potentials of human nature and this leads to virtuous engagement for the common
good. For a comprehensive overview of different definitions of happiness see the
crowd-sourced Wikipedia.
So, sometimes it feels as though innovation is not always about finding new
ideas and evidence but also about remembering old wisdom. After all, if thought
through to its logical conclusion, the stark utopia and grand narrative of endless
gain is a desperate one. There is no happy ending if humans can simply never get
enough. As the numbers cited have shown, the threshold of what people report they
need to feel good keeps on growing with the wealth of society as a whole. In this
development vision we can never reach satisfaction. Thus, a culture and society
nested in mind-sets and institutions of endless economic growth and competition
appears less a stark utopia of freedom of choice and happiness, and more a dystopia
of never being able to enjoy and relax.
3.2 How Mainstream Economics Views Nature and Its
Governance
The second light green column of Table 3.1 assembles central concepts that
mainstream economics applies when dealing with nature: forests, oceans, mountains, fields, deserts and the animals living in those locations. It provides the analytical tools available when addressing the second of the Brundtland Report’s key
qualifiers of sustainable development. That is “the idea of limitations imposed by
the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet
present and future needs” (WCED 1987: 41). This is relevant for current generations and for safeguarding the livelihoods and well-being of future generations, and
the way the issue is phrased is very important. The message is usually framed
wrongly. In line with key thinkers during the Enlightenment movement (most
prominently Thomas Malthus), nature is depicted as imposing limits on human
development, of which there seems to be only one right, linear version.
However, by using instead the relational complex systems view that natural
sciences offer in the twenty-first century, we see that it is the manner and degree of
human interference with nature’s ability to reproduce its wealth that is backfiring. If
we change our ideas and goals of development or progress, our choice of technology and social organization, humans and nature can both flourish over the long
run. And from a less anthropocentric point of view, flourishing nature is an ethical
goal in itself, totally independent of the use value that this provides for humans.
The Second Enlightenment mindshift replaces the lens of ‘fighting nature’s
limits by extracting more natural resources faster’ with one of ‘aligning production
and consumption patterns with her circular reproductive cycles.’ This requires
descriptions, measures and models that illuminate where and how human interference hampers ecological laws.
80
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …
good. For a comprehensive overview of different definitions of happiness see the
crowd-sourced Wikipedia.
So, sometimes it feels as though innovation is not always about finding new
ideas and evidence but also about remembering old wisdom. After all, if thought
through to its logical conclusion, the stark utopia and grand narrative of endless
gain is a desperate one. There is no happy ending if humans can simply never get
enough. As the numbers cited have shown, the threshold of what people report they
need to feel good keeps on growing with the wealth of society as a whole. In this
development vision we can never reach satisfaction. Thus, a culture and society
nested in mind-sets and institutions of endless economic growth and competition
appears less a stark utopia of freedom of choice and happiness, and more a dystopia
of never being able to enjoy and relax.
3.2 How Mainstream Economics Views Nature and Its
Governance
The second light green column of Table 3.1 assembles central concepts that
mainstream economics applies when dealing with nature: forests, oceans, mountains, fields, deserts and the animals living in those locations. It provides the analytical tools available when addressing the second of the Brundtland Report’s key
qualifiers of sustainable development. That is “the idea of limitations imposed by
the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet
present and future needs” (WCED 1987: 41). This is relevant for current generations and for safeguarding the livelihoods and well-being of future generations, and
the way the issue is phrased is very important. The message is usually framed
wrongly. In line with key thinkers during the Enlightenment movement (most
prominently Thomas Malthus), nature is depicted as imposing limits on human
development, of which there seems to be only one right, linear version.
However, by using instead the relational complex systems view that natural
sciences offer in the twenty-first century, we see that it is the manner and degree of
human interference with nature’s ability to reproduce its wealth that is backfiring. If
we change our ideas and goals of development or progress, our choice of technology and social organization, humans and nature can both flourish over the long
run. And from a less anthropocentric point of view, flourishing nature is an ethical
goal in itself, totally independent of the use value that this provides for humans.
The Second Enlightenment mindshift replaces the lens of ‘fighting nature’s
limits by extracting more natural resources faster’ with one of ‘aligning production
and consumption patterns with her circular reproductive cycles.’ This requires
descriptions, measures and models that illuminate where and how human interference hampers ecological laws.
80
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …