A future-oriented ethics and also management strategy was actually defined as
part of sustainable development: sufficiency. Next to efficiency (no unnecessary
waste) and consistency (solutions fit local—environmental—systems) this strategy
is not so much technical but highly normative. It means embracing the idea that
there can and should be enough production and consumption. Phrased this way it
sounds like the baseline of sustainable development. Enough for everyone forever.
Enough and not less, however, also means enough and not more. At least on one
finite planet.
Yet, the economic thinking that is so overwhelmingly influential in politics and
public discourse today simply excludes sufficiency from what could be a feasible
solution. It is equated to a depression or moving back into caves. Moreover, it is
often mainstream economists who declare that any idea of sufficiency, or no further
economic growth in rich economies, would impair the ‘human freedom’ to invent,
innovate and be creative. Not even in countries with stable population levels can
their theory conceive of how living up to human potential would not lead to more
market sales.
Critical conceptual environment and development thinkers like Wolfgang Sachs
readily point out that only rich people can fall into the trap of seeing sufficiency
solely as a regression. For every person living in deprivation and hunger the end of
suffering is an aspiration (Sachs 2015: 2). In addition, Sachs continues, refraining
from having more than enough might be less of an altruistic move, but instead a
step toward justice and respect in a system where the overflow of wealth in some
parts is directly connected to exploitation in others (ibid.).
The idea of providing enough for everyone within the carrying capacity of the
planet was iconized in the ‘doughnut’ by Kate Raworth, UK researcher and campaigner for Oxfam in the run-up to the Rio+20 Summit. Her graph combines the
Planetary Boundaries with minimum entitlements to social foundations to which
every person on this planet should be granted access. The resulting ‘doughnut’
shows that there is a corridor or “safe and just operating space” in which development can be sustainably pursued.
The social foundations in Fig. 3.6 do not reflect a scientific assessment, but
instead the results of what governments had stated to be their priorities in the run-up
to the conference. They are therefore not definitive but illustrative. An understanding of the qualities of most important social foundations and of which governance solutions can most successfully embed them will become more precise with
more research, just as the Planetary Boundaries will. Unfortunately, none of these
empirical searches will be helped by mainstream economic approaches. In these
approaches, only more monetary growth would mean that societies could pay for
cleaning up the environment and grant some support to their unfit citizens—who
could not otherwise survive.
106
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …
part of sustainable development: sufficiency. Next to efficiency (no unnecessary
waste) and consistency (solutions fit local—environmental—systems) this strategy
is not so much technical but highly normative. It means embracing the idea that
there can and should be enough production and consumption. Phrased this way it
sounds like the baseline of sustainable development. Enough for everyone forever.
Enough and not less, however, also means enough and not more. At least on one
finite planet.
Yet, the economic thinking that is so overwhelmingly influential in politics and
public discourse today simply excludes sufficiency from what could be a feasible
solution. It is equated to a depression or moving back into caves. Moreover, it is
often mainstream economists who declare that any idea of sufficiency, or no further
economic growth in rich economies, would impair the ‘human freedom’ to invent,
innovate and be creative. Not even in countries with stable population levels can
their theory conceive of how living up to human potential would not lead to more
market sales.
Critical conceptual environment and development thinkers like Wolfgang Sachs
readily point out that only rich people can fall into the trap of seeing sufficiency
solely as a regression. For every person living in deprivation and hunger the end of
suffering is an aspiration (Sachs 2015: 2). In addition, Sachs continues, refraining
from having more than enough might be less of an altruistic move, but instead a
step toward justice and respect in a system where the overflow of wealth in some
parts is directly connected to exploitation in others (ibid.).
The idea of providing enough for everyone within the carrying capacity of the
planet was iconized in the ‘doughnut’ by Kate Raworth, UK researcher and campaigner for Oxfam in the run-up to the Rio+20 Summit. Her graph combines the
Planetary Boundaries with minimum entitlements to social foundations to which
every person on this planet should be granted access. The resulting ‘doughnut’
shows that there is a corridor or “safe and just operating space” in which development can be sustainably pursued.
The social foundations in Fig. 3.6 do not reflect a scientific assessment, but
instead the results of what governments had stated to be their priorities in the run-up
to the conference. They are therefore not definitive but illustrative. An understanding of the qualities of most important social foundations and of which governance solutions can most successfully embed them will become more precise with
more research, just as the Planetary Boundaries will. Unfortunately, none of these
empirical searches will be helped by mainstream economic approaches. In these
approaches, only more monetary growth would mean that societies could pay for
cleaning up the environment and grant some support to their unfit citizens—who
could not otherwise survive.
106
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …