Nikhil -- Leaving aside details of hierarchical structure, I point out, concerning economics:
It seems that you have in mind a global economic system in your planning. Is that so? I think that the current global capitalist system would need to be eschewed. Then, this also would seem to involve a world government, placing the types of agriculture in their optimal regions, etc. Alternative;y, perhaps your system might function on an island like Australia? STAN On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Nikhil Joshi <nikhil.jo...@lifel.org> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
