Foundations for Sustainability: A Coherent Framework of Life–Environment Relations

By Daniel A. Fiscus and Brian D. Fath

Foundations for Sustainability: A Coherent Framework of Life-Environment Relations challenges existing assumptions on environmental issues and lays the groundwork for a new paradigm, bringing a greater understanding of what is needed to help create an environmentally and economically sustainable future, which to date has been an uphill battle and not an obvious choice. The book presents the case for a paradigm based on a multi-model of life as organism, life as ecosystem, and life as biosphere, as opposed to the singular assumption that life can be viewed solely as an organism.

All backed with well-cited research from top investigators from around the world, this book is a must-have resource for anyone working in ecology, environmental science or sustainability.

• Introduces a holistic, systemic approach and a synthesis of the systemic root cause that underlies many surface symptoms that are part of individual environmental problems (climate, water, energy, etc.)
• Complements current piecemeal approaches in order to solve many interconnected environmental problems which share root causes
• Provides tests and thought experiments to challenge current views on sustainability, leveraging the power of critical thinking to find new solutions
• Gives insights on how to find solutions by blending interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary focuses with disciplinary specialization in ecology and ecosystem science
• Bridges concepts and methods from math to ecology to human development

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Nov 16, 2018
• ISBN: 9780128116449

Daniel A. Fiscus

Dan Fiscus is a researcher in sustainability, systems ecology, food systems, and regenerative economics. He has degrees in electrical engineering, ecology with a minor in biomathematics, and a PhD in Environmental Science. He studies holistic, sustainable human-environment and life-environment relations, theoretical ecology and ecological modeling, ecological network analysis and sources of leverage for change to benefit humanity. He is also a member of the Western Maryland Food Council, which works to increase local food production and for systemic change and improvement to the food system in the Western Maryland region. Dan also collaborates with colleagues in the Research Alliance for Regenerative Economics (RARE).

Book preview

book.

Chapter 1

To solve a difficult problem, enlarge it

Abstract

This book is science offered in service to life as a unified whole. We present theory and applications rigorously rooted in science, and we modify the foundations of science so the ground is fertile to nurture the roots of the theory and actions we see necessary to solve the human-environment crisis. The foundations we propose support a science of the life–environment relation as a whole that is anticipatory and value-based, centered on the value of life. We propose two dialectical typologies that unify prior divisions. We depict life as a dual-modeled complex system that depends on both the discrete life of organisms and individuals, and the sustained life of ecosystems and biosphere. And we unite seemingly contradictory human perspectives that arise from confronting environmental limits—the Sustainers who seek to change themselves to fit within perceived environmental limits and Transcenders who seek to change the environment and transcend perceived limits.

Keywords

Life–environment relation; system of ideas; discrete life; sustained life; holism; Sustainers; Transcenders

Introduction

At its center, this book is a scientific work that we offer in service to life itself, life as a unified whole. We have sought to develop and present scientific theory and linked applications that are rigorously rooted in science. In order to do that, we have had to question and modify the foundations of science itself, to prepare this ground so it is fertile to accept and nurture the roots of the science and actions we see as vital. The novelty and gravity of the human-environmental circumstances we now face provide the necessity as mother of inventing solutions commensurate with the challenge. These modified foundations unfold throughout the book as we aim to expand on an applied-theory science for sustainability that:

1. Balances and synergizes holism with reductionism;

2. Equally emphasizes internalist and self-referential as well as objectivist perspectives;

3. Is anticipatory and accelerates the pace and process of paradigm shifts; and

4. Is consciously, intentionally, and transparently value-based centered on the value of life.

We will elaborate on these and additional founding principles and give credit to path breaking works of those from whom we have learned. In particular, Ulanowicz’ (1999, 2009) ecological metaphysic is a guiding light that encapsulates a system of ideas compatible with Life–environment unity. His metaphysic includes three key tenets of reality that he gleaned from studies of ecosystems and networks; living systems are characterized by contingency, feedback, and memory.

We also develop and explain the coherent links to philosophy and values as well as to actions and daily life. To address such a broad range of topics requires that we focus on a level that is shared common ground between these areas—the basic ideas at the foundation of science as well as ethics, culture, and day-to-day reality. There are many ideas and processes at the intersection, from experience and experiments to reasoning, values, decision-making, learning, and understanding. We see it as necessary to work on the bridge areas between science and society as this is where we see both the causes and solutions of our current major problems to lie.

A critical issue for understanding our current world situation—especially the global ecological crisis, but also many related social and economic troubles—relates to the interdependence between systems of ideas in various cultures and subsets of cultures and real world systems or more simply, the real world. We will examine many detailed descriptions of the various subset problems that make up the current crisis, but for now, we cite these top 11 factors (Table 1.1) as sufficient hard evidence, corroborated by thousands of scientific studies, and reported experiences of millions of citizens worldwide, to make the case for a bona fide global socio-ecological crisis.

Table 1.1

Figure 1.1 This diagram depicts the current human–environment system of problems or mess in the sense of Ackoff (1974). Our culturally shared system of ideas is at the center, and this is linked closely to the dominant scientific paradigm. This central systemic cause leads to the ultimate tragedy of the commons outcomes by a set of relationships that radiate outward (influence travels from center outward, from ideas to actions to global impacts) in stepwise fashion:

A. A paradigm in science is promulgated via education, technology, and media to most people in industrial culture. It is the assumed and shared normative system of ideas, specifically with respect to life and environment. In this science paradigm, life is separated from environment thus severing the unity of life and life-support systems conceptually and scientifically.

B. Following the scientific paradigm, inherent in the cultural system of ideas, life is separated from environment in mind and action. This is the key error (or outdated paradigm) that severs the unity of life and life-support systems in the real world.

C. Once fragmented, it is possible and likely that the value of environment is seen and treated as less than the value of life. Note that it is not possible for this relative devaluation of environment to occur if life–environment remains unified as a single focal entity and system of study. This follows from the revised paradigm we present here.

D. Individuals act for self-interest primarily and compete for what they perceive as limited, scarce, and zero-sum resources and assume that environment degradation is normal, expected, inevitable, and acceptable.

E. Environment is consumed and degraded as manifest in many symptoms of ecological crisis, and the influence of the citizens’ mental fragmentation and devaluation of environment travels upward to larger scales and produces the global crisis.

In addition to these primarily environmental indicators of systemic dysfunction, we could add many others that are more social and economic, such as growing income inequality, widespread armed conflicts—many of which derive from natural resources—challenges with human health, and more. Although the challenges we face are global and cannot be untangled along national borders, this critique and proposal for solutions mainly applies to industrial cultures such as the United States and other developed nations.

This is the real world as we see it now, and we aim to show that these conditions have been manifest based on the ways we think about—and then relate to—the world and environment. This interface and integral relationship between how we think and the outcomes we see in the world are at the crux of what we addressed in the 2012 paper (Fiscus et al., 2012) and other works. We proposed that our shared system of ideas (or paradigm, shared mental model, etc.) is responsible for our current life–threatening state of affairs in the real world showing chronic and systemic environmental degradation, as well as systemic social dysfunction. And that, going forward, in order to solve our current suite of chronic and systemic environmental problems, we will need to change our minds, mindsets, and one or more system of ideas.

The Reality of Win–Win

The prevailing science paradigm sees a fragmented and antagonistic relationship between life and environment and between humans and environment by logical extension. This paradigm separates life and environment as distinct entities and is conceptually aligned with the Darwinian story of life as the struggle for existence emphasizing competition of individuals upon an environmental stage. Our alternative paradigm emphasizes a mutualistic relationship between life and environment (Lovelock, 1972; Patten, 1982; Fath and Patten, 1998; Bondavalli and Ulanowicz, 1999; Fath, 2007). This approach integrates life and environment into a unified whole and seeks to understand the interdependence and coevolution of the full life–environment system emphasizing cooperation. We assert that this alternative view is key for achieving a win–win relationship between humans and environment, which would then enable lasting and systemic solution (in the form of a system of solutions) to the global ecological crisis (for characterization of this crisis, see Wackernagel et al., 2002; Leigh, 2005; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Cabrera et al., 2008; Rockström et al., 2009) and environmental sustainability.

Ecological network analysis (ENA) is a holistic scientific approach that quantifies storages and flows of key life currencies such as energy, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, water, and more. ENA has been employed to study hundreds of ecosystems and food webs with data to document who eats whom and by how much in any given ecosystem of study. It is based on the science and mathematics of thermodynamics, information theory, and material flow of networks that are generic, and it has also been applied to flows of money and goods in economies, geographic flows in transportation networks, and more.

In addition to standard ecological questions of feeding interactions, ENA of food webs gives insight into the indirect relations that exist in these interconnected networks. In particular, it has been shown (Fath and Patten, 1998) that the overall relations tend toward positive outcomes both in terms of type (mutualism) and degree (synergism). In other words, normal ecosystem interdependencies promote mutualism and synergism. When all direct effects (from first order, proximate interactions) and indirect effects (from higher order interactions, between network components that are only indirectly connected) are integrated, most pair-wise relations between species or components in ecosystem networks are win–win. Despite this widespread pattern of mutually beneficial relations between living entities, humans (again, in modern industrial cultures) defy this pattern and clearly show negative impacts on other species, the atmosphere, soils, other integral components of the biosphere, and even ourselves. Therefore, it is reasonable to propose our global ecological predicament this