What model of collective action has proven to be the most effective in harmonizing social development with the functioning of natural systems?

Much is known already about anthropogenic change in natural systems and the consequences of such change for societies, both positive and negative. The scale of the role of human beings in the functioning of the Earth system is such that, barring cataclysmic events, it can be reasonably expected that the future evolution of the biosphere will depend on this particular species. It will require a conscious, collective effort by societies to modify certain behaviours to be up to this challenge.

On the other hand, much research has been made in economics, sociology and anthropology about individual and collective behaviour. But little research seems to have gone into understanding and identifying which models, systems, institutions, norms or other forms of organizing collective action result in a social development that recognizes human systems as part of a larger natural system, and how such development harmonizes these two.
This question should be addressed in conjunction with the question (already posted) What factors determine the resilience of the full set of interacting ecosystem services that support human well-being and allow for adaptation to a changing environment? As the Millennium Assessment showed, the main reason why societies change natural systems (of which they are part) is the search for food, fuel, fibers and other ecosystem services. These changes have reached a planetary scale, posing serious risks for all systems (natural and social) involved. Hence, the two most important questions that need to be answered as soon as possible are: (i) what are the limits of natural systems from the human point of view (the question about resilience stated above), and (ii) what can we do as a species to sustain our development (the question about collective action proposed here).
The main obstacles in answering this question are two: (1) it requires interdisciplinary research, and (2) it has strong political and ideological implications. This latter difficulty requires a careful design of the research process.

One comment

1. Kalense says:

   at

   I have voted in favour of this question because it seems to go to the heart of the matter – how do we turn this ship around?

   Unfortunately I think it will gather very few other votes because the short form of the question is, I believe, misleading. The first problem comes in the term “collective action,” which in my mind at least is strongly associated with civil disobedience, struggles, strikes, and occupations.

   Secondly, I don’t think the problem we face can be resolved by what happened in the past. The next 25 years are going to be utterly unlike the past 25. So what has proven in the past to be the most effective means to do things may be a poor guide to what is needed in the future.

   I would rather have seen the question framed as “How can humans self-organise the conscious, collective effort needed to modify our individual, social and economic behaviour sufficiently to bring human systems into a harmonious and sustainable relationship with the larger natural system?”

   I guess that’s the one I voted for.