How can we effectively modify the dangerous human striving for more and more?

In one of the last issues of Science (3 July, p.11), Thomas R. Pickering, in an Editorial mentioned, “ We can begin to think now on a larger scale – an opportunity not to be wasted.” and pointing to interrelationships “…that the issues of economic growth, development, and poverty be seen as linked with the key drivers of food, water, and health, just as climate change is now linked to the key drivers of energy and environment…” he suggested: “Because improvements in any one area depend on the other two, why not devote a summit at the UN General Assembly to the interlinked broad questions of food water and health ?”

Indeed a wonderful idea and first and foremost demonstrating, the world is not a collection of things but a system of interacting processes (dynamics in signaling networks!) So, focusing on natural sciences alone will never be enough, to solve the challenging questions for our planet’s future. There is a human-induced warming in addition to natural trends and cycles of natural climate change and of course, if there should be a solution at all, we have to mind social sciences as well.

Truism is: Economic growth cannot be unlimited and ecology shows the fatal consequences of the call for a never ending consumerism. Ongoing conceptions, initiated by the global financial crisis together with “Peak Oil” and climate crisis, like the “Green New Deal” together with an up-dated “green Keynesianism” are perhaps better than nothing but, basing on sole economic growth, they cannot be the solution.

Kohlmann

What is the best fit trajectory of development to balance economic growth, natural resource use and low carbon emission in the less developed and emerging economies of Africa, Asia, and Latin America?

To increase economic growth and reduce the number of the poor, the low income and emerging economies of Africa, Asia and Latin Ameria are going to strive more vigorously to achieve higher economic growth in the coming decade. This implies that they are going to explore every resources (importantly, natural resources)to do this. It is clear now, judging from current levels of knowledge on the state of the earth, these contries must not follow the development trajectory of todays’ developed nations, otherwise the planet earth (and all of us) will be in greater jeopardy in future. It is critically important now to ponder on what is the optimum developmenent trajectory that should be followed to balance sustainable use of natural resources, achieve low carbon economy, and record the levels of economic growth that can take majority of population out of poverty, in a win-win fashion. Specific country level (and local level)investigations using cross discipline methodologies may be required. It may also require radical spatial/land use re-organization which may be in conflict with existing social organization.

Can we envision the detailed functioning of a zero-growth economy?

If we remain on one planet, physical limits suggest that we will eventually need to establish a zero growth economy, even if cheap energy eventually becomes available, and especially if we are to curb our impact on natural environments. If this is so, there are many challenges – (i) in the social system in devising and accepting new criteria for quality of living; (ii) in the economic sphere in envisaging an economics based on zero growth (at least by today’s measures); but also (iii) in the biophysical domain in identifying how we could manage many cycles as closed, recycled systems. It would help if biophysical scientists began to apply serious attention at the global scale to how we could limit the growth of the nitrogen cycle and the redirection of the water cycle, yet still deliver food; as well as address a new order of magnitude of recycling of building materials, metals, and many other items in our day to day lives. The conceptual and practical changes will be substantial, so an integrated investigation of how they might be made needs to begin soon.

How can the perceived imperative in market-economies for continuous open-ended economic growth, be reconciled with the need from a natural science perspective for the collective human impact on the biophysical Earth system to be stabilized or decreased in order to sustain human well-being indefinitely?

The conflict between economic and natural science perspectives addressed by this question is the ultimate driver behind the biophysical Earth System issues that are of concern and have led to the emergence of the idea of Earth System Science. Over the coming decade we can confidently expect socio-economic aspects to become much more strongly expressed in Earth System models. The reason that we expect ESS to attract community support is that we think it will help formulation of relevant actions & policies to address the ES issues. Unless the conflict between the socio-economic drivers of national and international policy can be reconciled with biophysical (environmental) drivers of policy, solutions to earth system probems at the whole-system level are doomed to failure. It will take a long time for the two world views to become reconciled into a single workable approach. So the sooner ESS starts addressing the issue the better.