This post is an effort to present in an accessible way, the paradigm shift happening in our model of sustainability. The current paradigm mainly centers around the goal of achieving a steady state where humanity can reach homeostasis with the environment for an indefinite amount of time. The competing modern paradigm is based on a clearer theory of value from a more developed global ethics perspective and proposes instead a dynamic state where humanity should enter into a sustainable trajectory where the goal is its existential risk minimization.
The post is divided into 8 sections. In the first one, Introduction to paradigm shifts we will talk about the notion of what a paradigm entails, how it gets created and how paradigm shifts happen.
We would then have an overview of the history of sustainability, from its pre-paradigm phase up to its crisis state. These phase sections will go deeper into analyzing each of the phases in a paradigm shift according to Thomas S. Kuhn in relation to the sustainability paradigm.
We will finish with a conclusion of the current state of the paradigm shift happening in sustainability.
Introduction to paradigm shifts
Historical Overview of Sustainability
Phase 1 — The pre-paradigm phase
Phase 2 — Normal science and anomalies
Phase 3 — Crisis
Phase 4 — Paradigm shift
Phase 5 — Post-revolution
Conclusion
1. Introduction to paradigm shifts
The great science philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn in his magnus opus, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, expounded the way science progresses. Before Kuhn, there was a conception that science develops by the addition of new truths to the already existing truths, by theories that represent the truth more closely or by the correction of previous errors, Kuhn’s thesis said otherwise.
According to Kuhn progress in science begins with a pre-paradigm period involving an immature science. This period is characterized by a lack of consensus, where competing schools of thought possess differing procedures, theories and even metaphysical priors. This makes collective progress difficult. Even local progress is difficult since a lot of the mental energy is used for arguing over fundamentals. When one school makes a breakthrough which solves for the shared problems, consensus is formed around it. This consensus allows agreement over fundamentals, solutions to the previous puzzles and new puzzles that it poses. This constitutes a paradigm.
Once there is a dominant paradigm, the immature science becomes mature. A mature science progresses non-uniformly in 2 distinct and alternating phases, “normal” and “revolutionary/extraordinary”.
Normal science is characterized by going to the real world and doing experiments that test the theoretical solutions proposed by this paradigm. A period of rapid knowledge accumulation usually follows, where experiments and solutions are consistent with the paradigm. As new questions come up and experiments are no longer completely consistent with the paradigm, the paradigm begins to extend and become more complicated as it tries to integrate these new phenomena.
As normal science progresses, it will accumulate certain important anomalies or puzzles that are unsolvable. A crisis happens when there is a widespread loss of confidence due to a troublesome or multiple anomalies in the paradigm.
Revolutionary science begins as a response to this crisis, with a revision to the existing scientific belief, its practice and a search for a replacement paradigm. This stage is characterized by its exploratory nature, without the structures of the dominant paradigm scientists must produce new theories, thought and physical experiments to explain the anomalies. Kuhn describes this stage as:
“the proliferation of competing articulations, the willingness to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals” (Kuhn, 1962)
A new paradigm should solve the majority of these anomalies, alongside incorporating the majority of the previous puzzle solutions, otherwise there is little value in adopting it. It is important to note that not all the achievements of the previous paradigm are preserved, this is known as “Kuhn-loss”.
Eventually a new paradigm gains a following and is adopted, Kuhn calls this the paradigm shift.
Gestalt change
Because of the commitment to the old dominant paradigm and because paradigm shifts require a gestalt-like change, Kuhn insists that paradigms are difficult to change. In the famous words of Max Planck:
“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950)
Therefore a crisis period is to be expected where a revision to the current paradigm occurs and an expansion of scale gets incorporated in order to account for the anomalies that have surged during the “normal science” period. After this crisis we get a post-revolution period which involves the writing of textbooks based on the new institutionalized paradigm. This revolutionary process is concealed and science ends up looking cumulative, but science actually progresses through these paradigm shifts which are actually more like step-changes or new ways of looking at things.
1.1. Paradigm shifts beyond the natural sciences
How paradigm shifts will apply to sustainability
Although Kuhn focuses on paradigm shifts that happen in the natural sciences, paradigm shifts have expanded to explain how progress in the social sciences, religion or society in general can happen.
Sustainability has made an entry into the social sciences becoming sustainability science, but it is not normally regarded as a science.
In some sense we could settle on the position that sustainability is not a mature science and therefore a paradigm shift would not yet apply to it, but rather a pre-paradigm phase would be more appropriate.
On the other hand sustainability and its current model are the way to think of how to prioritize humanity’s actions and resource management. This happens from the global to individual scale. People take decisions from daily life to their life’s mission, to live in accordance with the current sustainability paradigm. It’s not only individuals, but universities, organizations, nations and the UN who embrace the current paradigm of sustainability to assess and prioritize their actions. Given this and the current state humanity finds itself in, a revision into the crisis sustainability faces is justified.
A distinction should be made between the two sustainability crises happening. The first one is the sustainability crisis the environment and life in general is facing. The second one is the crisis paradigm is facing.
A connection can be made that the first one is in part due to the failure of the paradigm to correctly account for the risks (anomalies), which in turn is what fuels the crisis related to the paradigm.
2. Historical Overview of Sustainability
Early — Mid 19th century
Concerns about the environmental and social impacts of industry were expressed by some Enlightenment political economists and through the Romantic movement of the 1800s. The Reverend Thomas Malthus, came up with catastrophic and much-criticised theories of “overpopulation”, while John Stuart Mill building on Adam Smith’s ideas foresaw the desirability of a “stationary state” economy, thus anticipating concerns of the modern discipline of ecological economics.
Late 19th century
Eugenius Warming was the first botanist to study physiological relations between plants and their environment, heralding the scientific discipline of ecology.
By the 20th century, the industrial revolution had led to an exponential increase in the human consumption of resources. The increase in health, wealth and population was perceived as a simple path of progress. However, in the 1930s economists began developing models of non-renewable resource management (see Hotelling’s rule) and the sustainability of welfare in an economy that uses non-renewable resources (Hartwick’s rule).
Ecology had now gained general acceptance as a scientific discipline, and many concepts vital to sustainability were being explored. These included: the interconnectedness of all living systems in a single living planetary system, the biosphere; the importance of natural cycles (of water, nutrients and other chemicals, materials, waste); and the passage of energy through trophic levels of living systems
Mid 20th century
Following the deprivations of the great depression and World War II the developed world entered a new period of escalating growth. A gathering environmental movement pointed out that there were environmental costs associated with the many material benefits that were now being enjoyed. Innovations in technology (including plastics, synthetic chemicals, nuclear energy) and the increasing use of fossil fuels, were transforming society. Modern industrial agriculture — the “Green Revolution” — was based on the development of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides which had devastating consequences for rural wildlife, as documented by American marine biologist, naturalist and environmentalist Rachel Carson in Silent Spring (1962)
In 1956, American geoscientist M. King Hubbert’speak oil theory predicted an inevitable peak of oil production, first in the United States (between 1965 and 1970), then in successive regions of the world — with a global peak expected thereafter. In the 1970s environmentalism’s concern with pollution, the population explosion, consumerism and the depletion of finite resources found expression in Small Is Beautiful, by British economist E. F. Schumacher in 1973, and The Limits to Growth published by the global think tank, The Club of Rome, in 1975.
Late 20th century
In 1987 the United Nation’sWorld Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), in its reportOur Common Future suggested that development was acceptable, but it must besustainable development that would meet the needs of the poor while not increasing environmental problems. Humanity’s demand on the planet has more than doubled over the past 45 years as a result of population growth and increasing individual consumption. In 1961 almost all countries in the world had more than enough capacity to meet their own demand; by 2005 the situation had changed radically with many countries able to meet their needs only by importing resources from other nations. A move toward sustainable living by increasing public awareness and adoption of recycling, and renewable energies emerged. The development of renewable sources of energy in the 1970s and ’80s, primarily in wind turbines and photovoltaics and increased use of hydroelectricity, presented some of the first sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear energy generation, the first large-scale solar and wind power plants appearing during the 1980s and ’90s.
3. Pre-paradigm period—Phase 1
Phase 1 — It exists only once and is the pre-paradigm phase, in which there is no consensus on any particular theory. This phase is characterized by several incompatible and incomplete theories. Consequently, most scientific inquiry takes the form of lengthy books, as there is no common body of facts that may be taken for granted. If the actors in the pre-paradigm community eventually gravitate to one of theseconceptual frameworks and ultimately to a widespread consensus on the appropriate choice ofmethods,terminology and on the kinds ofexperiment that are likely to contribute to increasedinsights.
A background on the origins of sustainability and the different schools of thought influencing it.
3.1. Malthusianism
In 1798 Thomas Robert Malthius wrote “An Essay on the Principle of Population” where he pointed out that population growing at a geometric rate and food production at an arithmetic rate would cause certain difficulties.
The following 8 major points where put forth by Malthus:
Subsistence severely limits population-level
When the means of subsistence increases, population increases
Population-pressures stimulate increases in productivity
Increases in productivity stimulate further population growth
Because productivity increases cannot maintain the potential rate of population growth, population growth requires strong checks to keep parity with the carrying-capacity
Individual cost/benefit decisions regarding sex, work and children determine the expansion or contraction of population and production
Checks will come into operation as population exceeds the subsistence level
The nature of these checks will have significant effect on the larger sociocultural system — Malthus points to misery, poverty and vice.
Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: The first, or preventive check to lower birth rates and The second, or positive check to permit higher mortality rates. This second check “represses an increase which is already begun” but by being “confined chiefly, though not perhaps solely, to the lowest orders of society”. The preventive checks could involve birth control, postponement of marriage, and celibacy while the positive checks could involve hunger, disease and war.
3.1.1 Malthus influence
Malthus influenced a lot of our current model of sustainability, it helped made availability of resources the focus of sustainability. In 1968, ecologist Garrett Hardin published an influential essay in Science that drew heavily from Malthusian theory. His famous essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” argued that “a finite world can support only a finite population” and that “freedom to breed will bring ruin to all.” After that the famous or sometimes now infamous Club of Rome published a famous book entitled The Limits to Growth in 1972 establishing supposedly clear limits to the growth of population, which we have since surpassed. Another influential figure, Paul R. Ehrlich who is a prominent neo-Malthusian raised concerns again in 1968 with the publication of The Population Bomb.
What seems to have been wrongly interpreted in general was the idea that there wasn’t a clear way to escape this Malthusian trap, but that since then we have clearly done so through technology. Where in simple terms technology has allowed us to increase the capacity to generate resources.
The concept of steady state economics first came into light with Adam Smith. He pointed out that as wealth was growing in any nation, the rate of profit would tend to fall and investment opportunities would diminish. In a nation that had thereby reached this ‘full complement of riches’, society would finally settle in a stationary state with a constant stock of people and capital.
After Adam Smith came John Stuart Mill (1803-1873) one of the first utilitarians, who building on Adam Smith’s ideas developed further the notion of a stationary state. According to Mill, the stationary state was at one and the same inevitable, necessary and desirable: It was inevitable, because the accumulation of capital would bring about a falling rate of profit that would diminish investment opportunities and hamper further accumulation; it was also necessary, because mankind had to learn how to reduce its size and its level of consumption within the boundaries set by nature and by employment opportunities; and finally, the stationary state was desirable, as it would ease the introduction of public income redistribution schemes, create more equality and put an end to man’s ruthless struggle to get by and instead, the human spirit would be liberated to the benefit of more elevated social and cultural activities, ‘the graces of life’.
When the influence of John Stuart Mill and his Principles declined in the late 19th century, the classical-liberalist period of economic theorizing came to an end. By the turn of the 19th century, Marxism and neoclassical economics had emerged to dominate economics. This development led to the exclusion of any concern with natural resource scarcity in economic modeling and analysis.
The assumption of Marxism was based on technological optimism, with the idea that communism would just overcome any resource scarcity it will encounter. Communism didn’t achieve that and by 1991 german sociologist Reiner Grundman said that “Orthodox Marxism has vanished from the scene, leftism has turned green, and Marxists have become ecologists.”
The third and more recent proponent of a steady state was Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-1994) who argued that all natural resources are irreversibly degraded when integrated into the economy, that the carrying capacity of the earth for sustaining life is bound to decrease in the future as earth’s finite stock of mineral resources are put to use, consequently civilization is headed for an inevitable collapse and ultimately humanity’s extinction. In essence he expanded Smith and Mill’s views to incorporate not only society and particular resources but the whole of humanity.
3.3. Sustainable development
The idea of sustainable development first came up in the idea of having sustainable forest management in Germany during the 17th and 18th century with the term Nachhaltigkeit, as a way of preserving them for future generations. This was inspired by John Evelyn who in his essay Silva said that “the sowing and planting of trees had to be regarded as a national duty of every landowner, in order to stop the destructive over-exploitation of natural resources.” From there this idea evolved into the science of forestry, with key figures adopting such as Alexander Von Humboldt.
From there it gained more popularity with Gifford Pinchot who was the first head of the U.S. Forest Service during the early 1900s and where it helped reformed the management, development and conservation of these. After this followed Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in 1962, Keneth E. Boulding with “The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth” in 1966, “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garret Hardin in 1968.
The direct link between sustainability and development comes from the german Ernst Basler who in his book “Strategy of Progress” where the previously held notion of preserving forests for future generations could be translated towards all other resources. This concept was later reinforced by the simulations performed by MIT commissioned by The Club of Rome and which was later published as “Limits to Growth” in 1972. Here they described a “desirable state of global equilibrium”. The following milestones were in 1980 where the International Union for Conservation of Nature introduced the term “sustainable development”. Then in 1987 where the UN’s “Brundtland Commission” gave a more formal definition, and finally in 1992 at the UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) with the “Rio Protocol” where the world finally “agreed” on a sustainability agenda “Agenda 21”, which later led to the “Kyoto Protocol” in 2012 to address carbon externalities with a market mechanism and the “Paris Agreement” where nations non-bindingly committed to a reduction in carbon emissions.
With all these previous context, a convergence towards a paradigm was emerged and it was time that “normal science” of sustainability came to be exercised.
4. Normal Science—Phase 2
Phase 2 — Normal science begins, in which puzzles are solved within the context of the dominant paradigm. As long as there is consensus within the discipline, normal science continues. Over time, progress in normal science may reveal anomalies, facts that are difficult to explain within the context of the existing paradigm. While usually these anomalies are resolved, in some cases they may accumulate to the point where normal science becomes difficult and where weaknesses in the old paradigm are revealed.
If the actors in the pre-paradigm community eventually gravitate to one of theseconceptual frameworks and ultimately to a widespread consensus on the appropriate choice ofmethods,terminology and on the kinds ofexperiment that are likely to contribute to increasedinsights, then Normal Science can begin.
We can see a buildup of gravitation towards a conceptual framework with Malthus as a starting point, then the works of Rachel Carson (Silent Spring), M. King Hubbert (peak oil theory), E.F. Schumacher (Small is Beautiful) and The Club of Rome (The Limits to Growth).
This pre-paradigm period converged with the UN’s Brundtland Commission report in 1987, which defined ‘sustainable development’ as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” We could say that normal science of sustainability began at this point.
This classical sustainability paradigm consists of the following components:
Conceptual framework:
UN’s definition of sustainable development
The idea and extrapolation of a looming Malthusian trap, given our current resources and population trajectories
The idea of steady-state economics where a stationary state is desirable and is one where we could stay indefinitely
Methods: Surveys, voluntary reporting, cap & trade, inequality, access to basic needs, lifecycle analysis, resource footprint (carbon, water, energy)
Terminology: Sustainable development, social responsibility, environmental responsibility, economic viability
We’ve had this paradigm for 35 years, experiments, policy and culture have been influenced by it. For 35 years we’ve lived in confusion as to what it is that should be sustained, how should we think and prioritize our actions. For 35 years we’ve mainly continued on a path that is unclear and in which we haven’t been able to converge on a project for humanity.
During this time the following anomalies inside this paradigm have arisen:
Our sustainability paradigm is unable to assess if an action is ultimately sustainable or not.
Example: Due to the short-term vision, vagueness and incompleteness, the sustainability model is unable to gather consensus around issues of population growth, technological development, technological adoption, growth, food, energy, resource spending,
Given Malthus influence in our current paradigm, most issues of population are not talked about in the open and people tend to refrain themselves of their opinion. Even worse people tend to turn pessimist and advocate for less population growth or even population reduction. We’ve proven Malthus wrong and still our current paradigm embraces his ideas. Our planet and solar system can sustain multiple orders of magnitude more humans.
Our sustainability paradigm didn’t account for a pandemic, even though a pandemic threatens the economy, the environment and society in a very significant way.
Our sustainability paradigm is not accounting for non anthropogenic risks such as an asteroid, a supervolcano, a solar flare, etc even though these could cause many times more damage to the environment than what we humans have done and will do in the medium-term. Alongside the environment it will also cause more damage to society than the worst scenario of social irresponsibility.
Our sustainability paradigm has multiple conflicts of interest due to its roots in the environmental and ecological movement between environment vs population, environment vs development, environment vs technology and environment vs growth. This has led to a paradigm which is ambiguous and vague by trying to to serve multiple interests. Without a clear, simple and strong foundation, train of thought and outlook to the future, it’s very difficult to have this paradigm enable any forcing function.
There cannot be sustainable development, all development by itself is not indefinitely sustainable, there’s no way around the 2nd law of thermodynamics, all resources will eventually break down.
The paradigm hasn’t incorporated the cosmic endowment we as humans have, which are all the possible matter and energy we could make use of before the end of the universe.
Another clear anomaly is the difficulty of making an argument, or making a decision. How can you make a decision or convince someone to do something when the science is unclear, are electric cars less sustainable than gas cars? Is it better to use paper or plastic bags? Should I plant a tree? Are cows bad? are humans bad? should I work, have a house, have kids? should I become a farmer? an organic farmer? a hippie? a nihilist? What should I think about technology? Is technology good? What should individuals do? What should governments do?
The current sustainability model when tested with these experiments in the wild is unable to answer these questions, it is incomplete and therefore has entered a state of crisis. Due to its nature of being something that encompasses humanity where we all should contribute or be aware of, a revision and shift is due.
5. Crisis—Phase 3
Phase 3 — If the paradigm proves chronically unable to account for anomalies, the community enters a crisis period. Crises are often resolved within the context of normal science. However, after significant efforts of normal science within a paradigm fail, science may enter the next phase.
The reason why a lot of paradigms experience a shift is that when tested in different scales of space-time they are no longer able to hold. They are not invariant to different scales of space and time. Such was the case with Newtonian physics, where if the scale was small enough it will break down as well as if the scale was big enough.
A similar case happens when we expose the current sustainability paradigm to a bigger scale of time and space. It is only when we expose the current paradigm to long term trajectories that humanity can take that it dawns on us why our current sustainability paradigm will not work. We know with very close to 100% probability that the Sun will expand and become 10% brighter every billion years till its eventual death in 5 billion years. Before the Earth gets swallowed by the Sun, in about 1 billion years our oceans would all evaporate and make life uninhabitable.
We also know that every x million years an asteroid hits the Earth with extinction potential.
Let’s examine the best trajectory scenario we could take given the current paradigm. The current paradigm is not accounting for any existential risks, as we have seen before its sole focus is preventing resource scarcity. If we were to continue millions of years with the current sustainability paradigm, where we have entered a homeostasis state with the Earth, we know with very close 100% probability that everything we know will cease to exist.
In that sense the current paradigm will only enable sustainability for humanity and possibly all life until there’s an extinction event. The urgency of a paradigm shift is not so much because of the non-anthropogenic induced risks or Earth’s seemingly inescapable fate millions of years into the future, but because of the risks we are inducing upon ourselves which will continue to grow in quantity and magnitude as we discover new technologies and we increase their development or proliferation.
We could also argue that an increase in scope of space and time is a normal progression of the conception of sustainability. As with a lot of models of the world we begin by observing and testing them in a small scale and progressively increase that scale. Historically the same has been true for sustainability where the concept began to emerge for local forests in Germany, then to resources for a whole island (England), then to conservation efforts (1960s), then to resources for the whole world (Limits to growth), then to resources for the whole world across some generations (Brundtland Commission) and now it should increase the scope of all risks, not only resource scarcity and climate, but all that we could conceive and involve humanity across time and space.
Extrapolating into the future:
If the current paradigm where to have its way, we would look towards resource consumption reduction, enter into a homeostasis state with the environment and then while ignoring all the other risks wait for an eventual existential catastrophe that wipes us out.
It is a crisis in the sense that the “actions” the proposed solutions of the model of sustainability are not making life on earth sustainable.
Even if we achieve all sustainable development goals of the UN.
We are still turning a blind eye on some of the most important risks that actually threaten life as we know it.
It won’t matter if we get to 2030 having achieved all these and then another pandemic, a nuclear holocaust, a superintelligence, an asteroid, a supervolcano or any of the other possible risks events happen. Life could be wiped out.
Sustainability has been focused on resources, with a flawed idea of an indefinite steady-state or declining-state economy that has taken first stage in the conversation, all the while ignoring all the other risks unrelated to resources. Given that the current model of sustainability only accounts for risks associated with resource scarcity without accounting for risks that threaten life and humanity a shift is under us and we should embrace it. We don’t need a limit on resources as a priority, as we’ve argued before it might be better to lift that limit and establish minimization of risk as a priority.
5. Paradigm Shift—Phase 4
Phase 4 — Paradigm shift, or scientific revolution, is the phase in which the underlying assumptions of the field are reexamined and a new paradigm is established.
Nick Bostrom’s paper “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority” (2013) establishes the most comprehensive and concise reexamination of the current paradigm and proposes a new paradigm. It might have been necessary for an outsider of the field and particularly a philosopher to be able to propose a new paradigm.
In essence first there’s a recognition that there are a number of risks that threaten our existence, these risks have to be minimized in order for humanity and life in general to be sustained across time and there’s a cosmic endowment, an amount of resources and energy that we as humanity will be able to harness given our known physics.
How we go about it is by a very simple framework where each risk is minimized by a balanced progress in technology, insight and coordination in regards to it.
Humanity must migrate from the idea of reaching a steady state and instead enter into a sustainable trajectory, where each risk is minimized by advances in technology, insight and coordination. Therefore we must shift the paradigm of sustainability from a steady state where we reach homeostasis for and indefinite manner and we’re only focused on resources and climate change, to one where we enter this dynamic trajectory across time and space and we focus on existential risks.
Surprisingly this paradigm can solve all the anomalies that the previous paradigm wasn’t able to solve. First it clearly establishes a scale which is our cosmic endowment, so we have gone from the local forests in Germany and a few decades to the whole resource potential that could eventually harbor and sustain life till the eventual death of the universe.
Then there’s a clear acknowledgment that what we want to sustain is humanity and only by sustaining humanity will life and consciousness also be sustained. This might sound hard to hear for some, but as Elon Musk says, “it’s not going to be the dolphins that go out and make life multiplanetary”.
Finally there’s a clear framework for prioritizing and understanding our actions and how they affect our sustainability.
With this we can finally solve for most of the anomalies that the previous paradigm couldn’t and for the ones that don’t we can at least locate them easier in our world model. This paradigm enables us to now confidently say that the advancement of technology, science/insight and coordination aimed at minimizing these existential risks is something that we want.
There are some risks that have a higher priority according to how many lives and across how much time they will impact. There’s no Malthusian trap that we have to worry about till the last black holes start disappearing. Climate change, concerns about resource scarcity and the destruction of the environment are reinterpreted under this new framework as playing a lesser role under this new general idea of achieving a sustainable trajectory receded to their rightful place alongside or even secondary to some other risks.
A Paradigm Shift in Sustainability
This post is an effort to present in an accessible way, the paradigm shift happening in our model of sustainability. The current paradigm mainly centers around the goal of achieving a steady state where humanity can reach homeostasis with the environment for an indefinite amount of time. The competing modern paradigm is based on a clearer theory of value from a more developed global ethics perspective and proposes instead a dynamic state where humanity should enter into a sustainable trajectory where the goal is its existential risk minimization.
The post is divided into 8 sections. In the first one, Introduction to paradigm shifts we will talk about the notion of what a paradigm entails, how it gets created and how paradigm shifts happen.
We would then have an overview of the history of sustainability, from its pre-paradigm phase up to its crisis state. These phase sections will go deeper into analyzing each of the phases in a paradigm shift according to Thomas S. Kuhn in relation to the sustainability paradigm.
We will finish with a conclusion of the current state of the paradigm shift happening in sustainability.
Introduction to paradigm shifts
Historical Overview of Sustainability
Phase 1 — The pre-paradigm phase
Phase 2 — Normal science and anomalies
Phase 3 — Crisis
Phase 4 — Paradigm shift
Phase 5 — Post-revolution
Conclusion
1. Introduction to paradigm shifts
The great science philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn in his magnus opus, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, expounded the way science progresses. Before Kuhn, there was a conception that science develops by the addition of new truths to the already existing truths, by theories that represent the truth more closely or by the correction of previous errors, Kuhn’s thesis said otherwise.
According to Kuhn progress in science begins with a pre-paradigm period involving an immature science. This period is characterized by a lack of consensus, where competing schools of thought possess differing procedures, theories and even metaphysical priors. This makes collective progress difficult. Even local progress is difficult since a lot of the mental energy is used for arguing over fundamentals. When one school makes a breakthrough which solves for the shared problems, consensus is formed around it. This consensus allows agreement over fundamentals, solutions to the previous puzzles and new puzzles that it poses. This constitutes a paradigm.
Once there is a dominant paradigm, the immature science becomes mature. A mature science progresses non-uniformly in 2 distinct and alternating phases, “normal” and “revolutionary/extraordinary”.
Normal science is characterized by going to the real world and doing experiments that test the theoretical solutions proposed by this paradigm. A period of rapid knowledge accumulation usually follows, where experiments and solutions are consistent with the paradigm. As new questions come up and experiments are no longer completely consistent with the paradigm, the paradigm begins to extend and become more complicated as it tries to integrate these new phenomena.
As normal science progresses, it will accumulate certain important anomalies or puzzles that are unsolvable. A crisis happens when there is a widespread loss of confidence due to a troublesome or multiple anomalies in the paradigm.
Revolutionary science begins as a response to this crisis, with a revision to the existing scientific belief, its practice and a search for a replacement paradigm. This stage is characterized by its exploratory nature, without the structures of the dominant paradigm scientists must produce new theories, thought and physical experiments to explain the anomalies. Kuhn describes this stage as:
“the proliferation of competing articulations, the willingness to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals” (Kuhn, 1962)
A new paradigm should solve the majority of these anomalies, alongside incorporating the majority of the previous puzzle solutions, otherwise there is little value in adopting it. It is important to note that not all the achievements of the previous paradigm are preserved, this is known as “Kuhn-loss”.
Eventually a new paradigm gains a following and is adopted, Kuhn calls this the paradigm shift.
Because of the commitment to the old dominant paradigm and because paradigm shifts require a gestalt-like change, Kuhn insists that paradigms are difficult to change. In the famous words of Max Planck:
“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950)
Therefore a crisis period is to be expected where a revision to the current paradigm occurs and an expansion of scale gets incorporated in order to account for the anomalies that have surged during the “normal science” period. After this crisis we get a post-revolution period which involves the writing of textbooks based on the new institutionalized paradigm. This revolutionary process is concealed and science ends up looking cumulative, but science actually progresses through these paradigm shifts which are actually more like step-changes or new ways of looking at things.
1.1. Paradigm shifts beyond the natural sciences
How paradigm shifts will apply to sustainability
Although Kuhn focuses on paradigm shifts that happen in the natural sciences, paradigm shifts have expanded to explain how progress in the social sciences, religion or society in general can happen.
Sustainability has made an entry into the social sciences becoming sustainability science, but it is not normally regarded as a science.
In some sense we could settle on the position that sustainability is not a mature science and therefore a paradigm shift would not yet apply to it, but rather a pre-paradigm phase would be more appropriate.
On the other hand sustainability and its current model are the way to think of how to prioritize humanity’s actions and resource management. This happens from the global to individual scale. People take decisions from daily life to their life’s mission, to live in accordance with the current sustainability paradigm. It’s not only individuals, but universities, organizations, nations and the UN who embrace the current paradigm of sustainability to assess and prioritize their actions. Given this and the current state humanity finds itself in, a revision into the crisis sustainability faces is justified.
A distinction should be made between the two sustainability crises happening. The first one is the sustainability crisis the environment and life in general is facing. The second one is the crisis paradigm is facing.
A connection can be made that the first one is in part due to the failure of the paradigm to correctly account for the risks (anomalies), which in turn is what fuels the crisis related to the paradigm.
2. Historical Overview of Sustainability
Early — Mid 19th century
Concerns about the environmental and social impacts of industry were expressed by some Enlightenment political economists and through the Romantic movement of the 1800s. The Reverend Thomas Malthus, came up with catastrophic and much-criticised theories of “overpopulation”, while John Stuart Mill building on Adam Smith’s ideas foresaw the desirability of a “stationary state” economy, thus anticipating concerns of the modern discipline of ecological economics.
Late 19th century
Eugenius Warming was the first botanist to study physiological relations between plants and their environment, heralding the scientific discipline of ecology.
By the 20th century, the industrial revolution had led to an exponential increase in the human consumption of resources. The increase in health, wealth and population was perceived as a simple path of progress. However, in the 1930s economists began developing models of non-renewable resource management (see Hotelling’s rule) and the sustainability of welfare in an economy that uses non-renewable resources (Hartwick’s rule).
Ecology had now gained general acceptance as a scientific discipline, and many concepts vital to sustainability were being explored. These included: the interconnectedness of all living systems in a single living planetary system, the biosphere; the importance of natural cycles (of water, nutrients and other chemicals, materials, waste); and the passage of energy through trophic levels of living systems
Mid 20th century
Following the deprivations of the great depression and World War II the developed world entered a new period of escalating growth. A gathering environmental movement pointed out that there were environmental costs associated with the many material benefits that were now being enjoyed. Innovations in technology (including plastics, synthetic chemicals, nuclear energy) and the increasing use of fossil fuels, were transforming society. Modern industrial agriculture — the “Green Revolution” — was based on the development of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides which had devastating consequences for rural wildlife, as documented by American marine biologist, naturalist and environmentalist Rachel Carson in Silent Spring (1962)
In 1956, American geoscientist M. King Hubbert’s peak oil theory predicted an inevitable peak of oil production, first in the United States (between 1965 and 1970), then in successive regions of the world — with a global peak expected thereafter. In the 1970s environmentalism’s concern with pollution, the population explosion, consumerism and the depletion of finite resources found expression in Small Is Beautiful, by British economist E. F. Schumacher in 1973, and The Limits to Growth published by the global think tank, The Club of Rome, in 1975.
Late 20th century
In 1987 the United Nation’s World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), in its report Our Common Future suggested that development was acceptable, but it must be sustainable development that would meet the needs of the poor while not increasing environmental problems. Humanity’s demand on the planet has more than doubled over the past 45 years as a result of population growth and increasing individual consumption. In 1961 almost all countries in the world had more than enough capacity to meet their own demand; by 2005 the situation had changed radically with many countries able to meet their needs only by importing resources from other nations. A move toward sustainable living by increasing public awareness and adoption of recycling, and renewable energies emerged. The development of renewable sources of energy in the 1970s and ’80s, primarily in wind turbines and photovoltaics and increased use of hydroelectricity, presented some of the first sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear energy generation, the first large-scale solar and wind power plants appearing during the 1980s and ’90s.
3. Pre-paradigm period—Phase 1
Phase 1 — It exists only once and is the pre-paradigm phase, in which there is no consensus on any particular theory. This phase is characterized by several incompatible and incomplete theories. Consequently, most scientific inquiry takes the form of lengthy books, as there is no common body of facts that may be taken for granted. If the actors in the pre-paradigm community eventually gravitate to one of these conceptual frameworks and ultimately to a widespread consensus on the appropriate choice of methods, terminology and on the kinds of experiment that are likely to contribute to increased insights.
A background on the origins of sustainability and the different schools of thought influencing it.
3.1. Malthusianism
In 1798 Thomas Robert Malthius wrote “An Essay on the Principle of Population” where he pointed out that population growing at a geometric rate and food production at an arithmetic rate would cause certain difficulties.
The following 8 major points where put forth by Malthus:
Subsistence severely limits population-level
When the means of subsistence increases, population increases
Population-pressures stimulate increases in productivity
Increases in productivity stimulate further population growth
Because productivity increases cannot maintain the potential rate of population growth, population growth requires strong checks to keep parity with the carrying-capacity
Individual cost/benefit decisions regarding sex, work and children determine the expansion or contraction of population and production
Checks will come into operation as population exceeds the subsistence level
The nature of these checks will have significant effect on the larger sociocultural system — Malthus points to misery, poverty and vice.
Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: The first, or preventive check to lower birth rates and The second, or positive check to permit higher mortality rates. This second check “represses an increase which is already begun” but by being “confined chiefly, though not perhaps solely, to the lowest orders of society”. The preventive checks could involve birth control, postponement of marriage, and celibacy while the positive checks could involve hunger, disease and war.
3.1.1 Malthus influence
Malthus influenced a lot of our current model of sustainability, it helped made availability of resources the focus of sustainability. In 1968, ecologist Garrett Hardin published an influential essay in Science that drew heavily from Malthusian theory. His famous essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” argued that “a finite world can support only a finite population” and that “freedom to breed will bring ruin to all.” After that the famous or sometimes now infamous Club of Rome published a famous book entitled The Limits to Growth in 1972 establishing supposedly clear limits to the growth of population, which we have since surpassed. Another influential figure, Paul R. Ehrlich who is a prominent neo-Malthusian raised concerns again in 1968 with the publication of The Population Bomb.
What seems to have been wrongly interpreted in general was the idea that there wasn’t a clear way to escape this Malthusian trap, but that since then we have clearly done so through technology. Where in simple terms technology has allowed us to increase the capacity to generate resources.
All this gave rise to the modern term “Neo-Malthusianism” which may be be used as a label for those who are still concerned that human overpopulation may increase resource depletion or environmental degradation to a degree that is not sustainable. Most of the the people involved environmental movements have expressed concern over the potential dangers of population growth.
3.2. Steady-state economics
The concept of steady state economics first came into light with Adam Smith. He pointed out that as wealth was growing in any nation, the rate of profit would tend to fall and investment opportunities would diminish. In a nation that had thereby reached this ‘full complement of riches’, society would finally settle in a stationary state with a constant stock of people and capital.
After Adam Smith came John Stuart Mill (1803-1873) one of the first utilitarians, who building on Adam Smith’s ideas developed further the notion of a stationary state. According to Mill, the stationary state was at one and the same inevitable, necessary and desirable: It was inevitable, because the accumulation of capital would bring about a falling rate of profit that would diminish investment opportunities and hamper further accumulation; it was also necessary, because mankind had to learn how to reduce its size and its level of consumption within the boundaries set by nature and by employment opportunities; and finally, the stationary state was desirable, as it would ease the introduction of public income redistribution schemes, create more equality and put an end to man’s ruthless struggle to get by and instead, the human spirit would be liberated to the benefit of more elevated social and cultural activities, ‘the graces of life’.
When the influence of John Stuart Mill and his Principles declined in the late 19th century, the classical-liberalist period of economic theorizing came to an end. By the turn of the 19th century, Marxism and neoclassical economics had emerged to dominate economics. This development led to the exclusion of any concern with natural resource scarcity in economic modeling and analysis.
The assumption of Marxism was based on technological optimism, with the idea that communism would just overcome any resource scarcity it will encounter. Communism didn’t achieve that and by 1991 german sociologist Reiner Grundman said that “Orthodox Marxism has vanished from the scene, leftism has turned green, and Marxists have become ecologists.”
The third and more recent proponent of a steady state was Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-1994) who argued that all natural resources are irreversibly degraded when integrated into the economy, that the carrying capacity of the earth for sustaining life is bound to decrease in the future as earth’s finite stock of mineral resources are put to use, consequently civilization is headed for an inevitable collapse and ultimately humanity’s extinction. In essence he expanded Smith and Mill’s views to incorporate not only society and particular resources but the whole of humanity.
3.3. Sustainable development
The idea of sustainable development first came up in the idea of having sustainable forest management in Germany during the 17th and 18th century with the term Nachhaltigkeit, as a way of preserving them for future generations. This was inspired by John Evelyn who in his essay Silva said that “the sowing and planting of trees had to be regarded as a national duty of every landowner, in order to stop the destructive over-exploitation of natural resources.” From there this idea evolved into the science of forestry, with key figures adopting such as Alexander Von Humboldt.
From there it gained more popularity with Gifford Pinchot who was the first head of the U.S. Forest Service during the early 1900s and where it helped reformed the management, development and conservation of these. After this followed Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in 1962, Keneth E. Boulding with “The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth” in 1966, “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garret Hardin in 1968.
The direct link between sustainability and development comes from the german Ernst Basler who in his book “Strategy of Progress” where the previously held notion of preserving forests for future generations could be translated towards all other resources. This concept was later reinforced by the simulations performed by MIT commissioned by The Club of Rome and which was later published as “Limits to Growth” in 1972. Here they described a “desirable state of global equilibrium”. The following milestones were in 1980 where the International Union for Conservation of Nature introduced the term “sustainable development”. Then in 1987 where the UN’s “Brundtland Commission” gave a more formal definition, and finally in 1992 at the UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) with the “Rio Protocol” where the world finally “agreed” on a sustainability agenda “Agenda 21”, which later led to the “Kyoto Protocol” in 2012 to address carbon externalities with a market mechanism and the “Paris Agreement” where nations non-bindingly committed to a reduction in carbon emissions.
With all these previous context, a convergence towards a paradigm was emerged and it was time that “normal science” of sustainability came to be exercised.
4. Normal Science—Phase 2
Phase 2 — Normal science begins, in which puzzles are solved within the context of the dominant paradigm. As long as there is consensus within the discipline, normal science continues. Over time, progress in normal science may reveal anomalies, facts that are difficult to explain within the context of the existing paradigm. While usually these anomalies are resolved, in some cases they may accumulate to the point where normal science becomes difficult and where weaknesses in the old paradigm are revealed.
If the actors in the pre-paradigm community eventually gravitate to one of these conceptual frameworks and ultimately to a widespread consensus on the appropriate choice of methods, terminology and on the kinds of experiment that are likely to contribute to increased insights, then Normal Science can begin.
We can see a buildup of gravitation towards a conceptual framework with Malthus as a starting point, then the works of Rachel Carson (Silent Spring), M. King Hubbert (peak oil theory), E.F. Schumacher (Small is Beautiful) and The Club of Rome (The Limits to Growth).
This pre-paradigm period converged with the UN’s Brundtland Commission report in 1987, which defined ‘sustainable development’ as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” We could say that normal science of sustainability began at this point.
This classical sustainability paradigm consists of the following components:
Conceptual framework:
UN’s definition of sustainable development
The idea and extrapolation of a looming Malthusian trap, given our current resources and population trajectories
The idea of steady-state economics where a stationary state is desirable and is one where we could stay indefinitely
Methods: Surveys, voluntary reporting, cap & trade, inequality, access to basic needs, lifecycle analysis, resource footprint (carbon, water, energy)
Terminology: Sustainable development, social responsibility, environmental responsibility, economic viability
Experiments: Carrying capacity, pollution, resource extraction
We’ve had this paradigm for 35 years, experiments, policy and culture have been influenced by it. For 35 years we’ve lived in confusion as to what it is that should be sustained, how should we think and prioritize our actions. For 35 years we’ve mainly continued on a path that is unclear and in which we haven’t been able to converge on a project for humanity.
During this time the following anomalies inside this paradigm have arisen:
Our sustainability paradigm is unable to assess if an action is ultimately sustainable or not.
Example: Due to the short-term vision, vagueness and incompleteness, the sustainability model is unable to gather consensus around issues of population growth, technological development, technological adoption, growth, food, energy, resource spending,
Given Malthus influence in our current paradigm, most issues of population are not talked about in the open and people tend to refrain themselves of their opinion. Even worse people tend to turn pessimist and advocate for less population growth or even population reduction. We’ve proven Malthus wrong and still our current paradigm embraces his ideas. Our planet and solar system can sustain multiple orders of magnitude more humans.
Our sustainability paradigm didn’t account for a pandemic, even though a pandemic threatens the economy, the environment and society in a very significant way.
Our sustainability paradigm is not accounting for non anthropogenic risks such as an asteroid, a supervolcano, a solar flare, etc even though these could cause many times more damage to the environment than what we humans have done and will do in the medium-term. Alongside the environment it will also cause more damage to society than the worst scenario of social irresponsibility.
Our sustainability paradigm has multiple conflicts of interest due to its roots in the environmental and ecological movement between environment vs population, environment vs development, environment vs technology and environment vs growth. This has led to a paradigm which is ambiguous and vague by trying to to serve multiple interests. Without a clear, simple and strong foundation, train of thought and outlook to the future, it’s very difficult to have this paradigm enable any forcing function.
There cannot be sustainable development, all development by itself is not indefinitely sustainable, there’s no way around the 2nd law of thermodynamics, all resources will eventually break down.
The paradigm hasn’t incorporated the cosmic endowment we as humans have, which are all the possible matter and energy we could make use of before the end of the universe.
Another clear anomaly is the difficulty of making an argument, or making a decision. How can you make a decision or convince someone to do something when the science is unclear, are electric cars less sustainable than gas cars? Is it better to use paper or plastic bags? Should I plant a tree? Are cows bad? are humans bad? should I work, have a house, have kids? should I become a farmer? an organic farmer? a hippie? a nihilist? What should I think about technology? Is technology good? What should individuals do? What should governments do?
The current sustainability model when tested with these experiments in the wild is unable to answer these questions, it is incomplete and therefore has entered a state of crisis. Due to its nature of being something that encompasses humanity where we all should contribute or be aware of, a revision and shift is due.
5. Crisis—Phase 3
Phase 3 — If the paradigm proves chronically unable to account for anomalies, the community enters a crisis period. Crises are often resolved within the context of normal science. However, after significant efforts of normal science within a paradigm fail, science may enter the next phase.
The reason why a lot of paradigms experience a shift is that when tested in different scales of space-time they are no longer able to hold. They are not invariant to different scales of space and time. Such was the case with Newtonian physics, where if the scale was small enough it will break down as well as if the scale was big enough.
A similar case happens when we expose the current sustainability paradigm to a bigger scale of time and space. It is only when we expose the current paradigm to long term trajectories that humanity can take that it dawns on us why our current sustainability paradigm will not work. We know with very close to 100% probability that the Sun will expand and become 10% brighter every billion years till its eventual death in 5 billion years. Before the Earth gets swallowed by the Sun, in about 1 billion years our oceans would all evaporate and make life uninhabitable.
We also know that every x million years an asteroid hits the Earth with extinction potential.
Let’s examine the best trajectory scenario we could take given the current paradigm. The current paradigm is not accounting for any existential risks, as we have seen before its sole focus is preventing resource scarcity. If we were to continue millions of years with the current sustainability paradigm, where we have entered a homeostasis state with the Earth, we know with very close 100% probability that everything we know will cease to exist.
In that sense the current paradigm will only enable sustainability for humanity and possibly all life until there’s an extinction event. The urgency of a paradigm shift is not so much because of the non-anthropogenic induced risks or Earth’s seemingly inescapable fate millions of years into the future, but because of the risks we are inducing upon ourselves which will continue to grow in quantity and magnitude as we discover new technologies and we increase their development or proliferation.
We could also argue that an increase in scope of space and time is a normal progression of the conception of sustainability. As with a lot of models of the world we begin by observing and testing them in a small scale and progressively increase that scale. Historically the same has been true for sustainability where the concept began to emerge for local forests in Germany, then to resources for a whole island (England), then to conservation efforts (1960s), then to resources for the whole world (Limits to growth), then to resources for the whole world across some generations (Brundtland Commission) and now it should increase the scope of all risks, not only resource scarcity and climate, but all that we could conceive and involve humanity across time and space.
Extrapolating into the future:
If the current paradigm where to have its way, we would look towards resource consumption reduction, enter into a homeostasis state with the environment and then while ignoring all the other risks wait for an eventual existential catastrophe that wipes us out.
It is a crisis in the sense that the “actions” the proposed solutions of the model of sustainability are not making life on earth sustainable.
Even if we achieve all sustainable development goals of the UN.
1) No Poverty, (2) Zero Hunger, (3) Good Health and Well-being, (4) Quality Education, (5) Gender Equality, (6) Clean Water and Sanitation, (7) Affordable and Clean Energy, (8) Decent Work and Economic Growth, (9) Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, (10) Reducing Inequality, (11) Sustainable Cities and Communities, (12) Responsible Consumption and Production, (13) Climate Action, (14) Life Below Water, (15) Life On Land, (16) Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, (17) Partnerships for the Goals.
We are still turning a blind eye on some of the most important risks that actually threaten life as we know it.
It won’t matter if we get to 2030 having achieved all these and then another pandemic, a nuclear holocaust, a superintelligence, an asteroid, a supervolcano or any of the other possible risks events happen. Life could be wiped out.
Sustainability has been focused on resources, with a flawed idea of an indefinite steady-state or declining-state economy that has taken first stage in the conversation, all the while ignoring all the other risks unrelated to resources. Given that the current model of sustainability only accounts for risks associated with resource scarcity without accounting for risks that threaten life and humanity a shift is under us and we should embrace it. We don’t need a limit on resources as a priority, as we’ve argued before it might be better to lift that limit and establish minimization of risk as a priority.
5. Paradigm Shift—Phase 4
Phase 4 — Paradigm shift, or scientific revolution, is the phase in which the underlying assumptions of the field are reexamined and a new paradigm is established.
Nick Bostrom’s paper “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority” (2013) establishes the most comprehensive and concise reexamination of the current paradigm and proposes a new paradigm. It might have been necessary for an outsider of the field and particularly a philosopher to be able to propose a new paradigm.
In essence first there’s a recognition that there are a number of risks that threaten our existence, these risks have to be minimized in order for humanity and life in general to be sustained across time and there’s a cosmic endowment, an amount of resources and energy that we as humanity will be able to harness given our known physics.
How we go about it is by a very simple framework where each risk is minimized by a balanced progress in technology, insight and coordination in regards to it.
Humanity must migrate from the idea of reaching a steady state and instead enter into a sustainable trajectory, where each risk is minimized by advances in technology, insight and coordination. Therefore we must shift the paradigm of sustainability from a steady state where we reach homeostasis for and indefinite manner and we’re only focused on resources and climate change, to one where we enter this dynamic trajectory across time and space and we focus on existential risks.
Surprisingly this paradigm can solve all the anomalies that the previous paradigm wasn’t able to solve. First it clearly establishes a scale which is our cosmic endowment, so we have gone from the local forests in Germany and a few decades to the whole resource potential that could eventually harbor and sustain life till the eventual death of the universe.
Then there’s a clear acknowledgment that what we want to sustain is humanity and only by sustaining humanity will life and consciousness also be sustained. This might sound hard to hear for some, but as Elon Musk says, “it’s not going to be the dolphins that go out and make life multiplanetary”.
Finally there’s a clear framework for prioritizing and understanding our actions and how they affect our sustainability.
With this we can finally solve for most of the anomalies that the previous paradigm couldn’t and for the ones that don’t we can at least locate them easier in our world model. This paradigm enables us to now confidently say that the advancement of technology, science/insight and coordination aimed at minimizing these existential risks is something that we want.
There are some risks that have a higher priority according to how many lives and across how much time they will impact. There’s no Malthusian trap that we have to worry about till the last black holes start disappearing. Climate change, concerns about resource scarcity and the destruction of the environment are reinterpreted under this new framework as playing a lesser role under this new general idea of achieving a sustainable trajectory receded to their rightful place alongside or even secondary to some other risks.
So let us enable this gestalt change.