The final publication is available at Springer via http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-014-0279-z

Title: Towards A Rational Sustainability Framework Authors: Willem P Nel 1* James D Ward2

Affiliations: 1

Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Stellenbosch,

South Africa. 2

School of Natural & Built Environments, University of South Australia

*Correspondence to willem764[at]gmail.com. Abstract: The escalating prominence of sustainability as a contemporary concern pays testimony to the fact that society’s action on sustainability has consistently lagged its concern over sustainability. Although this apparent disconnect between action and concern has been the topic of much debate, little progress has been made towards the resolution of causal factors across the various disciplines of scientific knowledge related to the human condition. Many scholars have, however, contributed towards the notion that the human development trajectory is lacking a rational basis and emphasized that reigning conflicts in societal objectives cannot be resolved without a unifying ethical reference.

Calls for corrective actions by 20th Century sustainability scholars have nominally gone unheeded, yet many of their concerns have been realized today. More recent theoretical developments in the social sciences established a basis for many of the self-defeating human traits that scholars warned against, and this serves as a basis for a reassessment of the foundations of sustainability as well as possible means to eliminate barriers to coherent action on sustainability. Key Words: Sustainability, Energy Security, Ethics

Main Text: 1.

Introduction

The Environmental Movement of the 1960s and 70s produced a number of “metaphorical models” (Ostrom 1990) on sustainability including The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972) and The Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin 1968). The concerns raised in these publications were not of immediate effect, but related to systemic time delays and inertia that may result in overshoot and collapse in the early 21st Century if action were not taken “within the next decade”. Although these studies were criticized by some (Ostrom 1990; Lomborg 1998; Kozinski 2002), others present a vivid illustration of correspondence between actual developments and the context of their findings (Turner 2012). Ostrom (1990) warns against the sweeping conclusions of metaphorical models, such as Tragedy of the Commons, and present a convincing case of how a more “qualified body of knowledge” leads to alternative and conflicting outcomes. However, the title of Hardin’s paper reflects rather poorly on the content of his paper since the Tragedy of the Commons is merely presented as an antithesis to Adam Smith’s invisible hand as part of a greater case for sustainability concerns related to overpopulation. As a consequence, many of his insights are disguised, as Ostrom asserted, in the sweeping conclusions of the metaphor presented in the Tragedy of the Commons. Despite the criticism drawn by such studies, escalating concern over the gap between action and concern over sustainability (Turner 2012; UNEP 2012) is also evident in renewed interest in publications such as Tragedy of the Commons, with the average annual growth in the number of downloads at ~25% over the last decade (Science 2014). Re-evaluation of

the subtext to Hardin’s paper reveals that he foresaw remarkable systemic biases without the benefit of more recent insights that were developed in the Social Sciences. This paper argues that the concept of sustainability has no meaning if several of the issues raised by Hardin (1968) remain unresolved and then present minimum criteria for achieving coherent action on sustainability. Hardin’s Insights Hardin explicitly warned against many of today’s symptomatic factors in the sustainability conundrum - the equivalence between sustainability and the “population problem” is evident in Hardin’s paper and these terms will be used interchangeably in this text. Although the powerful archetype embedded in the title of his paper received much attention, Hardin’s key message extended to the fact that it is not theoretically possible to optimize multiple objectives at the same time and that a common moral framework is required to assign weights in a multivariable context. He then called for an evolution of morality that would allow us to accept the necessity to forsake those objectives that render society unsustainable, and emphasized the importance of resilient corrective feedback loops to ensure that morality evolves within its “system-sensitive” contexts. To guard against sweeping conclusions from metaphorical models on the interface between sustainability and morality, we evaluate the systemic contexts that Hardin referred to. Although a ubiquitous concept, scholars refined Systems Thinking (ST) as a methodology for analyzing complexity in systems and extended its application to mathematical modelling and simulation as System Dynamics (SD) shortly after the publication of Tragedy of the Commons (Meadows et al. 1972). “General Systems Theory” (von

Bertalanffy 2009) provides a sound basis for establishing minimum criteria for scientific evaluation of the global socioeconomic system, including its goals and objectives. 2.

A Systems Perspective on Sustainability

The primary objective of the ST school of thought is not optimization, but rather to understand the cause-effect relationships and hence the behavior of systems. One of the major tenets in ST is that a system has purpose (von Bertalanffy 2009). The global socioeconomic system is evidently a conscious system (Bossel 2007), but a scientific formulation of its purpose has been elusive. Instead, the debate concerning the “Human Condition” (Arendt 1998) has been in the domain of philosophy and has resulted in the formulation of several ideological ethical references. Such ideologies evolved as the blueprints of socioeconomic interaction throughout modern history. The question is whether there exists a common purpose for the socioeconomic system that is consistent with the historical evolution of morality; or whether a sense of purpose is invoked by the evolution of morality itself. Either way, unresolved purpose would lead to incoherence in the adaptation of the system’s ethical reference because of conflicting objectives (Hardin 1968). It is evident today that sustainability involves opposing forces that are creating cognitive dissonance and calls for action are trapped in conflicting messages – the issue of this double bind is also addressed by Hardin (1968). Hardin explicitly asked “What shall we maximize?” He concludes that the greatest constraint to utilitarian objectives is the fact that all regenerative processes require energy and motivates the assumption that the acquisition of energy imposes a constraint. This opens up two questions of relevance, namely:

 Does society have an autonomous purpose?  Are there constraints to the acquisition of energy? These questions are interrelated in the sense that the answers must be compatible in a rational system i.e. society must adopt an ethical reference that matches conceivable constraints in the acquisition of energy to its purpose/objectives. A systems thinking approach distinguishes between events, patterns (statistical empiricism) and the structure (cause effect relationships) of systems. An understanding of the structure is desirable because it exposes proactive self-correcting feedbacks, in contrast to responses to events and patterns which are reactive. There is a considerable body of academic work in the various disciplines of sustainability. In the next section we explore whether the academic insights from sustainability research form a coherent historical narrative, as a logical pre-condition for invoking a rational response in society. 3.

Historical Narratives in Sustainability

Socioeconomic decisions are not made by scientists in laboratories, but by economic and political leaders – in most cases schooled in Humanities or Social Sciences1. Because we are concerned with an ethical reference that supports optimization of societal objectives, the basis of a “rationality hypothesis” in these disciplines is of primary importance.

1

China is one exception where the Central committee of the Politburo is composed of members with primary educations in the Physical sciences only

The rationality hypothesis has been a central tenet of economic theory since Adam Smith ratified the generalization that selfish individual motives will optimize the benefits to society – Hardin introduced the Tragedy of the Commons as an antithesis to Smith’s “The Invisible Hand” (Hardin 1968). However, several studies have proven that various sources of irrationality exist in humans (Kahneman et al. 1984; Trivers 2011). The results of these studies have not led to practical reform of the socioeconomic blueprints such as governance structures that form the bases of administrative law. The resulting protection and maintenance of dogma is consistent with Trivers’ self-deception thesis and other origins of irrationality (Trivers 2011). Self-deception, as an offensive evolutionary trait, is of particular concern if we consider that our empirical history (events and patterns) should serve as a blueprint for the future, as is customary in economic and political thought. Furthermore, Trivers motivates the existence of false historical narratives as subjective, self-deceiving distortions of reality in defense of the morality of certain courses of action. These false historical narratives extend beyond the individual level to the community, state and global level e.g. the continued institutionalization of the rationality hypothesis. Since the theoretical constructs in such influential disciplines as economic and political theory are empirically motivated (circumstantial) and lack fundamental scientific bases, it is prudent today to seek a structural understanding of the socioeconomic system at a more fundamental level. However, there is evidence that false historical narratives in these theories have become powerful offensive strategies in defense of the established moral blueprints that are disguised in them. An appropriate example of such a false historical

narrative relates to the acquisition of energy, seen by many as the central issue in sustainability2. 4.

Energy and Power

There are several false historical narratives related to energy. We may acknowledge several theoretical inconsistencies in these narratives, yet we intuitively draw on them when contemplating the realm of possibility. Take for example Sheikh Zaki Yamani’s purported statement “The Stone Age did not end for a lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil” that is often used to allay fears over fossil fuel depletion. While the statement is factually correct, it creates a powerful false representation of the fundamental concern. Oil will not qualify as a source of primary energy once the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of production drops below one, estimated to occur when a fraction of approximately half or, in some cases less, of the original oil in place is produced (Nel et al. 2009), the fraction depending on specific oil field characteristics. In reality, there is no known energy source today that can compete at scale with fossil fuel in terms of energy productivity (measured by EROEI) and it is becoming increasingly clear that fossil fuel depletion will ultimately demand a major reengineering of society in order to cope with less prolific sources. The formal treatment of energy in economics contains an even stronger false narrative, namely that energy may be acquired from unlimited exogenous sources as dictated by price theory. The dynamics of this mechanism operate on the demand side (energy efficiency)

2

We support this view. In a scenario of energy sources that can be harnessed with abundance in excess energy, there is no conceivable challenge on earth that cannot be solved through technology.

and supply side (advances in the harnessing of energy). Despite great technological successes over the years, a scientific understanding is that improvements operate at diminishing returns under strict theoretical limits, barring fundamental breakthroughs in theoretical physics that cannot be assured to any degree of certainty. Events such as the successful extraction of shale oil and gas only serve to strengthen these false historical narratives related to energy acquisition, by delaying the inevitable ultimate constraints on fossil fuel. Meanwhile the full environmental cost of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) will possibly only be known in fifty years or more, when the well-casings inevitably deteriorate and fail once they approach and exceed their design lives. Practically, there are limited options for increasing total energy availability including conservation, energy efficiency improvements, increased use of fossil fuel, increased use of nuclear fission, discovery and utilization of new sources of energy, and an expansion of renewable energy (RE). While there is much room for optimism, the improvements offered by the options above are incremental and, on timescales relevant to contemporary discussion (say, decades), none offers fundamental breakthroughs that could lead to increases in energy supply on a scale necessary for the global socio-economy to sustain an unconstrained state of advancement. Regenerative processes in society have rate-based energy needs i.e. each year’s energy requirements must be supplied on demand. In this regard, White’s (1959) formulation of the coupling between society and energetics is most insightful. He considered culture as an organized, integrated system. Loosely distinguishing three subsystems as energy, sociological and ideological systems, he formulated a law of cultural development as

follows (White’s Law): “Culture advances as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year (emphasis added) increases, or as the efficiency or economy of the means of controlling energy is increased, or both.” While the vast quantities of RE that are available cannot be denied, technology is incapable of accelerating the flux of RE sources and an expansion in the rate at which it is harnessed can only be achieved through an expansion in scale, further exacerbating factors related to the material intensiveness and variability of RE systems. Although the adoption of RE is an ultimate necessity (for various reasons), the inferior productivity (in energy terms or EROEI) of RE technology reflects its increased resource intensity3. Ironically the high labor intensity of RE is marketed as a positive attribute. Such reallocation of resources would disrupt the metabolic pattern of society – increasing resources in energy production leaves less energy and resources for the purposeful, creative and productive utilization of energy for utilitarian gain, hence a regressive tendency when measured against the status quo (Giampietro et al. 2012). In a scenario of plausible constraints, planning and regulation becomes relevant - a mismatch between the available supply and objectives would guarantee failure. The expansion of RE is supported in most parts of the world today, but it is often presented as a viable replacement for fossil fuel to facilitate the continuation of a so-called “sustainable”4 growth-based socioeconomic objective, rather than a necessary part of a transition to a new,

3

With the exclusion of large scale hydro power for which there is limited capacity. The notion of sustainable growth is a misnomer in a finite world and another example of an idea that is supported by false historical narratives. 4

more plausible, “post-growth” socio-economic objective. The short-term result of this mismatch is dysfunctional implementation models and market failures. The rationality of choices and arguments must be measured against the purpose of the socioeconomic system. Is it conceivable that an understanding of system objectives would reveal that the actions observed are indeed aligned with purpose? 5.

Towards Purpose and Ethical References

A self-defeating thesis for socioeconomic purpose does not contribute meaningful insights, but a few observations are in order. There is no precedent for intrinsic socioeconomic regression in recent history. However, the philosophical debate about society’s vulnerability to self-inflicted regression or even collapse may contain signs of false historical narratives. Despite institutional denial, the empirical reality is that the diminishing marginal returns of socio-economic complexity and energy systems that historically led to the “Collapse of Complex Societies” are indeed emergent in modern society (Tainter 1988). This brings us to the question of purpose – what is (or should be) the objective of society? The level of action on sustainability clearly does not match the level of concern in the modern sustainability conundrum (UNEP 2012). Exploring ideas on ethical references in relation to purpose and sustainability, there is a logical bifurcation at the most basic level. Objectives (whatever they may be) could either be sustainable or non-sustainable (in the conventional sense). If the objective of society is sustainable, why then would action lag concern?

A possible explanation of this disconnect is conflicting objectives, possibly as the result of unresolved moral or ethical references, that demand conflicting action and causes a doublebind as warned against by Hardin (1968). Conflicting actions are evident when considering a range of sustainability issues such as eradication of poverty, economic growth, energy security, population growth, global warming, water scarcity, and more. For example, the goals of energy and water security and the mitigation of global warming are all in conflict with the goals of population growth and economic growth, while the goal of population growth is in conflict with eradication of poverty. On the other hand, practical observation of contemporary political and corporate discourse points towards an apparent goal of “progress-at all-cost”, and it would be prudent to consider the possibility that society’s objectives on Earth are non-sustainable in a conscious or sub-conscious quest for ultimate relief from mankind’s physical reality. Although such non-sustainable terrestrial objectives seem objectionable, it forms a logically consistent thesis. Mankind’s evolutionary success is strongly coupled to the use of tools, which has already delivered significant results in relieving some of the physical constraints we are faced with. The evolutionary pull towards relief from the constraints of our physical reality has inspired scientific discovery and technological development in diverse fields such as medicine, communication and space exploration and has been the topic of philosophic debate (Arendt 1998). The achievement of “ultimate relief” from terrestrial constraints has formed the basis of futuristic fiction for many decades, to the point of becoming a real cultural expectation (Davies 2013). In reality, ultimate relief from our physical constraints remains well beyond our theoretical grasp and the demands on

technological progress for such an achievement are so high that it can only be conceived as a genuine objective if pursued at all cost - including the risks associated with unconstrained expansion of socioeconomic structures to support the human capital and diversity required. From this perspective it seems foolish to accept what is currently considered as viable solutions to sustainability. For example, we have great awareness today of our vulnerability to the threat posed by an impact winter from a meteorite strike. Is it not then foolish to base the sustainability of our very existence on solar powered sources of energy, nutrition, fresh water and oxygen? In a “go-for-broke” scenario to achieve ultimate relief from terrestrial constraints, failure would result in regression and collapse, so an ethical reference that constrains efforts by supporting contemporary sustainability merely serves as a counterproductive obstacle! Hardin identified the need to legislate the moral framework of society and emphasized the importance of resilient feedback loops to “keep the custodians honest”. Conventional theories of “resilient feedback loops” in the politics of modern democracy are also consistent with false historical references when measured against reality. The prevalence of deception in democracy (and other) politics (Galeotti 2014) implies the absence of rationality that is required for meaningful feedback loops. Trivers’ (2011) “Deceit and Self-Deception” thesis supports the notion that democratic systems could pursue an ethical reference with irrational objectives i.e. what society wishes for (unconstrained affluence) and not what is plausible to have. The pressure on many global institutions or “bureaus” and officials is thus mounting to directly or indirectly support the politically motivated welfare promises of victorious politicians. In this context, the current

democracy blueprint is creating systemic bias for ethics that support non-sustainable objectives. The vision of unconstrained affluence anchors welfare expectations in society (Kahneman 1984) despite a long history of warnings that pursuit of such unconstrained growth poses a risk of overshoot and collapse (Meadows et al. 1972). Sustainability is faced with a decision to maintain the socio-economic status quo (i.e. the growth objective) versus the adoption of an alternative as the solution. However, the reference level for future aspirations is at a physically unattainable (unsustainable) level of socioeconomic achievement (Nel 2009). All rational alternatives are thus in the domain of “losses” relative to the reference level. There is compelling evidence that “the psychophysics of value induce risk aversion in the domain of gains and risk seeking in the domain of losses” (Kahneman 1984) and this may be an alternative explanation for the “go for broke” attitude that dictates global affairs. Rational expectations with regards to socioeconomic prospects would expose society to a domain of gains, i.e. what guaranteed gains are at risk if we pursue the contemporary status quo. With such a reference, the probability of achieving non-sustainable objectives would need to be high in order to offset the risk aversion bias in a domain of gains. The dynamics of the two domains are depicted in Fig. 1. Very few of the influential bureaus, such as energy agencies and economic forums, acknowledge physical constraints in their forecasts, and invariably forecast visions of exponential growth in consumption and affluence.

Fig. 1. Schematic presentation of possible socioeconomic objectives 6.

Conclusions

There is a long history of scholarly concern over the sustainability of mankind’s affairs and these concerns have been analyzed in many seminal works. A dominant theme in these studies is that institutional planning is required to avoid the ultimate negative impacts of physical constraints on society. These warnings have nominally gone unheeded and action on sustainability lags concern by a great margin. Sustainability publications from the 20th Century environmental movement emphasize the influence of self-defeating human traits as barriers to action. Several contributions in the Social Sciences have since established a theoretical basis for some of the self-defeating human traits that scholars warned against. It is viable to address the masking effects of these traits, amongst others in the form of false historical narratives and value biases, through a systems thinking approach, as promoted by

Hardin. In order to achieve this in pursuit of contemporary sustainability, there are several points of importance that must be addressed at an institutional scale including: 

Refinement and acceptance of rationally achievable projections of material welfare, technological achievement, and the risks associated with overshoot and collapse to allow contrasting of the contemporary sustainability question in a domain of gains and risk aversion.



Institution-led public discourse on a common ethical reference for society in support of plausible welfare and technological objectives.



Political reform to establish resilient feedback processes for guarding against the products of deceit and self-deception.

These issues are far from resolved and still require concerted research efforts. However, successful implementation of these objectives would remove much of the cognitive dissonance in the sustainability debate and support a clear call for coherent action. 7.

References

Arendt H, (1998) The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press Bossel H, (2007) Systems and Models, Norderstedt. Davies S, (2013) Delivering on Design Aspirations. Engineering & Technology 8 (8): 52 – 55 Galeotti AE, (2014) Liars or Self-Deceived? Reflections on Political Deception. Political Studies doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12122.

Giampietro M, Mayumi K, Sorman AH, (2012) The Metabolic Pattern of Societies: Where Economists Fall short, Routledge Hardin G, (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243 – 1248. Kahneman D, Tversky A, (1984) Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist 39(4): 341 – 350 Kozinski A, (2002), Gore Wars. Michigan Law Reviews 100: 1742 – 1267. Lomborg L, (1998) The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cambridge University Press Meadows DH & DL, Randers J, Behrens WW (1972) The Limits to Growth, Universe Books, New York NY. Nel W, Cooper CJ, (2009) Implications of fossil fuel constraints on economic growth and global warming. Energy Policy 37(1): 166 – 180. Ostrom E, (1990) Governing the Commons, Edition: 2011 Printing, Cambridge University Press, New York Science, (Accessed May 2014), www.sciencemag.org Tainter J, (1988) The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge, New York. Turner GM, (2012) On the Cusp of Global Collapse?. GAIA 21 (2): 116 –124 Trivers R, (2011) Deceit and Self-Deception, Penguin UNEP, (2012) Global Environment Outlook 5 (GEO-5), Malta von Bertalanffy L, (2009) General Systems Theory, Revised Edition, George Braziller, New York

White L, (1959) The Evolution of Culture, 2007 Reprint, Left Coast Press Inc, Walnut Creek, California