Global Sustainability. Edited by P. A. Wilderer, E. D. Schroeder, H. Kopp

Copyright © 2005 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

ISBN: 3-527-31236-6

6 A New Way of Thinking about Sustainability,

Risk and Environmental Decision-Making

6 A New Way of Thinking about Sustainability, Risk and Decision-Making

William E. Kastenberg*, Gloria Hauser-Kastenberg**,

and David Norris***

*4103 Etcheverry Hall University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA,

kastenbe@nuc.berkeley.edu

** 1678 Shattuck Avenue 311 Berkeley, CA 94708, USA, ghauser@igc.org

*** Allmendsberg 27, 79348 Freiamt, Germany, dnorris@t-online.de

6.1 Introduction

6.1 Introduction Post-Industrial Age technologies (e.g. Biotechnology, Information Technology,

Nanotechnology and Nuclear Technology) offer the promise of vast improvements in the

quality of human life. And yet, as we have learned from past experience with other

promising new technologies, the likelihood of undesirable consequences and unintended

impacts is not negligible. The concept of sustainability is increasingly used to name this

concern. We believe that the current understanding of risk analysis, which attempts to

address this concern, is insufficient, because it is inconsistent with the science inherent

in these newest technologies. While Industrial Age technology is based on a mechanistic

and linear paradigm, Post-Industrial Age technology is not. Because the newest tech-

nologies are rooted in nonlinearity and because they have the capacity to alter life itself

in unpredictable and unprecedented ways, they require a corresponding approach to risk

analysis.

In this paper we begin by distinguishing the differences in context and societal im-

pact between Industrial Age and Post-Industrial Age technologies. We then argue that

such a shift in context has led necessarily to a new set of assumptions, values and beliefs

that change the ethical underpinnings of technological development. And finally, we

propose a new understanding of sustainability as well as an expanded approach to risk

analysis and environmental decision-making, which is consistent with the new context.

88 6 A New Way of Thinking about Sustainability, Risk and Decision-Making

6.2 Complicated Technology vs. Complex Technology

6.2 Complicated Technology vs. Complex Technology Because our argument rests on the premise that the newest advances in science and tech-

nology are rooted in a new paradigm, it is useful to describe here some of the fundamen-

tal differences between the science and technology of the Industrial and Post-Industrial

Ages. The key distinction we draw is between systems that are “complicated” and sys-

tems that are “complex”.

The context within which Industrial Age technologies are understood is based on a

Newtonian/Cartesian or linear worldview where second order or nonlinear effects are

(assumed) small and the boundaries are (assumed) rigid or well defined. This worldview

gives rise to complicated systems that are characterized as atomistic (reductionism),

deterministic (cause and effect) and dualistic (subject/object dualism). In other words,

the properties of these systems: (1) are understandable by studying the behavior of their

component parts, (2) exist independent of the observer, and (3) are only deduced from

“objective” empirical observations. Some examples of such complicated technologies of

the late Industrial Age include aerospace vehicles, chemical and nuclear plants, com-

puters and robotic systems.

The context within which Post-Industrial Age Technologies are understood is based

on a nonlinear worldview where second order effects are important and/or the bounda-

ries are permeable. This worldview gives rise to complex systems that are characterized

by at least one of the following [1]: (1) holistic/emergent – the system has properties that

are exhibited only by the whole and hence cannot be described in terms of its parts, (2)

chaotic – small changes in input often lead to large changes in output and/or there may

be many possible outputs for a given input, and (3) subjective – some aspects of the

system may not be describable by any objective means alone; that is, objectivity is con-

sidered to be only one possible way of describing system properties. Hence there may be

system properties not exhibited by the parts alone1, there may not be a causal relation-

ship between input and output (or the output may be path dependent), and no completely

analytic description for the system may be possible. Typical examples are the bottom up

assembled nanoscale structures being developed for biomedical use and nanoscale chips

for use in computers.

Open living systems are a class of complex systems that, in addition to the above three

characteristics, possess the property of cognition. They are continually in a process of

exchanging mass, energy and information with their environments. Through this ex-

change, open living systems seek equilibrium, either through negative feedback (return-

ing to an existing state of equilibrium) or positive feedback (seeking a new state of equi-

1 The system is simultaneously a whole and a part of a larger whole. It is often said that for com-

plex systems, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. What this means is that there is an

emergent property that is not exhibited by the parts alone.

6.3 Errors in Thinking and Attitudes 89

librium). In the case of positive feedback, there also may be bifurcation points that exist

far from the original equilibrium, which, when reached, lead to the attainment of a new

equilibrium state at a higher level of complexity (novelty). And thus, there may be no

causal relationship between the old and new states of equilibrium.

As a result of the complexity inherent in 21st Century technology, societal and envi-

ronmental impacts are no longer geographically local (a bridge collapses), nor percepti-

ble in real time (a space shuttle explodes), nor reversible (a defective automobile is re-

called). Rather, complex technology can produce impacts that are geographically global

(greenhouse gas emissions), imperceptible in time either manifesting very quickly (on

the Internet) or very slowly (high level radioactive waste disposal), or potentially irre-

versible (cloning and GMOs). These impacts lead to unprecedented ethical issues such

as: inter-generational risk, the threat to natural life processes and questions regarding the

beginning and end points of human life. Moreover, because complex technology is

evolving so much faster than complicated technology did, there is less data available

now for decision-making and hence even greater ambiguity.

6.3 Errors in Thinking and Attitudes

6.3 Errors in Thinking and Attitudes In 1970, Gregory Bateson [2], considered by many to be one of the great social scientists

of the 20th

Century, wrote that there are three factors contributing to ecological damage:

1) world population growth, 2) acceleration of technological progress, and 3) certain

errors in the thinking and attitudes of Western culture. He then listed seven of these

errors in thinking and attitudes that emanate from the Industrial Revolution and that form

the context for our current technological development:

(a) It’s us against the environment.

(b) It’s us against other men.

(c) It’s the individual (or the individual company, or the individual nation) that matters.

(d) We can have unilateral control over the environment and must strive for that control.

(e) We live within an infinitely expanding “frontier”.

(f) Economic determinism is common sense.

(g) Technology will do it for us.

Bateson went on to say that our best hope for the future is to change the third factor,

namely, the thinking and attitudes of Western culture. Specifically, he says, “if we con-

tinue to operate in a Cartesian dualism of mind versus matter, we shall probably also

continue to see the world as God versus man, elite versus people …and man versus envi-

ronment. It is doubtful whether a species having both an advanced technology and this

strange way of looking at its world can endure [3].”

To paraphrase Einstein’s well-known observation in 1948 concerning the spread of

nuclear weapons, we are faced with new questions that cannot be answered in the same

framework of thinking as the one in which they were originally formulated. Recent ad-

vances in our understanding of complex systems provide a basis for such a shift in con-

text.

90 6 A New Way of Thinking about Sustainability, Risk and Decision-Making

6.4 The Current View of Sustainability and Risk Analysis

6.4 The Current View of Sustainability and Risk Analysis Currently, sustainability is usually defined as the ability to meet this generation’s needs

without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Needs might

include, for example, food, clothing, shelter, economic competitiveness, energy and

national security. They also often involve the utilization of resources such as air, water,

soil, minerals and other raw materials. Risk is generally defined as a characterization of

the undesirable consequences and unintended impacts that can occur when a society

attempts to meet its needs, often through the development of new technology. It involves

measures of probability and consequence based on existing data and is usually quantified

primarily in terms of public health and safety, and secondarily in terms of environmental

impact. Risk can also be defined as the measure of a society’s inability to meet its needs.

Underlying these definitions of risk and sustainability are several articulated and unar-

ticulated assumptions, values and beliefs that constitute an ethic.

The reductionist paradigm shapes our current understanding of sustainability and risk

as well as the ethical choices derived from them. Thus, for example, risk assessment

usually is reduced to a search for “causal links” or “causal chains” verified by “objec-

tive” experimental processes, i.e. by quantifying the behavior of various elements of the

system [4]. The behavior of the system’s elements is then integrated so as to quantify the

behavior of the system as a whole [5]. While these risk assessment models are extremely

sophisticated in that they are capable of evaluating a very large number of variables, the

approach remains linear. Additional variables merely make the models more compli-

cated; they don’t, however, take account of the system’s increased complexity due to

the nonlinear nature of the interplay among the variables.

The current methodology for risk-based decision-making derives from Utilitarian-

ism, the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873),

which is predicated on the view that moral choice should be dictated by “the greatest

good for the greatest number”. Using cost-benefit analysis, the “good” is usually meas-

ured in terms of money. It is silent with respect to (a) the proper distribution of that

good, (b) environmental justice, and (c) human and environmental flourishing. This

ethical perspective is characterized by economic determinism, consistent with a linear,

reductionistic worldview, and as such, is inadequate for addressing the chaotic and non-

linear nature of the issues we now face. We recognize, of course, that economics must

play an important role in our environmental decision-making. However, the contextual

shift we are proposing here also must include a commitment to human and ecological

flourishing (discussed in next section) as well as to economics.

6.5 A New View of Sustainability 91

6.5 A New View of Sustainability

6.5 A New View of Sustainability Normally, nature’s life processes (biological and ecological) are self-sustaining. For

example, when a change in weather pattern upsets certain of these life processes, they

will attempt to adapt to the new environment, either through negative feedback (as in the

case of small changes such as the seasons of the year) or through positive feedback (as in

the case of large changes such as an “Ice-Age”). Alternatively, if the system cannot sus-

tain itself in the face of the change, it will collapse. Hence, a sustainable system is one

that adjusts to its new environment, either by returning to its original equilibrium (ho-

meostasis) or by creating a new equilibrium (through chaos and bifurcation to a new and

more complex level of stability).

A new understanding of sustainability must account for this dynamic property of

open living systems. Natural resources, technology, world population growth and how

we think about these three, are all in a positive feedback loop with each other. As the

situation now stands, population growth continues, the utilization of the world’s re-

sources is accelerating, and a primary way we attempt to adapt is by creating new tech-

nology. Open living systems (including human beings) are adapting to the changing

environmental landscape, and these adaptations have the effect of pushing ecological

systems to a point far from equilibrium, where they eventually become chaotic or col-

lapse.

The current definition of sustainability implies the preservation of resources for fu-

ture use. The new definition we are proposing is the nurturing of the capacity for emer-

gence in a system for future flourishing (e.g. an ecological system). This shift entails

changes: (1) from a preservation of resources to a nurturing of a capacity for evolution,

(2) from seeing resources as “standing-reserve” [6] to seeing resources as a requirement

for human and environmental flourishing [7], and (3) from attempting to maximize hu-

man control over life processes to attempting to recognize human participation in life

processes.

The notion of human flourishing was already present in the writings of Aristotle. It is

a notion of the “good” as the fulfillment of what is inherent in human beings and, as

such, is to be distinguished from Kant’s notion of the good as what is universally “right”

or from the Utilitarian view of the good as what is “useful”. Flourishing is an unfolding

process from within as opposed to an imposition (e.g. principles or values) from without.

Furthermore, this unfolding cannot occur in isolation, but rather requires the interactive

dynamic of a community, and hence, emergence is a function of co-evolution.

6.6 An Expanded View of Risk

6.6 An Expanded View of Risk The current notion of risk concerns the inability of future generations to meet their needs

and is measured in terms of probability and consequence. Clearly we cannot maintain the

status-quo and society now faces one of the following possible futures: (1) that we de-

plete the earth’s natural resources such that biological and ecological systems can no

92 6 A New Way of Thinking about Sustainability, Risk and Decision-Making

longer sustain themselves and collapse, (2) that population growth and depletion of re-

sources produce a new equilibrium state characterized by scarcity and environmental

degradation, which diminishes the quality of life, or (3) that human activity pushes bio-

logical and ecological systems so far from equilibrium that they bifurcate into new levels

of complexity with unknown consequences (good or bad) and unknowable probabilities.

Hence, a new approach to risk assessment would be based on the holism of open

living systems, rather than on the reductionism inherent in the Newtonian/Cartesian

paradigm. We propose the hypothesis that any evaluation of the impact of human activ-

ity on the ecology of life must shift from being based on a consideration of the sum of

the individual elements of a system to being based on a consideration of the emergent

properties of that system. In fact, we propose that emergent property degradation is the

appropriate measure of risk for the whole of a nonlinear system, in the same way that a

summative measure of risk is currently used for assessing a linear system.

6.7 An Expanded Process of Environmental Decision Making

6.7 An Expanded Process of Environmental Decision Making These new and expanded definitions of risk and sustainability, in turn, become the foun-

dation for environmental decision-making processes. Beginning with the National Re-

search Council (NRC) study (Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic

Society) [8], there has been much written about the need for analytic-deliberative proc-

esses for environmental decision-making [9–11] in multiple stakeholder situations.

However, the emphasis in analytic-deliberative processes is getting the “right partici-

pants” rather than getting the “participation right.” That is to say, these studies are fo-

cused on inclusivity, which is understood primarily as adding more stakeholders to the

process.

Because the newest technologies are affecting core societal values as well as individ-

ual health and safety, there is a need for an expansion from merely informing the “inter-

ested and affected parties” to establishing processes for complex multi-stakeholder deci-

sion-making. However, just adding more stakeholders to the conversation merely makes

decision-making more complicated. In fact, it thus may even decrease the chances that

conflicts will be resolved, because it is a more complicated linear approach to what is

inherently a nonlinear problem.

A number of deliberative processes have been suggested and some have actually

been tested [9]. Suggestions range from, “epistemological discourse, where experts ar-

gue over factual assessment, to reflective discourse, where policy makers, scientists and

representative members of major stakeholder groups take part, to participatory dis-

course, which is focused on ambiguity and includes legal decision making, citizen advi-

sory groups and citizen juries [10].” But in all cases, the heart of the process must be

dialogue and not merely debate. A debate leads to either a triumph of one of the initial

points of view over the others, or perhaps to a compromise. Dialogue, on the other hand,

can lead to the emergence of a new possibility that was unthinkable prior to the start of

6.8 Conclusions 93

the dialogue. Dialogue is distinguished here from its usual meaning [12]. In fact, it is

nonlinearity in action [13]. When in a process of dialogue, prior assumptions, values and

beliefs are suspended, knowing is replaced with finding out, known answers replaced

with new questions, winning or losing with cooperating, power with respect, and proving

points with exploring possibilities.

6.8 Conclusions

6.8 Conclusions Risk analysis, to date, has been used primarily to address the potential societal and envi-

ronmental impacts of complicated systems. It was developed by the U. S. Space Program

in the 1950’s and 60’s with the advent of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis in an at-

tempt to both understand and correct missile and rocket launch failures. Risk assessment

came of age with the publication of the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) in 1975, but

only after 75 or so nuclear power plants already had been designed, built and operated in

the U. S. Risk management only came to prominence after the accident at Three Mile

Island-Unit 2 in 1979.

We are now challenging the field of risk analysis to address issues concerning sus-

tainability with respect to complex systems before they are widely deployed and before

irreversible consequences have occurred. It is a challenge not to be taken lightly.

References

References [1] Science 1999, 284(5411), 79–109.

[2] G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

1999, p. 500.

[3] G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

1999, p. 337.

[4] B. Wynne, Global Environmental Change 1992, 2, 111–127.

[5] S. Kaplan, and B. J. Garrick, Risk Analysis 1981, 1(1), 11–27.

[6] M. Heidegger in The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, translated

by William Lovitt, Harper and Rowe, New York, 1997.

[7] Proceedings of a Workshop on Ethics and the Impact of Technology on Society, can be

found under http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/html/research/ethics/index.htm, 2003.

[8] National Research Council, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic

Society, 1996.

[9] G. E. Apostolakis, and S. Pickett, Risk Analysis 1998, 18(5).

[10] O. Renn, Environmental Science and Technology 1999, 33(18), 3049–3055.

[11] S. Tuler, and T. Webler, Risk, Health, Safety and Environment 1999, 10, 65–87.

[12] D. Bohm, On Dialogue, Routledge, 1996.

[13] G.-H. Kastenberg, W. E. Kastenberg, D. Norris, Science and Engineering Ethics 2003,

9.