Provisioning systems for a good life within planetary boundaries

The concept of provisioning systems has recently emerged as a promising way to understand the differences between levels of resource use and social outcomes observed across societies. However, the characteristics of provisioning systems remain poorly understood. Here, we make a new contribution to conceptualising provisioning systems and to understanding differences in the resource efficiency with which they achieve social outcomes. We define a provisioning system as a set of related elements that work together in the transformation of resources to satisfy a foreseen human need. We analyse six theories in terms of their contribution to understanding provisioning systems within the biophysical and social constraints of Raworth’s “Safe and Just Space” framework. We find that most of these theories fail to prioritise human needs and well-being, and do not incorporate explicit environmental limits. However, they provide important insights that we draw upon to identify six important provisioning system elements (households, markets, the commons, the state, techniques, and material stocks). Based on the theories, we also identify two important relationships between elements, namely feedbacks and power relations. We further propose the concept of “appropriating systems” as a component of provisioning systems. Appropriating systems reduce the resource efficiency of human well-being via rent extraction, and act as a barrier to meeting human needs at a sustainable level of resource use. We combine these concepts into a new framework, and discuss applications to energy systems

Can underemployment persist in an expanding economy? Clues from a non-Walrasian OLG model with endogenous longevity

Bargaining power, Longevity, OLG model, Underemployment, Wage-bargaining, I12, J52, O41,

Geld en duurzaamheid : van een falend geldsysteem naar een monetair ecosysteem.

Het geldsysteem faalt. Slechts 2% van het geld is tastbare economie, 98% is zuiver speculatief. Van 1970-2010 kenden 145 landen een bankwezencrisis, 208 een monetaire crisis en 72 een staatsschuldencrisis. Gemiddeld één crisis per maand! Het geldsysteem is funest voor de duurzaamheid, want het maakt elke crisis erger dan nodig, stimuleert kortetermijndenken, vereist oneindige groei in een eindige wereld, concentreert de rijkdom bij een kleine elite en breekt de natuurlijke saamhorigheid tussen mensen af. Net nu we met een vergrijzende bevolking moeten investeren in een postkoolstofmaatschappij, loopt het geldsysteem op zijn laatste benen. We moeten naar een monetair ecosysteem dat tegen een stootje kan en duurzaamheid bevordert. Dat kan met extra muntsystemen die allerlei doelen dienen: betere gezondheid, onderlinge samenwerking, milieubehoud, florerende lokale economie, enz. Die muntsystemen zijn niet alleen goed voor arme landen, niet alleen goed voor landen in crisis, maar ook goed voor ons eigen land.Rapport van de Club of Rome-EU Chapter aan Finance Watch en de World Business AcademyHet geldsysteem faalt. Slechts 2% van het geld is tastbare economie, 98% is zuiver speculatief. Van 1970-2010 kenden 145 landen een bankwezencrisis, 208 een monetaire crisis en 72 een staatsschuldencrisis. Gemiddeld één crisis per maand! Het geldsysteem is funest voor de duurzaamheid, want het maakt elke crisis erger dan nodig, stimuleert kortetermijndenken, vereist oneindige groei in een eindige wereld, concentreert de rijkdom bij een kleine elite en breekt de natuurlijke saamhorigheid tussen mensen af. Net nu we met een vergrijzende bevolking moeten investeren in een postkoolstofmaatschappij, loopt het geldsysteem op zijn laatste benen. We moeten naar een monetair ecosysteem dat tegen een stootje kan en duurzaamheid bevordert. Dat kan met extra muntsystemen die allerlei doelen dienen: betere gezondheid, onderlinge samenwerking, milieubehoud, florerende lokale economie, enz. Die muntsystemen zijn niet alleen goed voor arme landen, niet alleen goed voor landen in crisis, maar ook goed voor ons eigen land.Money and sustainability: the missing lin

MicroRNA loss enhances learning and memory in mice

Dicer-dependent noncoding RNAs, including microRNAs (miRNAs), play an important role in a modulation of translation of mRNA transcripts necessary for differentiation in many cell types. In vivo experiments using cell type-specific Dicer1 gene inactivation in neurons showed its essential role for neuronal development and survival. However, little is known about the consequences of a loss of miRNAs in adult, fully differentiated neurons. To address this question, we used an inducible variant of the Cre recombinase (tamoxifen-inducible CreERT2) under control of Camk2a gene regulatory elements. After induction of Dicer1 gene deletion in adult mouse forebrain, we observed a progressive loss of a whole set of brain-specific miRNAs. Animals were tested in a battery of both aversively and appetitively motivated cognitive tasks, such as Morris water maze, IntelliCage system, or trace fear conditioning. Compatible with rather long half-life of miRNAs in hippocampal neurons, we observed an enhancement of memory strength of mutant mice 12 weeks after the Dicer1 gene mutation, before the onset of neurodegenerative process. In acute brain slices, immediately after high-frequency stimulation of the Schaffer collaterals, the efficacy at CA3-to-CA1 synapses was higher in mutant than in control mice, whereas long-term potentiation was comparable between genotypes. This phenotype was reflected at the subcellular and molecular level by the elongated filopodia-like shaped dendritic spines and an increased translation of synaptic plasticity-related proteins, such as BDNF and MMP-9 in mutant animals. The presented work shows miRNAs as key players in the learning and memory process of mammals

Origins, Developments and Future of the Concept of Innovation: Opening the Economic Framing of Innovation to Social, Ethical, Political Parameters to Achieve Responsibility: Strengths and Limits

Part 1: Society, Social Responsibility, Ethics and ICTInternational audienceThe concept of innovation is making a successful comeback in philosophy, particularly with the qualifier “responsible” attached. This attachment of the qualification “responsible” reflects the idea that the concept of innovation has to be opened to new considerations, namely social, political and ethical concerns. Since the 18th century, innovation has been the object of economics and science of business and growth. This paper aims at testing the legitimacy of these attempts to open the concept and redefine it in terms other than those of economics. We start with a contextualization of the use of the term innovation, to see why it has been so strongly associated with the market, growth and business then we see what is at stake in opening it up to other considerations. We consider the limits of this opening and look at possible ways to attach other meanings to the concept, without losing significance by too much inclusion. The solution proposed is that instead of imposing new parameters and trying to shift the concept, we could keep the economic bias of the term, but challenge it with concerns expressed by people coming from the field of economics who are trying to propose an alternative framework for economics that would take into account other concerns, and in which responsible innovation could find a place