions to Social Movements; Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 19, Number 1;

5.     Randers, J., 2012, The Real Message of The Limits to Growth, A Plea for Forward-Looking Global Policy, GAIA, 21/2, 2012: 102;

6.     Tawney, R.H., 1920, The Acquisitive Society, Quotes taken from the 1920 edition (http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/33741), published by Harcourt, Brace and Company; and, Tawney, R.H., 1960, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Tawney;

7.     Brown, H., 1954, The challenge of man’s future, Engineering and Science Vil.17 (6), pp.22-32, Caltech office of Relations; http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechES:17.6.brown; Available: Folinsbee, R. E., and Leech, A.P., 1974, Energy – Challenge of man’s future (Part I), Journal of the Geological Association of Canada, Vol. 1 (1);

8.     Quinn, S., 2018, Global Species Extinction: Humans Are Now the Asteroid Hitting the Earth, Indigenous populations are taking the lead in protecting the environment, Global Research, July 31, 2018;

9.     Dawson, J., Jackson, R., Norberg-Hodge. H., 2010, Economic Key: Gaian Economics – living well within planetary limits, Permanent Publications, First edition, © 2010, Gaia Education, ISBN 978185623056 8;

10.  Grossi , G., Goglio, P., Vitali, A., Williams, A.G., 2018, Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies, Animal Frontiers: Volume 9, Issue 1, January 2019, Pages 69–76, https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy034;


11.  Mottet, A., and Steinfeld, H., 2018, Cars or livestock: which contribute more to climate change? FAO Tuesday, 18 September 2018 08:36 GMT;

12.  Cornes, R. and Sandler T., 1996, The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;

13.  Kocks, A., 2005, The Financing of UN Peace Operations – An Analysis from a Global Public Good Perspective, INEF Report, Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden der UniversitätDuisburg-Essen / Campus Duisburg, Heft 77;

14.  Chen, L ; Evans, T. & Cash, R., 1999, Health as a Global Public Good, In: Global Public Goods: International Co-operation in the 21st Century, Kaul, I; Grunberg, I & Stern, M (Ed.), New York: Oxford University Press; Cornes, R. and Sandler T., 1996, The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Sandler, T., 1997, Global Challenges: An Approach to Environmental, Political and Economic Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: chapter 5;

15.  Global footprint network, 2019, (https://www.footprintnetwork.org);

[c-institute]

Ecological entanglement (part 3 of 3)

Therapeutic effects of contact with nature are supported by research showing 90% of people suffering from depression, experience increased self-esteem after a walk in a park12. It also reveals 44% of people visiting shopping centre’s feel a decrease in self-esteem, whilst 22% feel more depressed12. Also important is that localised economic thrusts represent a powerful solution multiplier, spending more time as communities; more time with each other; more time in nature12.

This suggests marked improvements over the current and pervasive selfish economic development models. As such, the increasing call the embrace holistic or systemic models of thinking and doing1, are being echoed by many and creatively explained by Korten et al, in terms of Empire (referring to mechanistic models) versus Earth community (referring to systemic models)13. This research reveal that Empire seek control by domination at all system levels, be it nation or family. It brings fortune to a minority, at the expense of the majority who remain bound in poverty and servitude1, 13. The team further juxtaposes our classic inward-selfish development model against the more inclusive-sharing model engendered by the Earth community: localising control; organising via empathetic partnerships; relying upon sharing and cooperation between all members. The underlying scientific data for Earth community (systemic models), stem from a range of research areas: quantum physics; cosmology; mysticism; biology; psychology; anthropology; sociology; archaeology, etc.1,13. Important to remember is that natural systemic orientation existed well before Empire, which we must now re-discovered and embrace, since the current global recession and implosion of morally bankrupt institution have reached its limits in exploiting people and the environment1, 13. These are results that stem from the loss of respect for the generative powers of life, and our systemic connection to the living earth1, 13. We cannot expect the mechanical minded to lead the way, we need systemic leadership to direct and manage amelioration efforts1, 13. These are the narratives that must become mainstream; these are the stories that must be told and shared. Current stories remain dominated by Empire13, perpetuating models that are flawed and dated1. Agents and agencies of Empire continue to cultivate, reward, and amplify the storytellers who support their mechanistic model, whilst limiting systemic one’s13. The stories repeated most, are the ones most believed13, but with slow progress by the systemic minded, whose stories are reaching wider audiences, breaking down the myths of Empire, by driving empathetic and sharing orientations.

 References:

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;

[c-institute]

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.

 References:

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;

[c-institute]

Ecological entanglement (part 1 of 3)

Most people will agree that current levels of mistrust, are due to the many gross violations and corrupt practices across private and public sectors2. Most will also agree that we require robust, resilient, and empathetic, leadership and management, across institutions 1, 5. Building this kind of social systems require high degrees of robustness (e.g. Panarchy – globally resilient institutional protocols and governance3).

Social systems (organisations; Towns; Cities; Countries) can be better understood as complex adaptive systems – i.e. systems containing many sub-systems like production systems, energy systems, transport systems, suburbs, people, ecosystems, etc. These sub-systems function together to give each organisation; Town; City; Country, its unique features, which include resilience. Resilience describes the period it takes for a system to return to equilibrium, after being disturbed6, and has been applied across areas like policy, poverty alleviation, political frameworks, and business strategies4. Attempts to integrate socio-ecological system needs have yielded four principles to build adaptive capacities5:

·      Accept change (entropy) & uncertainty (Quantum mech.) as inherent to life;

·      Embrace diversity (Variety) for regenerative functions;

·      Combine different types of knowledge for enhanced learning;

·      Promote social-ecological integration;

Our actual systemic inter-connectedness (intimate linkages), added to our pervasive technologically driven societies, generate complex dynamics across domains4, which often produce various counter-intuitive outcomes. These effects are managed using linear thought and practice, which in turn co-creates the structural wickedness of our socio-economic systems. This mechanistic management produce rigid and unseeing institutions, unable to halt skewed developmental outcomes1 whilst increasing ecological vulnerabilities6. As a means of curbing environmental damage, researchers propose systemic principles like7: Maintain diversity and redundancy; Understand interfaces of social-ecological systems; Manage slow variables and feedback loops; Encourage learning and experimentation; Empathetic participation; Promote polycentric governance systems. These ideals ensure economic systems actually consider and integrate into ecological systems, providing options for systemic development; It underlines the importance of multi-stakeholder governance; multiple metrics; and multiple knowledge systems. Importantly, it recognises Requisite Variety as vital to systemic integration. This is important when we reflect upon global problems or challenges that do not obey the linearity we were educated in; nor the predictability we were taught to purse and desire. In other words, problems or challenges do not obey the neat boundaries we created (e.g. HR; Finance, Tech, etc.), but rather crosses them, and often include all or most specialist areas. Similarly, protecting our natural resources transcend and cross different disciplines, boundaries, and scales1, 5 (e.g. engineering; finance; political; business; etc.). The systemic sciences represent our only robust platform to deal with such entanglement1, providing better toolsets to cope with divergent outcomes from the wickedness that stem from socio-ecological entanglement5,1.

 References:

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;

[c-institute]

Cartographic clout (part 2 of 3)

The basis of critique or critical theory, is an effort to emancipate society from various forms of repression1, 4 (e.g. paradigms like capitalism versus communism; or by techno-centricity; or consumerism, etc.). Critical theory can be said to battle ruinous and flawed strategies, by emancipating society from repressive power structures1. Similarly, Kant and Foucault also see critique as being an attitude or philosophical behaviour that recognise how all knowledge, including scientific rationality are founded and enabled by power relations. Cartographic critique thus put the same emphasis upon mapping or cartography1, requiring us to be reflective in our practice of using maps. Some propose that map design be seen as a reflective conversation between the designer (map maker) and situation (context)3. This view sees the map as a device that lends insight to a reflective dialogue protocol (map-maker and map-user bias)3. There are a variety of transdisciplinary mapping models that contain systemic influences, like: Process blueprints, Journey maps, Synthesis maps, and gigamaps often used when dealing with complex problems4. Systemic type maps surpass traditional linear, static-type models or infographics as they are designed to reveal the wickedness and entanglement of complex systems. It provides options to stakeholders, allowing them to consider the future evolution of systems. In other words, systemic maps are heuristic and developmental in nature4, as they reveal the emergent dynamics of intervening in complex systems1. As an example, synthesis mapping follows a clear method to develop processes and relations, that
are vital to stakeholders, enabling them to make educated systemic choices. It also helps to define challenges and thus solution architecture options, be it for natural, social, or technological systems. Synthesis maps integrate research evidence, systems expertise, and design into visual stories that support communication and decision making4.

 Systemic approaches connect the complexity across perspectives and knowledge domains, facilitating integration via shared understanding. It allows for the exploration of alternative solutions, which are useful in aiding multidisciplinary requirements associated with complexity science and socio-technical systems thinking1, 4. Project interveners or designers are often required to frame and communicate on behalf of collectives, a range of issues that stem from complex challenges. Today, such collaboration across specialist areas and domain knowledge are more common than ever before, making such skills an increasingly important element in solving complex challenges. Besides, developing products, services, and technologies for complex and increasingly instrumented society, require us to understand how technological advancements impact systemic integration. Importantly, Governments require such expertise to resolve their complex challenges3, and to introduce systemic efficiencies across service delivery in the public sector1 (e.g. education, health, urbanisation, and a host of socio-technical areas).

 References

1.     Udemans, F., 2008, The golden thread: escaping socio-economic subjugation: an experiment in applied complexity science, Authorhouse UK;

2.     Barness, J., & Papaelias, A., 2015, Critical making: Design and the digital humanities, Visible Language 49.3, the journal of visual communication research, special issue, December 2015;

3.     Schon, D., A., 1984, The reflective practitioner, New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.;

4.     Jones, P., and Jeremy Bowes, J., 2017, Rendering Systems Visible for Design: Synthesis Maps as Constructivist Design Narratives, Journal of design economics and innovation, Tongji University and Tongji University Press,
 Elsevier B.V., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/;

5.     Kanarinka, 2006, Art-machines, Body-ovens, and map-recipes: Entries for a psychogeographic dictionary, Cartographic perspectives, Number 53, Winter, 2006;

6.     Wikipedia, 2018, Mercator projection, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercator_projection&oldid=862917060;

7.     Firth, R., 2015, Critical Cartography, https://theoccupiedtimes.org/?p=13771, The Occupied Times of London (27),  Retrieved 16 February 2018;


8.     Sevaldson, B., 2011, Giga-mapping: Visualisation for Complexity and systems thinking in design, Conference Paper, June 2011, ResearchGate;

[c-institute]

Mechanical megalomania (part 1 of 3)

We last argued that “mechanical megalomania” i.e. flawed, linear mental models, represent one of the most potent systemic problems that underlie our global socio-economic system. Global challenges that range from: flaws of constant growth; lock-in business models; Monopolies; Cartels; Abuse of governance – are all part of deeply flawed mental models and thus dated practices that undermine our ecosystems, and efforts to build socio-economic equality1, 2.

These ill-suited practices are found across all segments and markets, ranging from: Health; Finance; Education; Technology; Agriculture; Media; NGO’s; etc. It highlights how our historical developmental attitude and industrial trajectory have failed us, resulting in the deepest ever institutional mistrust2. The many systemic movements today are therefore a great welcome as they all point out the errors the way we think about ourselves and our ecosystem.

These varied holistic practitioners, researchers and movements contribute toward creating a more sustainable and equitable world future. Importantly, they search for, and promote systemic viewpoints and solutions. They promote integrative models of thinking and doing, like1: Biological perspectives (e.g. Gaia; Red Queen effect); Quantum mechanical perspectives (e.g. duality of super-position); Evolutionary fitness perspective (e.g. punctuated equilibrium); Chemical engineering perspective (e.g. Belusov reactions); Psychological perspective (e.g. Pruning); Philosophical perspective (e.g. knowledge as relief from subjugation); Ecological perspectives (e.g. Anthropocene). Notably all these niche and diverse areas share vital references of systemic symmetry, like for example: having many components; having deep connectedness; having feedback and recursion. All essential elements for viability (sustainable survival)1, yet our global institutional activities and leadership remain entrenched in a linear, mechanistic mentality1. This in turn perpetuate our skewed developmental outcomes in terms of Rich-Poor and North-South polarities. It is a known fact that we cannot use mechanical thought and action, to solve systemic problems (e.g. wicked, messy, fluid type problems). So then, if we are to design more robust, resilient, and empathetic global leadership, management, and institutions then using these toolsets are key as they are designed to mimic natural protocols in dealing with complexity and inter-connectedness, like ecosystems and human development. These qualities are central for any renewal effort regarding our global socio-economic architecture. The many calls for robustness and resilience in global institutions1, 8 imply we develop capacities for increased Requisite Variety1 (Structural Variety; Procedural Variety; and Substantive Variety). The general idea is to design and build robustness and resilience into us as individuals, meaning the way we think and act, as well as our institutions so as to improve our capacities to deal with perturbations and fluctuations (dynamics of systemic change)1. Robustness or resilient design features present us with capacities of adaptation and evolutionary fitness, ensuring efficiency in dealing with the many uncertain fluctuations of everyday events. Simulating key qualities of complex adaptive systems, are crucial for the preservation of our planet and its biodiversity1, 11, especially considering the growing scale of people moving to cities from rural areas. These migration scales demand we relook at our systemic interconnectedness and how it affects us in terms of both positive feedback loops (e.g. economic growth), and negative feedback loops (e.g. ecosystem damage; over-stretching infrastructure).

References:

1.      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;

4.      Etymology of Panarchy on P2pFoundation.Net (http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Panarchy_Etymology) quoting 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;

5.      Hartzog, P.B, 2008, "Panarchy: Governance in the Network Age" (http://panarchy.com/Members/PaulBHartzog/Papers/Panarchy%20%20Governance%20in%20the%20Network%20Age.pdf)Archived(https://web.archive.org/web/20070928104543/http://panarchy.com/Members/PaulBHartzog/Papers/Panarchy%20%20Governance%20in%20 the%20Network%20Age.pdf) 2007-09-28 at the Wayback Machine, Master's Essay, University of Utah at Panarchy.com. 


6.      Island Press Bookstore description of Gunderson and Holling's Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature, (http://www.islandpress.com/books/detail.html?SKU=1-55963-857-5&cart=%5B cart%5D); and Gunderson and Holling, Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature (http://ww w.resalliance.org/593.php), Chapter 1, p.5, reproduced at Resalliance.org;

7.      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);

8.      Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2003, Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK;

9.      Holing, C.S., 2001, Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems, Ecosystems, Spinger-Verlag;

10.    Kates, R.W., and Clark, W.C., 2010, Environmental Surprise: Expecting the Unexpected? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Volume 38, 1996 - Issue 2, Pages 6-34 | Published online: 08 Jul 2010
Pages 6-34 | Published online: 08 Jul 2010, Download citation # https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1996.9933458;

11.    Annan, K.A, We, the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century (United Nations, New York, 2000), www.un.org/millennium/sg/report/full.htm; National Research Council, Board on Sustainable Development, Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward Sustainability (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999), www.nap.edu/catalog/9690.html; R. Watson, J. A. Dixon, S. P. Hamburg, A. C. Janetos, R. H. Moss, Protecting Our Planet, Securing Our Future (United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, 1998), www-esd.worldbank.org/planet/;

12.    Tokar, B., 2008, On Bookchin’s Social Ecology and its Contributions to Social Movements; Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 19, Number 1;

13.    Tawney, R.H., 1920, The Acquisitive Society, Quotes taken from the 1920 edition (http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/33741), published by Harcourt, Brace and Company; and, Tawney, R.H., 1960, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Tawney;

14.    Brown, H. (1954). The challenge of man’s future, Engineering and Science Vil.17 (6), pp.22-32, Caltech office of Relations; http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechES:17.6.brown; Available: Folinsbee, R. E., and Leech, A.P., 1974, Energy – Challenge of man’s future (Part I). Journal of the Geological Association of Canada, Vol. 1 (1);