Chapter 3. Defining a Safe and Just Space or Humanity.

[Ted]

Discussion of "Defining a Safe and Just Space for Humanity"

[Ted]

This chapter starts out by building on the Planetary Boundaries of chapter 2, and adding a "social foundation", depicted together in Fig. 3-1.

What do you think of the concept of this social foundation? How important do you think something like this is in defining sustainability?

Can you think of examples of "sustainable" practices or products which appear to ignore this?

[Erica]

I am not sure that I really know enough about sustainability, yet, to answer Ted's questions, but I did think this chapter was idealistic. There is nothing wrong with being idealistic, but if Americans cannot agree that inequality is bad in America, it seems far-fetched to think that Americans (and possibly individuals from other rich nations, I don't know) would think that inequality among all of the planet's population is bad. In fact, as a group, Americans believe the U.S. spends much more on foreign aid than it does and it is the one budget area that a majority of Americans believe should be cut.

I think it makes sense to collect metrics aside from GDP, but I do not think changing the "economist's mandate" will get us anywhere near where the author wants us to go. She acknowledges that "we need breakthroughs in understanding consumer psychology, in promoting empathy and long-term decisionmaking, and in governing for collective interests" (35), but I actually think these things will be MUCH harder than changing how economists think. I do not think that "economics is the dominant language and currency of policymaking"; votes are the currency of policymaking and politics. And politicians will choose to use whatever data and metrics are convenient to make their point. So, just because economists begin to report on new metrics, that does not mean that politicians will care about the metrics.

[Ted]

Erica wrote: "I am not sure that I really know enough about sustainability, yet, to answer Ted's questions, but I did think this chapter was idealistic. There is nothing wrong with being idealistic, but if Amer..."

No doubt the ideas being urged here can be thought of as "ideal" in a sense. But if that means they are totally unrealistic, I don't think I'd be willing to agree with that.

For example, I was interested and encouraged to read about the work already done in bringing new metrics into the public discussion. There are many footnotes pointing to U.N. papers, there is one (#13) referencing a World Bank paper (from the WAVES partnership http://www.wavespartnership.org/waves...)

Progress is being made. At the end of Box 3-1 the Genuine Progress Indicator which has been introduced in Maryland is mentioned. (http://www.green.maryland.gov/mdgpi/)

There is I believe a new generation of economists making inroads at all levels of the discipline. These ideas are bubbling up from below. And economics does rule the world. New economic thinking, metrics, and theories are needed, and many people are contributing to this.

The political problem that you mention is real. But here in the U.S. it is a problem at the national level. At state and local levels (depending of course on the state and the locale) again there are changes happening.

At any rate the Transition movement (as apart from the book we are reading) recognizes the Political problem and basically says "Right, well we'll ignore the politicians. They're part of the problem, but the people can get along without them. We have work to do."