innovation of reorganizing all of society around endless gain goals remains
unchallenged.
Yet, we now know that there are limits to individual gain, all the more so on a
planet with nine to ten billion inhabitants. We also know that the notion that having
more means feeling better or happier very much depends, in reality, on the circumstances. Surely, when we seek transformational changes toward sustainable
development we cannot use a theory that has not integrated these contextual
changes in its concepts? The pursuit of endless gain, as Polanyi points out, had
never before in history been “raised to the level of justification of action and
behavior in everyday life” (ibid 1957: 30). So it seems obvious both that it is time to
repurpose our societies again and that we cannot accept a theory that cannot
inductively inform but only deductively reinterpret civilizational changes to fit the
universal concepts it has thought up.
Any new Great Transformation needs a different guiding paradigm if its outcome
is to improve sustainability. A paradigm that puts needs (ends) and nature (means)
center stage instead of hiding them in container terms. One that embraces some
empiricism and qualitative reasoning once more. We need a Second Enlightenment
fit for what is now known to be a very complex and full world. Luckily, natural and
social sciences have moved on and freed themselves from the ideals of
positivist-deductive reasoning and quantitative measuring that accompanied
modernity. Only mainstream economics has fallen strangely behind in this
evolution.
This chapter deals with that evolution. It runs through the columns of the table
and first discusses the origins and applications of the concepts for understanding
and organizing human need satisfaction, and then the origins and applications of the
concepts for understanding and engaging with nature. The subchapters argue that
the concepts are insufficient for any transformational sustainable development
agenda and are in fact instrumental in perpetuating an unsustainable development
path. Then I will add brief overviews of what twenty-first century social sciences,
humanities, psychology, neurosciences, quantum physics and also alternative
sub-strands of economics say that fills the black boxes of human needs and nature’s
laws.
3.1 How Mainstream Economics Views Human Needs
and Their Satisfaction
How do we satisfy the needs of current generations while safeguarding resources
for future generations? First we must understand people, their needs and what
motivates them to do certain things. Mainstream economics does not make much
use of the term ‘needs’ but has instead adopted the concept of ‘utility.’
The term was invented by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), who
described human existence as being based on a hedonic calculus or continuous
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …
57
unchallenged.
Yet, we now know that there are limits to individual gain, all the more so on a
planet with nine to ten billion inhabitants. We also know that the notion that having
more means feeling better or happier very much depends, in reality, on the circumstances. Surely, when we seek transformational changes toward sustainable
development we cannot use a theory that has not integrated these contextual
changes in its concepts? The pursuit of endless gain, as Polanyi points out, had
never before in history been “raised to the level of justification of action and
behavior in everyday life” (ibid 1957: 30). So it seems obvious both that it is time to
repurpose our societies again and that we cannot accept a theory that cannot
inductively inform but only deductively reinterpret civilizational changes to fit the
universal concepts it has thought up.
Any new Great Transformation needs a different guiding paradigm if its outcome
is to improve sustainability. A paradigm that puts needs (ends) and nature (means)
center stage instead of hiding them in container terms. One that embraces some
empiricism and qualitative reasoning once more. We need a Second Enlightenment
fit for what is now known to be a very complex and full world. Luckily, natural and
social sciences have moved on and freed themselves from the ideals of
positivist-deductive reasoning and quantitative measuring that accompanied
modernity. Only mainstream economics has fallen strangely behind in this
evolution.
This chapter deals with that evolution. It runs through the columns of the table
and first discusses the origins and applications of the concepts for understanding
and organizing human need satisfaction, and then the origins and applications of the
concepts for understanding and engaging with nature. The subchapters argue that
the concepts are insufficient for any transformational sustainable development
agenda and are in fact instrumental in perpetuating an unsustainable development
path. Then I will add brief overviews of what twenty-first century social sciences,
humanities, psychology, neurosciences, quantum physics and also alternative
sub-strands of economics say that fills the black boxes of human needs and nature’s
laws.
3.1 How Mainstream Economics Views Human Needs
and Their Satisfaction
How do we satisfy the needs of current generations while safeguarding resources
for future generations? First we must understand people, their needs and what
motivates them to do certain things. Mainstream economics does not make much
use of the term ‘needs’ but has instead adopted the concept of ‘utility.’
The term was invented by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), who
described human existence as being based on a hedonic calculus or continuous
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …
57