243
to the conclusion the consumption of the rich has
to be limited as in the case of small income (1230
USD, at the exchange rate of 2008), 13.6 billion
people could be the global sustainable population
while the biocapacity of Earth would not be
exceeded. If all people on the planet were to have
a moderate income (5100 USD, at the exchange
rate of 2008), only 6.2 billion people could be the
population of Earth without overloading its biocapacity. Of course, Assadourian notes that the
proposed changes (abandoning the use of cars
and airplanes, substantial reduction of consuming other “luxury products”) are not such people
would be willing to do in general.
The authors consider that probably the more
even distribution of material goods will not be
possible simply by understanding the problem,
certainly not that rich people will suddenly start
consuming less or giving away their property to
poorer people. Albeit the richest people have the
greatest effects on the environment with their
enormous consumption while damaging the
environment is the consequence of the lack of
financial resources in the case of poor people
(e.g., acquiring firewood by clearing natural
woodlands). Thus more even distribution would
be, no doubt, beneficial ecologically, and even
the society could work smoother. Yet, one typical
feature of most networks—as mentioned in Sect.
2.4—as in the economy network is that rich
become richer.
Real networks are controlled by two laws:
growth and popularity connections. Network
growth means that earlier nodes in the network
(older companies in economy) have more time
for making connections than those arriving later
in the network. Older nodes will be the richest in
connections, and this means more money generally in economy. Nodes with more connections
will be chosen more frequently, thus these will
grow faster than younger ones with less number
of links. First nodes will become centres in time
with a high number of links becoming in this way
increasingly popular. This is called popularity
connection generating the “rich is getting richer”
phenomenon and resulting in a power function
distribution. (This type of distribution applies to
most complex networks.)
The above also suggests that the size of
income depends not necessarily on individual
performance but also on recognising the future
profitability of producing a given product. Since
the human society is able to control its own operation (complex adaptive system), there is nothing
to prevent the more even distribution of income
than the current practice in most countries (Fig.
5.2 in Sect. 5.1). More even income conditions
could be created with the redistribution of the
enormous money of the central budget with the
help of national law.
It is a fact that violent crimes are less in countries where the distribution of material goods is
more even (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden),
health conditions are better in general and human
relationships are more favourable. As a result,
more sustainable social conditions have been
realised in such countries than where life standard differences are great. Still sustainable development has not been achieved in the more
successful countries either. If we take a look at
the ecological footprint of these countries, their
values vary around 2–3 which cannot be sustained in the long-term. The great degree of environmental load occurs sometimes in distant
countries due to trade. (For example, a citizen in
Switzerland is able to buy expensive furniture
made of tropical wood, making an impact in this
way on destroying tropical rainforests.)
In most countries no efforts are made for the
more even redistribution of national income by
those in power. Civic ecological movements
(Transition Town Movement, Ecovillage
Movement, etc.) targeting the support of the
advancement of “social and environmental justice” make little impact for the time being. Hunter
(2002) considers that networks have the decisive
role in transforming the behaviour of the society.
According to him networks are able to spread
new ideas, even on consumer practices, political
views or new cultural paradigm. For effective
change, however, networks have to grow more
extensive and work for common goals and eventually have an impact on decision makers. This
promises to be a slow process—if remaining
peaceful.
6.4 SDG: Decreasing Inequalities. Possible?
to the conclusion the consumption of the rich has
to be limited as in the case of small income (1230
USD, at the exchange rate of 2008), 13.6 billion
people could be the global sustainable population
while the biocapacity of Earth would not be
exceeded. If all people on the planet were to have
a moderate income (5100 USD, at the exchange
rate of 2008), only 6.2 billion people could be the
population of Earth without overloading its biocapacity. Of course, Assadourian notes that the
proposed changes (abandoning the use of cars
and airplanes, substantial reduction of consuming other “luxury products”) are not such people
would be willing to do in general.
The authors consider that probably the more
even distribution of material goods will not be
possible simply by understanding the problem,
certainly not that rich people will suddenly start
consuming less or giving away their property to
poorer people. Albeit the richest people have the
greatest effects on the environment with their
enormous consumption while damaging the
environment is the consequence of the lack of
financial resources in the case of poor people
(e.g., acquiring firewood by clearing natural
woodlands). Thus more even distribution would
be, no doubt, beneficial ecologically, and even
the society could work smoother. Yet, one typical
feature of most networks—as mentioned in Sect.
2.4—as in the economy network is that rich
become richer.
Real networks are controlled by two laws:
growth and popularity connections. Network
growth means that earlier nodes in the network
(older companies in economy) have more time
for making connections than those arriving later
in the network. Older nodes will be the richest in
connections, and this means more money generally in economy. Nodes with more connections
will be chosen more frequently, thus these will
grow faster than younger ones with less number
of links. First nodes will become centres in time
with a high number of links becoming in this way
increasingly popular. This is called popularity
connection generating the “rich is getting richer”
phenomenon and resulting in a power function
distribution. (This type of distribution applies to
most complex networks.)
The above also suggests that the size of
income depends not necessarily on individual
performance but also on recognising the future
profitability of producing a given product. Since
the human society is able to control its own operation (complex adaptive system), there is nothing
to prevent the more even distribution of income
than the current practice in most countries (Fig.
5.2 in Sect. 5.1). More even income conditions
could be created with the redistribution of the
enormous money of the central budget with the
help of national law.
It is a fact that violent crimes are less in countries where the distribution of material goods is
more even (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden),
health conditions are better in general and human
relationships are more favourable. As a result,
more sustainable social conditions have been
realised in such countries than where life standard differences are great. Still sustainable development has not been achieved in the more
successful countries either. If we take a look at
the ecological footprint of these countries, their
values vary around 2–3 which cannot be sustained in the long-term. The great degree of environmental load occurs sometimes in distant
countries due to trade. (For example, a citizen in
Switzerland is able to buy expensive furniture
made of tropical wood, making an impact in this
way on destroying tropical rainforests.)
In most countries no efforts are made for the
more even redistribution of national income by
those in power. Civic ecological movements
(Transition Town Movement, Ecovillage
Movement, etc.) targeting the support of the
advancement of “social and environmental justice” make little impact for the time being. Hunter
(2002) considers that networks have the decisive
role in transforming the behaviour of the society.
According to him networks are able to spread
new ideas, even on consumer practices, political
views or new cultural paradigm. For effective
change, however, networks have to grow more
extensive and work for common goals and eventually have an impact on decision makers. This
promises to be a slow process—if remaining
peaceful.
6.4 SDG: Decreasing Inequalities. Possible?