[Sustainability is]
growth based on forms and processes of development that do not undermine the
integrity of the environment on which they depend –
Jim MacNeill,
Former Secretary General of
the World Commission on Environment and Development
I did a post on sustainability. It was
the last but one post of my blog. In the post I was loud on the fact that we
are in the era of sustainability. Thereafter, I have come upon several writings
saying things to the effect that sustainability is not the current trend in
environmentalism! I then started asking myself that if sustainability is not
the in thing, what then is? Some are even blunt enough to say sustainability is
dead! This post intends finding out the true status of sustainability in the
crucial space of environmentalism.
One concept, regenerative concept is
the idea positing to take the place of sustainability. Is sustainability not being proffered as the
frontier for redemption of planet Earth, for that matter the natural
environment from cosmocide? Yet there is
an emergent concept, the regenerative concept being proffered as a superior
concept! A superiority over sustainability. A concept to supplant and replace
sustainability?
Let us take a step forward by sizing
up the concepts.
Through the link https://www.britannica.com/science/sustainability
Professor James Meadowcroft (Canadian Research Chair in Governance for
Sustainable Development, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton
University) in an article defines sustainability as follows:
Sustainability, the
long-term viability of a community,
set of social institutions, or societal practice. In general, sustainability is
understood as a form of intergenerational
ethics in which the environmental and economic actions taken by
present persons do not diminish the opportunities of future persons to enjoy
similar levels of wealth, utility, or welfare.
Through the same link, for that matter
the same article, I dare give the driving reason for the idea of sustainability
to buttress the definition. The reason is as follows:
The idea of sustainability rose to
prominence with the modern environmental movement,
which rebuked the unsustainable character of contemporary societies where
patterns of resource use, growth, and consumption threatened
the integrity of ecosystems and
the well-being of future generations. Sustainability is presented as an alternative to
short-term, myopic, and wasteful behaviours.
Next comes the definition of
regenerative economy.
Comparing sustainability to the regenerative concept, Mackenzie Riley in an article titled “Is Sustainability Dead?” says ( https://planethome.eco/is-sustainability-dead/ ):
Working towards a more sustainable
lifestyle is very popular right now, but is it enough? Sustainability has
historically been the goal of eco-friendly movements, but now there is a
newfound effort on the need for regenerative efforts. Regenerative programs are
more aggressive than sustainable programs, sustainability by definition means
to maintain the current state of the environment, whereas regenerative programs
aim to restore the environment to its former state.
In the next section we should look at the pattern of sustainability in its phases to find out whether the sustainability concept and regenerative concept are two entirely different concepts, with the regenerative concept replacing the sustainability concept, or the regenerative concept is a phase of the general sustainability concept?
PHASES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Under this section a perspective of
the issue is given making sustainability one whole concept and practice with
evolving phases! With regenerative idea as one of the phases of sustainability!
With that in mind this section presents sustainability as having 3 phases. The
regenerative idea is not presented as phasing out the sustainability idea. It
presents the three phases of sustainability as building blocks, preceding
phases serving as foundations for successive ones. The 3 phases of
sustainability are:
CONVENTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY
CONTEMPORARY SUSTAINABILITY
REGENERATIVE SUSTAINABILITY
Before I analyze the three phases of
sustainability I should give a preface to soften the ground for the analysis. I
do this through https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5483/htm
in an article titled “Regenerative- The New Sustainable?” and authored by Leah
V. Gibbons:
Sustainability, as a science,
practice, and movement, has made significant intellectual progress beyond
unfettered environmental destruction for the sake of economic growth. The field
has expanded and adapted over time as more voices have contributed to theory
and practice. To date, however, the sustainability field largely has not
succeeded in shifting social–ecological system trajectories toward
sustainability [1].
Environmental and social degradation continue at increasing rates to the extent
that “we are in a state of planetary emergency” [2,3]. A focus on meeting minimally acceptable levels of human
wellbeing within negotiated environmental limits, incremental change, and
addressing symptoms rather than causes has effectively crippled the field from
achieving not only net-neutral states but the much loftier aims of thriving and
flourishing living systems [4,5,6].
On this current trajectory, it is questionable whether humanity can achieve
sustainability, with some authors advocating for discussions about
postsustainability scenarios [7,8,9].
At this time of urgent need to
transform destructive patterns of thinking and being into patterns that nourish
all life, a new, more holistic paradigm based on a fundamentally different
worldview for the sustainability field is in order [4,10]. There is a growing recognition that (1) human efforts
must be aligned with life’s principles, (2) the worldviews and paradigms at the
root of (un)sustainability need to be addressed directly, (3) sustainability’s
goals can and should transcend narrow anthropocentrically focused aims to
become more holistic, inspiring, ambitious, and motivational [1,10,11,12,13].
Regenerative sustainability could provide the necessary worldview, paradigm,
focus, aims, and processes for transformational change in the sustainability
field and in society.
The foregoing gives you the need for progression into regenerative sustainability as a phase of the evolution of sustainability. For how that progression unfolds we should dilate on the three phases of sustainability outlined earlier, one by one. Dilation on all three phases is sourced from the link indicated earlier under this section.
CONVENTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY
Since the 17th century, the term
“sustainability” has been used to describe conserving environmental resources
for human benefit, popularly articulated in the Brundtland Report as meeting
current and future human needs within environmental limits [14,15]. This “conventional sustainability” recognizes that
unfettered use/destruction of environmental resources is detrimental for
continued human existence. In this conceptualization, the focus is
anthropocentric and largely on how to enable continued economic development
within a context of finite resources [4,15]. To do so, incremental change at shallow levels within
existing unsustainable systems is the goal [16,17,18].
The aims include efficiency, doing less harm and mitigating damage to the
environment, minimally acceptable levels of human wellbeing, managing nature
and people, economic growth, and developing and implementing technological
advances [4].
The descriptive–analytical approach to research dominates, as does a belief
that almost everything is knowable [4,19,20].
A mechanistic, reductionistic worldview that sees humans and the rest of life
as separate, with environmental resources in service of human consumption,
underlies conventional sustainability. Examples of conventional sustainability
in action include best management practices, more efficient technology, green
building, economically driven environmental regulations, and economic
incentives [4,21].
While conventional sustainability moved us beyond unfettered destruction of the environment, it has been criticized for being too unspecific in its definition, unambitious in its aims, and not including necessary components for sustainability [4,6,13,21,22]. Indeed, conventional sustainability can actually undermine sustainability efforts by creating the illusion that beneficial change has occurred when, in fact, none has or the change has actually been harmful (e.g., the efficiency paradox, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification resulting in larger buildings that consume more energy, continued increase that is near or surpasses planetary limits and tipping points) [3,23].
CONTEMPORARY SUSTAINABILITY
“Contemporary sustainability” has
developed largely since 1999, with the birth of sustainability science—the
science of sustainable development—as an academic discipline [24].
Contemporary sustainability advances conventional sustainability by adding
considerations of ecosystem viability, social justice, social–ecological and
social–ecological–technical systems, satisfying livelihoods, and normativity [19,25]. The focus is still anthropocentric, aiming for human
wellbeing now and in the future, within limits, through “solving” complex
“problems” that are value-laden, contested, and locally specific. Still
dominated by the descriptive–analytical mode of inquiry, contemporary
sustainability research also includes concepts of transition, transformation,
leverage points, process, transdisciplinarity, multiscale-coupled human–nature
systems, ecosystem services, and use-inspired knowledge generation [20,24,25,26,27,28,29,30].
Concepts of tradeoffs, resilience, risk and vulnerability, trajectories,
reducing harm, and equity dominate [28,31].
Contemporary sustainability is an
improvement upon conventional sustainability, yet it is still primarily
anthropocentrically focused and an outgrowth of a mechanistic worldview. While
it better incorporates ecological concepts such as complex adaptive systems [32],
it still tends to work with fragmented parts of systems rather than whole
complex systems—working transdisciplinarily and integrating disciplines have
proven to be challenging [10].
Contemporary sustainability mostly focuses on symptoms rather than causes of
unsustainability—in other words, shallow leverage points in systems, such as
technological, policy, and economic changes—and supports the continued
existence of unsustainable systems and thought patterns (e.g., continued
economic growth, managing environmental resources for human consumption,
efficiency) [4,10,14,33,34].
In practice and even academia, contemporary sustainability still gets caught in
traps of greenwashing, efficiency, relying on technological improvements, and
unintentionally fostering greater unsustainability [4,23,35].
Examples of contemporary sustainability praxis include sustainable development
goals, ecodistricts, and STAR (Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating)
Communities [36,37,38].
While some scholars argue that
contemporary sustainability science is nearing maturity, shifting from
quantitative growth to qualitative development [26],
others critique it, and sustainable development, as a paradigm in crisis, is
failing to achieve its aims and potentially on a pathway toward collapse [10,39,40].
Despite the growth of sustainability in practice and as a scientific field,
unsustainability is increasing at shocking and disastrous rates on a global
scale and many local scales [2,3,10,33].
An inability to move beyond a foundation in a mechanistic worldview and
reductionistic paradigm perpetuates problematic issues of fragmentation and
tradeoffs, a focus on shallow and weak leverage points, and a reliance on
technological fixes and efficiency, which render the sustainability field
unable to shift societal trajectories to ones that support not only
sustainability but loftier aims, such as the flourishing of all life [4,10,33,39,40].
Several sustainability scholars and practitioners assert that it is time for
the field to adopt a holistic worldview and paradigm that integrates and
synergizes all aspects of sustainability if we are ever to achieve it [4,10,11,13,33].
REGENERATIVE SUSTAINABILITY
“Regenerative sustainability” has been
called the next wave of sustainability [41,42],
and it represents a necessary worldview and paradigm shift for sustainability [4,10,18].
It includes and transcends conventional and contemporary sustainability,
adopting a holistic worldview (Figure
1) [34,43]. A holistic worldview, rather than being fixed, fosters
the ability to integrate and transcend paradigms, which is the deepest leverage
point in systems and, thus, absolutely necessary for sustainability [4,18,44,45].
Regenerative sustainability sees humans and the rest of life as one autopoietic
system in which developmental change processes manifest the unique essence and
potential of each place or community. Regenerative sustainability’s
aspirational aim is to manifest thriving and flourishing living systems (i.e.,
complex adaptive systems) in the fully integrated individual-to-global system.
It calls for humans to live in conscious alignment with living systems
principles of wholeness, change, and relationship, as nature does [4].
The belief that this is possible and a logical, necessary, and desirable aim is
based on recent scientific understandings in ecology, quantum physics, systems
theory, developmental change theory, psychology, neuroscience, design,
planning, and sustainability, as well as more ancient ways of knowing and being
in the world (i.e., indigenous knowledge and practices, eastern spiritual
traditions, and philosophies) [4,34].
Critically, regenerative
sustainability focuses on transforming the worldviews, paradigms, and thinking
underlying the manifested reality and, thus, (un)sustainability. The
inhabitants of a place or community, as well as the stakeholders who cocreate
it, ultimately determine whether it is (un)sustainable or (not)thriving. Places
are not static but are constantly changing. Developing capacities in the human
and more-than-human components of communities to change in ways that
continually manifest higher levels of health and wellbeing (i.e., manifested
potential) and thus regenerate, rather than degenerate, is necessary for
thrivability [17,46].
These capacities include adaptation, self-organization, and evolution, as well
as making decisions about infrastructure, land use, governance, food systems,
cultural practices, and lifestyles that support whole-system health [47].
The thinking underlying these decisions must shift for the rest of the system’s
properties to shift towards thrivability [4,16,18].
Thus, instead of seeing “problems” and “solutions” in the world, regenerative
sustainability sees living systems as existing in transitory states along a
continuum of health and complexity.
Regenerative sustainability also
considers how contexts and environments influence worldviews, paradigms, and
behaviors. In other words, it intentionally addresses and integrates both the
inner and outer dimensions necessary for transformational change toward
thriving living systems and their relationships (see Section
2.4—inner sustainability, outer sustainability), while
conventional and contemporary sustainability fall short [1,4,34].
It might seem more difficult to implement than conventional and contemporary
sustainability due to its aspirational aims, which focus on shifting worldviews
and paradigms and the holistic living systems approach, yet it is the only
approach thus far to integrate these necessary aspects of sustainability [1,11,16,21].
Additionally, recent scientific research and decades of regenerative
sustainability practitioner data suggest that regenerative approaches are
inherently more inspiring and motivational than conventional or contemporary
approaches and that they are effective at achieving their aims [7,13,48,49,50,51,52].
Regenerative sustainability has been operationalized in practices such as
regenerative development, regenerative community development, and several
regenerative design technologies.
The foregoing, in a way, show and place sustainability in three phases. A first, second and currently the third phase (regenerative sustainability). The second phase was an improvement on the first phase, and the current third phase is an improvement on the second phase. The first two phases were subjected to a SWOT analysis. SWOT is an acronym for strength, weakness, opportunity and threat. SWOT analysis on phase one spawned phase two. SWOT analysis on phase two spawned the current phase three. The main weakness in the first and second phases was selfish anthropocentricity. This weakness created a threat to the balance and wellbeing of the natural environment. Man was seen to be exploiting the other constituents in the natural environment, even though they (other constituents) are the very constituents sustaining their (man) lives. In coming up with the third and current phase, all the defects in the first two phases were factored in. The result is a holistic, all-encompassing and all-inclusive third phase. It remains to be seen how the third and current phase (regenerative sustainability), as a concept, approach and practice is going to pan out as envisaged.
AT THE HEART OF REGENERATIVE SUSTAINABILITY
At the heart of regenerative
sustainability is the integration of the inner and outer dimensions needed for
transformational change resulting in thriving living systems and their
relationships. These inner and outer dimensions are technically termed inner
sustainability and outer sustainability respectively. Through the link https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5483/htm
we are enlighten on the terms inner sustainability and outer sustainability as
follows:
There is a growing awareness in the
sustainability field that addressing inner realms—i.e., inner sustainability—is
essential for any kind of lasting change in the outer realms—i.e., outer
sustainability. Inner sustainability refers to aspects of existence that are
unobservable—worldviews, paradigms and the ability to transcend them, beliefs,
values, thoughts, emotions, desires, identities, and spirituality. Outer
sustainability includes the observable aspects of existence that arise from
inner aspects—policies, governance structures, economic markets, the built
environment, and ecosystems (i.e., coupled human–environment systems) [1,16,53].
Several scholars, practitioners, and activists agree that the fundamental
reason sustainability efforts have failed to produce systemic change is that
the inner dimensions of sustainability are largely ignored [1,4,11,16,54,55].
Moreover, sustainability efforts may be subverted by a myopic focus on outer
dimensions [1,16,53].
Inner dimensions of existence are the
root of (un)sustainability—the outer reflects the inner [1,16,34,53,56,57,58,59].
The inner aspects of sustainability correspond to the deepest leverage points
in systems, the aspects that must change for lasting transformational change in
the entire system to occur [18].
While the influence of environments/context on thinking, values, and behaviors
can be quite powerful [22,60],
influence and causation are stronger and more persistent in the inner-to-outer
dynamic [61].
Ultimately, an integration of these two realms, consciously developing inner
realms to manifest desired outer realms and vice-versa, is necessary for
sustainability [1,11,22,53,59].
Individual, as well as collective
expressions of inner sustainability, must be cultivated [59].
At the individual level, experiences and actions such as compassion, empathy, gratitude,
deep care and understanding, love, generosity, altruism, service, unity
consciousness, creativity, reflexivity, and ability to shift paradigms are
critical for sustainability [1,16,53,60,62].
Individual inner sustainability may be assessed via empirical observation of
behaviors coupled with other social science methods, such as surveys,
questionnaires, interviews, and participant observation [11,44]. At the collective level, inclusivity, diversity,
reflexivity, process-orientation, social care, and care for nature and the like
are important [44,63]. Collective inner sustainability may be manifested as
outer sustainability and thus assessed in forms such as deeply participatory
processes and governance; social services; nature-based and/or socially-focused
rituals, ceremonies, and celebrations; sustainable education;
consciousness-based practices; policies supporting the sovereignty of
communities, nature, and diversity. These experiences, actions, and
manifestations emerge from and reinforce a holistic worldview and paradigm that
sees all of existence as interbeing, as part of an interconnected whole [11,44].
[1,16,53].
Several scholars, practitioners, and activists agree that the fundamental
reason sustainability efforts have failed to produce systemic change is that
the inner dimensions of sustainability are largely ignored [1,4,11,16,54,55].
Moreover, sustainability efforts may be subverted by a myopic focus on outer
dimensions [1,16,53].
Inner dimensions of existence are the
root of (un)sustainability—the outer reflects the inner [1,16,34,53,56,57,58,59].
The inner aspects of sustainability correspond to the deepest leverage points
in systems, the aspects that must change for lasting transformational change in
the entire system to occur [18].
While the influence of environments/context on thinking, values, and behaviors
can be quite powerful [22,60],
influence and causation are stronger and more persistent in the inner-to-outer
dynamic [61].
Ultimately, an integration of these two realms, consciously developing inner
realms to manifest desired outer realms and vice-versa, is necessary for
sustainability [1,11,22,53,59].
Individual, as well as collective
expressions of inner sustainability, must be cultivated [59].
At the individual level, experiences and actions such as compassion, empathy,
gratitude, deep care and understanding, love, generosity, altruism, service,
unity consciousness, creativity, reflexivity, and ability to shift paradigms
are critical for sustainability [1,16,53,60,62].
Individual inner sustainability may be assessed via empirical observation of
behaviors coupled with other social science methods, such as surveys,
questionnaires, interviews, and participant observation [11,44]. At the collective level, inclusivity, diversity,
reflexivity, process-orientation, social care, and care for nature and the like
are important [44,63]. Collective inner sustainability may be manifested as
outer sustainability and thus assessed in forms such as deeply participatory
processes and governance; social services; nature-based and/or socially-focused
rituals, ceremonies, and celebrations; sustainable education;
consciousness-based practices; policies supporting the sovereignty of
communities, nature, and diversity. These experiences, actions, and
manifestations emerge from and reinforce a holistic worldview and paradigm that
sees all of existence as interbeing, as part of an interconnected whole [11,44].
The foregoing quotation tells us that
it is still a man’s world- good or bad! The wellbeing of the natural
environment as a whole hinges on man! The quotation says: Inner sustainability
refers to aspects of existence that are unobservable—worldviews, paradigms and
the ability to transcend them, beliefs, values, thoughts, emotions, desires,
identities, and spirituality. Outer sustainability includes the observable
aspects of existence that arise from inner aspects—policies, governance
structures, economic markets, the built environment, and ecosystems (i.e.,
coupled human–environment systems)
What inner sustainability refers to here are attributes of man! And these attributes of man are inextricably linked to the natural environment (outer sustainability), a reflection of inner sustainability. Take the Empire State Building in New York for example. That building materialized out of thought- thought of man. It was then designed by man, and materials like steel and marbles extracted from the natural environment and assembled to build it. No other being in the natural environment has ever done it on this magnitude. This example implies a supremacy of man among beings in the natural environment! The state of the natural environment as it is now can therefore be said to be a reflection of the state of mind of man, and thereby illustrating the inner sustainability and outer sustainability equation.
REGENERATIVE SUSTAINABILITY NOT NEW
At least as a principle it is not new.
Again through https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5483/htm
an explanation is given thus:
While the concept of regenerative
sustainability has been articulated relatively recently [4],
its principles have been applied in contemporary culture for over 60 years in
practices such as regenerative development [13],
ecological and regenerative design [64,65],
ecological planning [66],
regenerative agriculture [67],
regenerative capitalism [68],
and community development [11,69,70].
These fields offer insight into what is possible when a holistic worldview and
paradigm are adopted, as well as opportunities to expand and evolve existing
practices that are, in some cases, well-developed.
To my mind what regenerative
sustainability seeks to do is to, as it were, use regenerative practices as
they are, in their patches, as pilot projects and launch pads to spread
regenerative sustainability globally.
Two examples of body corporates
engaged in regenerative practices are given below, and they are provided
through the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_design:
Founded in 2013 by global
sustainability leader and green design pioneer Jason
F. McLennan, McLennan Design is a world
leader in net zero energy, multi-disciplinary, regenerative design practices,
focused on deep green outcomes in the fields of architecture, planning,
consulting, and product design. They use an ecological perspective to drive
design creativity and innovation.
McLennan Design is an architecture
firm solely dedicated to its practice to the creation of Living Buildings,
net-zero, and regenerative projects all over the world. Their architecture and
consulting work allows us to affect change across multiple industries, guiding
leading institutions and corporations around the globe to rethink their impact
on the environment and the world around them. McLennan has stated,
“Regenerative Design is a philosophical approach to design whereby we look to
enhance the conditions for all of life - both people and other species. We want
the net result of our design work to be greater ecological, social and cultural
health.”
Perkins+Will is a
global architecture and design firm with a strong focus on sustainability - by
September 2012 the firm had completed over 150 LEED-certified projects.[24] It
was at the 2008 Healthcare Center for Excellence meeting in Vancouver, British
Columbia that the decision was made to develop a regenerative design framework
in an effort to generate broader conversation and inspirational ideas.[25] Later
that year, a regenerative design framework that could be used by all market
sectors including healthcare, education, commercial and residential was
developed by Perkins+Will in conjunction with the University of British
Columbia. The framework had four primary objectives:[25]
- to initiate a different and expanded dialogue between the
design team members and with the client and users, moving beyond the
immediate building and site boundaries
- to emphasize the opportunities of developed sites and
buildings to relate to, maintain, and enhance the health of the ecological
and human systems in the place in which they are situated
- to highlight the ecological and human benefits that accrue
from regenerative approaches
- to facilitate the broader integration of allied design
professionals - urban planners, landscape architects and engineers,
together with other disciplines (ecologists, botanists, hydrologists,
etc.) typically not involved in buildings - in an interdisciplinary design
process
That is a critical question, is it
not? But then what are the SDGs? According to the United Nations Development
Program “The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global
Goals, were adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015 as a universal
call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people
enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030.
The 17 SDGs are integrated—that
is, they recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others, and
that development must balance social, economic and environmental
sustainability.” (https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html#:~:text=The%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20(SDGs),%20also%20known%20as,all%20people%20enjoy%20peace%20and%20prosperity%20by%202030.)
But the SDGs are not underpinned and
actuated by the regenerative principles! The regenerative principles gaining currency
of superiority. These issues dovetail into the first question posed at the
beginning this section. The simple answer is that regenerative philosophy must
be applied to the United Nations’ SDGs to enhance actuation and effect, and
thereby possibly replace them! Indeed some people are talking about a shift
from sustainable development goals to regenerative development goals! The link https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5483/htm
broaches the idea in the following:
Development goals can support
manifesting regenerative sustainability by being more holistic, growing
self-organizing capacities in living systems across scales, integrating inner
and outer sustainability, and offering a more inspiring aim of thriving
communities. This entails a shift from sustainable development goals (SDGs) to
regenerative development goals (RDGs). While SDGs offer targets, aims, and
guidelines for contemporary sustainability, they do not support holistic
thriving living systems. Additionally, they have been difficult to integrate
synergistically, creating tradeoffs that move communities farther away from
sustainability [39,40]. RDGs, on the other hand, integratively and
synergistically guide human thinking and action to more fully align with life’s
principles and to manifest thriving communities from the scale of individuals
to the entire earth system [11,47]. Life’s principles include wholeness, change,
relationship, self-organization, emergence, and more (see Table
1 “Regenerative Development Principles” and “Core
Characteristics of Regenerative Living Systems”)
Unlike SDGs, RDGs include process,
which is equally or even more important than products or outcomes [1,11,62].
It is the process of deeply and cocreatively engaging with a place in an
ongoing and reflexive way that develops inner and outer sustainability.
Regenerative processes develop an understanding in the inhabitants of a place
of how a community can or does function regeneratively and the holistic
thinking and worldview necessary to manifest thriving communities in
perpetuity. Furthermore, development processes are inclusive, diverse,
collaborative, and iterative, thus enabling regeneration. Inner sustainability,
then, supports outer sustainability, which includes physical and social
structures and organization, and an ontological feedback loop supporting
thriving living systems is created [1,11,46,62].
SDGs need not be abandoned altogether.
They may be part of an integrated regenerative development process. As RDGs are
developed and implemented, sustainability and SDGs could provide important
intermediate steps to help systems shift from degenerative and unsustainable to
regenerative and thriving. To do so, it is crucial to integrate and synergize
SDGs to increase their beneficial systemic outcomes. In many instances, moving
toward some SDGs results in moving away from others, with unintentional
tradeoffs created [39].
By working toward a synergistic achievement of SDGs within the context of
transitioning to RDGs, more progress toward cocreating thriving living systems
may be made. It will be imperative to critically reflect on which SDGs may
actually move systems farther away from regeneration and alter them to support
regenerative transitions. For example, rather than aiming for economic growth
(SDG 8), which can actually result in tradeoffs with other SDGs (e.g., SDG
6—Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG 14—Life Below Water, and SDG 15—Life on
Land), aiming to develop financial and other (e.g., food, materials,
information) flows that support meaningful and purposeful contributions to
family, community, society, and self, while at the same time improving
ecosystems, would be a more appropriate goal.
The foregoing quotation shows the comparative advantage of regenerative development goals over sustainable development goals. It tells us that there must be transition from sustainable development goals to regenerative development goals. The regenerative concept sees planet Earth, for that matter the natural environment as one unit. The regenerative concept recognizes the micro and macro constituents of the natural environment, biotic and abiotic, and their interactions and interdependence of necessity, to achieve and sustain a delicate balance of an integrated whole.
CONCLUSION
Sustainability, in the sense of
environmentalism, its varied forms of definition derived substantially from the
1987 Brundtland Commission’s Report (Brundtland Report) definition of
sustainable development which says: The term sustainable development was coined
in the paper Our Common Future, released by the Brundtland
Commission. Sustainable development is the kind of development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. The two key concepts of sustainable development are: •
the concept of "needs" in particular the essential needs of the
world's poorest people, to which they should be given overriding priority; and
• the idea of limitations which is imposed by the state of technology and
social organization on the environment's ability to meet both present and
future needs.[7]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brundtland_Commission)
What I gather from the foregoing is
the need for humans to use the natural resources of the natural environment to
the satisfaction of all humans who inhabit the natural environment at any time,
with any human not wanting for a need. The
concern of the current generation is the rate at which resources of the natural
environment are consumed, posterity may not get anything to live off. Hence
generation of sustainability ideas.
Now there is a school of thought
saying sustainability is dead. They say the concept of sustainability must be
replaced with a supposed new concept called the regenerative concept.
But in this post I have tried to show
that the regenerative concept is in itself a sustainability concept! A phase of
the sustainability concept. The current phase of the three-phased
sustainability concept. The first two
phases of the sustainability concept placing undue emphasis on man. The current
and third phase or regenerative sustainability is all-encompassing and
all-inclusive, integrative and holistic, filling gaps found in the first and
second phases.
So sustainability is not dead as some think, sustainability is evolving! In evolving it is improving. The phases improving upon themselves. As shown in this post previous phases were subjected to SWOT analysis, as it were, to generate superior phases in man’s onward march to meet man’s goal of maintaining a natural environment that should generate enough resources to meet the needs of all mankind that will ever inhabit planet Earth, and indeed, in the regenerative spirit, also the needs of all other constituents. As to whether that will be achieved in reality is a matter of time.
Ref.
https://thesustainabilitycooperative.net/2013/11/08/15-great-quotes-about-sustainability-and-the-environment/#:~:text=%2015%20Great%20Quotes%20about%20Sustainability%20and%20the,it%20on?%20%E2%80%93%20Henry%20David%20Thoreau%20More
Comments
Post a Comment