WHY REGENERATIVE SUSTAINABILITY?

In my last post, in trying to find out whether sustainability is dead, as a view held by some, I came up with facts that sustainability is not dead but it has rather evolved in phases. Another perspective one can look at it from is that sustainability has three patterns as of now. The three patterns I have christen phases because the patterns have been arranged chronologically, subsequent patterns building upon previous ones. The three patterns are conventional sustainability, contemporary sustainability and regenerative sustainability.

The purpose of this post lies in the title of the post as above. This post is out to find why sustainability science has come up with regenerative sustainability as the third and current, perhaps the ultimate phase of sustainability. The development of sustainability in terms of concept, approach and practice presupposes phases and evolution. Development comes in stages and progression. This post should take the first and second phases of sustainability, analyze them and find the shortfalls and deficiencies in them which became the rallying points of improvements, resulting in the generation of regenerative sustainability.

To know the why of regenerative sustainability we must first know what regenerative sustainability is. What then is regenerative sustainability? I source the answer from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5483/htm thus:

“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].

CONVENTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY

Again, from the link https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5483/htm I give a review of conventional sustainability in the comparative analysis process:

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].

A review of contemporary sustainability comes next.

CONTEMPORARY SUSTAINABILITY

A review of contemporary sustainability is sourced, yet again through https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5483/htm as follows:

“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].

MATERIALS FOR THE GENERATION OF REGENERATIVE SUSTAINABILITY

Review of conventional sustainability paradigm and contemporary sustainability paradigm resulted in the creation of materials for the generation of regenerative sustainability paradigm. The materials for the generation of regenerative sustainability paradigm are both the deficiencies and positives resulting from the practice of conventional sustainability paradigm and contemporary sustainability paradigm. Contemporary sustainability being an improvement on conventional sustainability, and regenerative sustainability an improvement on contemporary sustainability.

The overall deficiency in sustainability pattern (conventional and contemporary) which has been identified by several sustainability scholars and practitioners as indicated in the last sentence of the preceding section is the lack of “a holistic worldview and paradigm that integrates and synergizes all aspects of sustainability”. That being a gap regenerative sustainability is purposed to plug.

When it comes to specifics some of the deficiencies are as follows:

The patterns are anthropocentric (patterns designed to benefit mainly man).

Increase in unsustainability at shocking and disastrous rates in spite of growth of sustainability in practice and as a scientific field.

Inability to move beyond a foundation in a mechanistic worldview and reductionistic paradigm

Focus on symptoms of unsustainability rather than causes of unsustainability

Unintentionally fostering greater unsustainability

Insufficient attention to inner sustainability

The positive sides of conventional sustainability and contemporary sustainability:

Conventional sustainability took man beyond unfettered destruction of the natural environment

Contemporary sustainability improved upon conventional sustainability by adding considerations like ecosystem viability, social justice etc.

With contemporary sustainability came sustainability science as an academic discipline

In coming up with the regenerative sustainability pattern the foregoing elements took center stage. The positive points of conventional sustainability pattern and contemporary sustainability pattern were retained and the gaps in them plugged. A philosophy behind the regenerative sustainability pattern formulation was an all-encompassing and all-inclusive approach. All-encompassing and all-inclusive means both the biotic and abiotic constituents of the natural environment equally mattered, and were factored into the formulation of the regenerative sustainability pattern as such.  

 

CRITICALITY OF INNER SUSTAINABILITY

The core hiatus in the sustainability system is the insufficient attention and importance given to inner sustainability. Again quoting through https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5483/htm for an explanation is the following:

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].

Human attributes like compassion, empathy, gratitude, deep care and understanding, love, generosity, altruism, service, unity consciousness, creativity etc. mentioned here as critical to attain sustainability, which has been elusive so far, at least to the extent envisaged. These attributes can only, and must spring from the heart and minds of humanity in required quantities. Is the cultivation of these attributes in humanity not in the realm of religion? Religion which has been around all along? Has religion then failed us? These human attributes, are attributes upheld by many a major religion of this world. These attributes are upheld by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam etc. These are religions that have driven, directed and influenced civilizations of this world! But consider this: when religion ruled the world things were not this bad. However, in the age of science and scientific innovations humanity find themselves in such a mess! Could these observations be correlated?

CONCLUSION 

The heading as is obvious is a question. The question is “Why Regenerative Sustainability?” The state of the natural environment has been giving cause for concern. The natural environment is deteriorating. The state of the natural environment is losing its property of inhabitability. Species have been lost, and are being lost. A species lost is an imbalance caused! Can the balance lost as such, be restored, ever? As an intervention of reversal, stabilization and restoration, man as a constituent of the natural environment, and the most instrumental in the evolving deterioration of the natural environment, is time and again coming up with tools as such.

Sustainability is one such tool man is using to bring about a repair in the deteriorating natural environment. There are three types of sustainability yet. The first two are conventional sustainability and contemporary sustainability. The first two tools after deployment over time did not give the desired results. In some instances they worked against the purpose for which they had been deployed! The second sustainability tool was generated as an improvement on the first sustainability tool. The second sustainability tool took the positive parts of first sustainability tool, conventional sustainability, and plug the gaps in it. The outcome is contemporary sustainability. Over time, in practice, it was detected that the contemporary sustainability itself bore deficiencies and inadequacies. Hence the need for a third sustainability tool, perhaps an ultimate tool. Regenerative sustainability therefore became the third, and one of the three sustainability tools.  

The main difference between the regenerative sustainability tool and the two other sustainability tools is that regenerative sustainability was conceived and designed to cover all angles of sustainability, whilst the first two sustainability tools were not engineered as such. Another difference is that in regenerative sustainability man was taken as an integral part of the natural environment, not to exploit it to their selfish benefit. In the first two sustainability tools man was selfishly centrally placed. Regenerative sustainability as a principle is nothing new. It is being practiced in patches around the world. But this regenerative sustainability as the third of the three sustainability tools, is different in that it is giving sustainability a global scale in approach and practice.    

 

 

Ref.:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=images+of+sustainability+of+the+earth&qpvt=images+of+sustainability+of+the+earth&form=IQFRML&first=1&tsc=ImageBasicHover