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.

How can we better connect people so that we work together from within disparate, separated communities to support common values like sustainability?

People are very separated by geography, demographics, types of governments (e.g., repressive regimes), technology and other variables. This separation puts people and communities into “information silos” that tend to keep valuable information from each other.

For example, US computer users may not know where their discarded computers go and how they affect those in proximity to where they are discarded. Computers contain all sorts of chemicals that harm the ecology and human health. If they were aware of the consequences of discarding computers in certain unsustainable ways (dumping in landfills for example) they might take action to ensure that chemicals are recycled and kept out of ecosystems and communities.

The Agent Orange debacle in the Vietnam War is another such example.

Sustainable population size is another area of concern. When people in one town have children, we are blind to how this affects our local, regional, national and global sustainability. How can we manage all nations’ populations at a sustainable size globally and for each nation and region?

In general, how can we organize people to first learn about and understand our common values–like health, love of nature, support for ecology?

Then how can we act on those values to create systems that support people, economies, communities, ecology, species, biodiversity, natural processes, etc.–locally, regionally, nationally and globally?

What should be the new world order if low carbon development pathway, low poverty and equal opportunity are to become equally weighted global developmental goals for this decade?

Can the slogan of think globally and act locally provide feasible solution? Perhaps time has come to rise above national boundaries and act globally to deliver climate good? Has climate change pushed the world to the edge so that it is time for us to think of minimum work agenda which rises above national boundaries and becomes global good to be delivered globally? Can global governance in climate mitigation generate global commitment for poverty reduction given that national priorities and circumstances are different and for large number countries reason for non cooperation for commitment to low carbon pathway is poverty burden and need for rapid development and income generation at the least possible cost .

How soon can each of the country board on a low GHG pathway?

Development today is following the footsteps of the predecessors. Can we define an alternative development pathway in a carbon constrained world? Who would /should lead the way? Developed or developing countries? How can this be consistent with sustenance of human well being? A shelf full of technologies are known that can move the world on low carbon pathway but important question is what institutional structure, local capacity, education, international cooperation mechanism, financial assistance, political will for prioritizing the issues are defining realities with as many varieties as there are countries, states etc. so to be realistic enough about stabilization and peaking major question is can we map each country’s reality and get an envelope to decide on adaptation plan and protocol. This exercise will infact show who can commit how much in terms of global good delivery unilaterally , bilaterally, multtilaterally. Ideally it will be realistic to imagine that no single world order for cooperation will prevail.