Dear All,
The research presented here is focused on gleaning insights leading to new
solutions to the economics vs ecosystem conflict. The roots of many of our
problems in ecological sustainability lie in the fact that our socio-economic
systems are largely focused on fulfilling only human needs and the needs of
human organizations. In doing so, as pointed out by Pedro, Bob, Francesco and
others in this group our economics largely ignores the productive value of our
ecosystems and the true costs of our development on our life supporting living
systems.
I term such a society as a “shallow society”, a society that is focused on the
development of a single species and largely ignores the value of its own
life-supporting living systems. With global population predicted to grow to 9
billion people, the next level of human development requires a transition of
human society from being a “shallow society” that is only focused on only human
needs to what I call a “deep society”. A deep society is a society that
includes all living systems in its development.
In this view, a deep society is not only focused on needs of human beings and
their organizations but its development models also include development of the
entire gamut of life-supporting living systems. Such a society grows not by
exploiting the resources of a living planet, but also it possesses the
capability to nurture, grow and actively manage a “living planet” (and perhaps
seed life on other planets as well). Human development in the future will
require the creation of new capabilities to develop models leading to a deep
society. The question then is- can we develop systems that will enable a
fair-value reciprocity and exchange between living ecosystems and economic
systems?
While, the notion that economics does not adequately value natural systems has
been highlighted by many researchers in the field of ecological economics.
Ideas on how natural systems can be understood, valued and integrated into
economics have remained elusive. A multilevel view (like the one presented
here) allows one to compare socio-economic organizations with natural
organizations and could also provide new insights into how the dynamics of
natural ecosystems could be synergised with economic systems.
The model presented in the kick-off session shows two levels of energetically
and materially coupled exchange networks in ecosystems. At the first level of
exchange networks geochemical molecules are organized into different
autotrophic species, and modulated by Mycorrhiza (level 1). Different
autotrophic species then become food for the different heterotrophic species
hence giving rise to the next higher level of exchange networks in ecosystems,
modulated by gut bacterial networks (Level 2). The question then is- how does
nature organize to build-in synergies between these two levels?
At level 1, Mycorrhiza networks are known to modulate growth rates across
different autotrophic species by providing phosphorous to different autotrophic
species in quantitative exchange for carbohydrates. Autotrophic species (or
groups of autotrophic species) that provide more carbohydrate hence get more
phosphorous. Hence carbohydrates play a role in influencing phosphorous
allocation across different autotrophic species connected to a Mycorrhiza
network. At the next higher level in the exchange networks between different
autotrophic species and different heterotrophic species gut bacteria use
carbohydrates to modulate growth rates in heterotrophic species. Hence
carbohydrates seem to play a role both in influencing dynamics in exchange
networks at level 1, as well as in influencing dynamics in exchange networks at
level 2.
Could such an organization where carbohydrates are a common influencing factor
in exchanges at both levels serve to align both levels towards increasing
overall carbohydrate production in ecosystems (hence increasing the overall
primary production in ecosystems) by synergizing dynamics across both levels
(and two different modulator networks)?
Could this two-level role of carbohydrates provide new insights on aligning the
third level of exchange networks (and our financial investment networks) with
underling ecosystem exchange networks at level 1 and 2?
At this stage, these and other ideas presented here require much further
assessment and development. Nevertheless, at this early stage of development
they seem to provide a different vantage to view multilevel living systems. Can
multilevel research help in uncovering new ideas and insights to understand
multilevel systems, and align economics and ecosystems?
Your views, comments and feedback are much appreciated.
Thanking you,
Warm regards,
Nikhil Joshi
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis