Zwischen Tragfähigkeit und Konvivialität: Analytische Zugänge für eine Postwachstumsperspektive auf Technik

Die Postwachstumsdebatte ist geprägt von sehr unterschiedlichen Sichtweisen auf die Rolle und den Umgang mit Technik. Einerseits halten ein Teil der Befürworter des Postwachstums das technowissenschaftliche Paradigma für einen Teil des Problems und stellten sich eine künftige Postwachstumsgesellschaft jenseits der Technik vor, während sie gleichzeitig den weltweit zu beobachtenden Enthusiasmus für technische Lösungen ablehnen, da diese Entwicklungen in ihrer instrumentellen Rationalität eine Vorherrschaft über die Natur impliziert. Andere Postwachstumsvertreter finden diese einseitige Sichtweise zu simpel und sehen technische Lösungen – sofern sie neu betrachtet und kritisch reflektiert werden – als Verbündete für die Entwicklung hin zu einer Postwachstumsgesellschaft. In diesem Artikel werden v. a. zwei theoretische Zugänge betrachtet, die grundlegend für viele Auseinandersetzungen um Technik im Feld des Postwachstumsdiskurses sind: Eine biophysikalische, die sich auf Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen zurückführen lässt, und eine soziopolitische bzw. kulturelle, die auf gesellschaftskritische Denker wie Ivan Illich, Jacques Ellul und André Gorz zurückführt. Diese schließen zudem an zwei Konzepte der Postwachstumsdebatte an, dem der Tragfähigkeit (viability) und der Konvivialität (conviviality).The degrowth debate is characterized by very different perspectives on the role and use of technology. On the one hand, some of the proponents of degrowth consider the techno-scientific paradigm to be part of the problem and envision a future post-growth society beyond technology, while at the same time rejecting the worldwide enthusiasm for technical solutions since these developments in their instrumental rationality imply domination over nature. Other degrowth advocates consider this one-sided view too simplistic and see technical solutions – provided that they are looked at in a new and critical way – as allies in the development towards a post-growth society. This article particularly focuses on two theoretical approaches that are fundamental to many disputes about technology in the degrowth discourse: a biophysical one that can be attributed to Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, and a sociopolitical or cultural one that goes back to social critics such as Ivan Illich, Jacques Ellul, and André Gorz. These are also linked to two concepts of the degrowth debate, that of viability and of conviviality

Correction to: He ʻike ʻana ia i ka pono (it is a recognizing of the right thing): how one indigenous worldview informs relational values and social values (Sustainability Science, (2019), 14, 5, (1213-1232), 10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9)

In the original publication of the article, under the section “Indigenous and local knowledge”, on the 4th page, the following sentence “… Megan Bang, a scholar of Native American (Menominee) descent, and her team…” was published incorrectly. The correct sentence should read as “… Megan Bang, a scholar of Native American (Ojibwe) and Italian descent, and her team…”

Justice, sustainability, and the diverse values of nature: why they matter for biodiversity conservation

Aiming at just and sustainable futures for biodiversity conservation requires clarity concerning how justice relates to the diverse values of nature. By drawing upon and expanding on the recent Values Assessment of Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, this article discusses the implications of the diverse values of nature for different dimensions of justice. It also addresses how achieving transformative change that protects biodiversity requires the inclusion of diverse values of nature into valuation and decision-making processes, and how this imperative is interconnected with different dimensions of justice

Opinion: Why Protect Nature? Rethinking Values and the Environment

A cornerstone of environmental policy is the debate over protecting nature for humans’ sake (instrumental values) or for nature’s (intrinsic values) (1). We propose that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and collective well-being, or “what is right,” with regard to nature and the environment. Without complementary attention to other ways that value is expressed and realized by people, such a focus may inadvertently promote worldviews at odds with fair and desirable futures. It is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expressions: relational values. By doing so, we reframe the discussion about environmental protection, and open the door to new, potentially more productive policy approaches

Formare per trasformare. Per una pedagogia dell'immaginazione

Italo Calvino, nelle Lezioni americane del 1985, sviluppò sei proposte per sopravvivere nel prossimo millennio. In una di esse si trova l’idea di una possibile pedagogia dell’immaginazione. Perché riflettere su una pedagogia dell’immaginazione? Perché promuoverla ancora oggi?  A partire da questa domanda studiose e studiosi hanno voluto interrogare le proprie discipline e la propria esperienza per costruire un percorso di riflessione teoretica e politica. Questo libro si compone così non solo di saggi che delineano il panorama di rimandi etici e filosofici, individuali e collettivi, di una riflessione su una pedagogia che mantenga al suo centro l’immaginazione, ma anche di vere e proprie proposte pratico-politiche per il millennio che stiamo attraversando. Nonostante negli ultimi venticinque anni si siano moltiplicate le riforme del sistema educativo, infatti, ciò è spesso avvenuto senza che si sia svolta una riflessione sui fondamenti. Riflettere sul come e sul perché educare, nonché sui mezzi da utilizzare e sullo scopo sia individuale sia, soprattutto, collettivo, è quanto mai fondamentale e necessario.&nbsp

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures