Science topics: Public LawEU & European Studies
Science topic
EU & European Studies - Science topic
EU & European Studies
Questions related to EU & European Studies
Interested in outside the box academic ideas on how exism movements can lead to the death of normal liberal democracy from within in the quest for permanent access to power?
Perhaps you should read this DRAFT paper
Rethinking democracy 107: Placing the post 2016 liberal democracy landscape under independent rule of law variability system to indicate when to expect peaceful transfer of powers and when not when parties lose elections(UNPUBLISHED).
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 108: Can we approach socially friendly capitalism through social externality management? If yes, how can this be done?, In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 14 Nº 8, December, La Paz, Bolivia.
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 109: Linking perfect green market theory to the circular green economy, In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 14 Nº 7, La Paz, Bolivia.
Do you know the externality structure and market illusion of markets other than the traditional market?
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 105: An overview of the externality structure of all possible markets and of the specific market illusion under which each of them operates, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.6, November, La Paz, Bolivia.
What is the circular green economy? What is the circular environmental externality management-based economy? Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 107: Comparing the structure of the circular green economy with that of the circular environmental externality management-based economy to identify differences as well as to point out the market implications of these differences, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.6, November, La Paz, Bolivia.
Have you ever read this article related to solving the environmental sustainability problem?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 106: Can we solve an environmental sustainability problem by managing the consequences of that problem? If not, why not?, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.5, May, La Paz, Bolivia.
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 112: How can the hidden unequal nature of the liberal market model be detailed step by step? , Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.4, April, La Paz, Bolivia.
Have you ever read this article? They help to understand when exism movements like Brexit and Usexit should be expected to take power under majority rule liberal democracy thuinking
Muñoz, Lucio, 2018. True Democracy and Complacency: Linking Voting Outcome Expectations to Complacency Variability Using Qualitative Comparative Means, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 11 No. 1, January, La Paz, Bolivia.
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2019. From Traditional Markets to Green Markets: A Look at Markets Under Perfect Green Market Competition, Weber Economics & Finance (ISSN:2449-1662), Vol. 7 (1) 2019, Article ID wef_253, 1147-1156
Have you ever read this article normal democratic outcomes and extreme democratic outcomes?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2017. Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 10, No. 8, October, La Paz, Bolivia.
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016. Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations, In: British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade 12(4): 1-15, Article no. BJEMT.24697, London, UK.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2003. “Stakeholders, Attitudes, and Sustainability: The Need for Attitude Convergence”, Sustainability Outlook, Warren Flint (PhD)(Ed), Issue No. 22, February, Washington DC, USA
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016. Karl Marx Vrs Sustainability Markets: Who Would Have Won this Cold War? Would the World of Karl Marx Have Existed Then?, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 9, No. 6, July, La Paz, Bolivia.
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016. Beyond Green Market Thinking: What would be the Structure of the Perfect Sustainability Market?, In: International Journal of Science Social Studies Humanities and Management (IJSSSHM), Vol. 2, No. 5, May, Ed. Dr. Maya Pant, India.
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016. Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s model: Was Going Green the Only Option? If not, Is This Option the Most Sustainable One?, Weber Economics & Finance (ISSN:2449-1662 ), Vol. 2 (3) 2016, Article ID wef_169, 540-546.
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2015. Did Adam Smith Miss the Chance to State the Goal and Structure of Sustainability Markets in His Time? If Yes, Which Could Be Some of the Possible Reasons Behind That?, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 8, No. 11, November 30, 2015, La Paz, Bolivia.
Muñoz, Lucio, 1999. Understanding Sustainability Versus Sustained Development by Means of a WIN Development Model, In: Sustainability Review, Warren Flint/PhD(ed), Issue 1, September, USA.
Have you ever read this article? Some food for thoughts here:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2015. Moral and Practical Sustainability Gaps: Implications for the Current Liberal Development Model, Weber Sociology & Anthropology (ISSN:2449-1632), Vol. 1 (4) 2015, Article ID wsa_149, 317-320.
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2013. Utilitarianism, Raw Liberalism, Moral Liberalism, and True Sustainability: Basic Paradigm Foundations, Changing Assumptions, and the Evolution of Development Paradigms, In: The Mother Pelican Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, January, Ed. Luis Gutierrez, PhD, USA.
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2014. Understanding the Road Towards the Current Dominant Non-Renewable Energy Use Based Economy: Using An Inversegram to Point Out a Step by Step Strategy Towards an Efficient Dominant Renewable Energy Use Based Economy, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, No. 11, December 23, La Paz, Bolivia.
Have you read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2011. From Dying to Eternal Economies: When Should the Paradigm Shift from the Non-Renewable Resource Based to the Renewable Resource Based Economy Take Place?, En: Desastres Naturales, REDESMA, Vol.5(2), October, La Paz, Bolivia.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2012. From Traditional Sweatshops to Green Sweatshops: Is this a More Socially Friendly Strategy? In: The Mother Pelican Journal, Vol. 8, No. 6, June, Ed. Luis Gutierrez, PhD, USA.
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2008. Agriculture and Global Warming: Should the Biofuel Route Be Expected to Be a Socially Friendly Agricultural Policy?, In: Biocombustibles, REDESMA, Vol. 2(2), Section VIII, July, La Paz, Bolivia.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2010. Where Should Donors Place Their Monetary and Trade Incentives to Encourage Developing Countries to Implement Balanced Pro-Rich/Pro-Poor Development Programs?, Journal of Sustainability, Issue 3, Number 2(Fall), Rio Rancho, New Mexico USA.
You read current ACADEMIC PAPERS on sustainability written like if the concept never existed before despite being available with just a simple RESEARCHGATE SEARCH OR ACADEMIA SEARCH OR GOOGLE SEARCH since before and after WCED 1987 called for moving away from business as usual. Ignoring the past to advance concepts as new is not consistent with Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop. And this raises the question, Is the current sustainability research agenda in support of business as usual based on academic tunneling?
I think Yes, what do you think?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2003. Building the Basic Foundations of Global Sustainability, Sustainability Outlook, Warren Flint(PhD)(Ed), Issue 29/July, Washington DC, USA
Here some good food for thoughts!
Muñoz, Lucio, 2010. What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be a Good Fix to Add Fair Trade Margins to Correct Distorted Agricultural Market Prices?, Journal of Sustainability, Issue 2, Number 4(Spring), Rio Rancho, New Mexico USA.
These days, when talking about the circular economy, they use talking points without even mentioning the pollution production problem associated with the working of the traditional market or with economic activity which it is also present in the working of circular markets or circular economic activity...See how the UN CLIMATE CHANGE PROMISE talks about a circular economy with no link to its pollution production problem nature and with no mention of the need to move one day to pollution-less economies....
" What is circular economy and why does it matter?
And this raises the question: Imagine you are the environment, can a circular pollution production solution/circularity fix the linear pollution production problem/linearity you face?
What do you think? If you think Yes, please indicate why. If you think No, please indicate why no.
Note;
This is an academic question, not a political one.
Look at today 2024 and compare it to the ideas shared here and you may see what it should have been from 2008 towards RIO + 20 UNCSD 2012 and after if we were REALLY INTERESTED in slowly transitioning POLLUTION PRODUCTION ECONOMIES to the fully renewable energy-based economy.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2008. Renewable Energy Vrs Social Needs: What Do Environmentalists Must Do to Induce the Development of a Sustainable Market fueled only by Renewable Energy?, In: Agrocombustibles, REDESMA, Vol 2(1), Section VII, March, La Paz, Bolivia.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2003. Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent Sustainability Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21, GDS, IIG, Spain
Muñoz, Lucio, 2003. Eco-Economic Development Under Social Constraints: How to Redirect it Towards Sustainability?, In: THEOMAI, Issue # 8, October, Argentina
Muñoz, Lucio, 2000. Unprotected Areas, Protected Areas, and Sustainability Under Green Development Policies: Which are the Expected Impacts?, In: THEOMAI, No. 2, Argentina
The current trend appearing to have come from nowhere in 2024 promoting economic circularity to solve a sustainability problem embedded in it is mind boggling, which leads to the question: If a linearly polluting society is not sustainable, how can a circularity polluting society be sustainable?
Perhaps someone promoting economic circularity can explain
Note:
This question is academic, not political.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2002. "The Meso-American Biological Corridor and Regional Sustainability: An Overview of Potential Problems and Their Policy Implications", Issue 32/August, DHIAL Journal, IIG/Spain
Muñoz, Lucio, 2002. “Maximization, Partial Regulation, and System Dominance: Can They Be Drivers of True Sustainability?”, In: International Journal on Environmental Management and Health, Walter Leal Filho, PhD(Ed), Vol. 15, No. 5, Pp. 545-552, MCB University Press, Germany/Sweden
Muñoz, Lucio, 2002. “Are We Appropriately Assigning Causes to Global Warming?”, In: Sustainability Outlook, Issue 16, November 13, Warren Flint(PhD)(Ed), Washington, DC, USA.
Think about willful academic blindness(ACADEMIC TUNNELING) vrs willful democratic blindness(POLITICAL TUNNELING)....
The first type/academic tunneling seems now normal, taking place at universities, thinktanks, international organizations, governments....which will lead to the death of science in a way that THOMAS KUHN was not expecting, BUT IT IS NOT BEING SEEN AS A THREAT TO THE SURVIVAL OF SCIENCE as it seems we are now in a non-science based world as science or not, they still will push what they want to push.....
The second type/political tunneling is SEEN as an existential threat to liberal democracy as political tunneling does not work under democratic rules just see the political dynamics under political tunneling processes under exism movements like Trumpism....
Hence, willful political tunneling with the support of alternative facts is seen as a serious threat to democracy from within, but willful academic tunneling with the support of alternative academic facts is not seen apparently as a serious threat to science from within, which makes you wonder, why.
And this raises the question, Why willful blindness is taken as a serious threat to the survival of democracy, but not the survival of science?
What do you think?
Note:
This is an academic question, not a political one.
The Traditional Market and the Sustainability Market: Is the Perfect Market Sustainable?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2000. Rationality, Responsibility, and Sustainability: When Can Human Behaviour Have a Chance to Be Sustainable?, In: Sustainability Review, Warren Flint/PhD(ed), Issue 20, May, USA
You have seen the comings and goings now of Trumpism, Brazilianism, and Brexism, 2016 to 2024 and the common theme is why they failed to persist in power ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER. You have seen the direction that exism movements take towards permanent authoritarianism. And you may be familiar with the environment in countries with permanent authoritarianism.
If you look at the evolution of democracy theory since 2016 paradigm shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies in some countries you and you adjusted your previous democratic thinking as now EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS and THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN A CONJUNCTURAL CAUSALITY MODE play a key role. And you compare this environment to the one found in countries UNDER permanent authoritarianism you may see some similarities in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for them to keep power for ever between the structure of permanent authoritarianism from within and well as from outside.
If you take into account this, then you may be able to see that the necessary and sufficient conditions for permanent authoritarianism to stay in power for ever using this new thinking has technically not changed, it is the same before 2016 and it is now in 2024..
And this raises the question: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for permanent dictatorships to remain in power regardless of opposing democratic movements?
What do you think the necessary and sufficient condition is?
Note: The answer is short.
Are you concerned about the future of democracy, locally or globally?
What do you think the fundamental lessons learned for democracy are since 2016 BREXIT?
How can we come out with a permanent shield for the continuation of democracy regardless of type of future threat?
Perhaps they coincide with my thinking.
The question is: What are the 3 fundamental lessons learned from facing exism movements and dictatorship threats 2016-2024?
What do you think?
The answer should be short as my answer is short.
Note: I am currently putting these ideas together in one article.
Since 2016 Brexit, the world needed to change the thinking behind traditional democracy as the democratic landscape changed, yet traditional democratic thinkers and actors have been acting as if the competition for power is STILL BETWEEN NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES that are happy to live within an independent rule of law system, when it is no longer the case as now a new variable came into play, legal targeted chaos, that when effective it is a game changer as it leads to extreme democratic outcomes that should be expected to be unhappy living under an independent rule of law system. To be able to answer general questions as the one here, we need to rethink democracy thinking.
And this raises the question: In terms of chaos, what is the necessary and sufficient condition for authoritarianism, permanent or temporary, to come to exist and persist?
What do you think is the answer to this question is from the point of view of just CHAOS?
You see some democratic countries since 2016 Brexit failing to deal proactively to avoid or reactively to neutralize internal democracy threats like local exism movement or deal with external democracy threats like permanent authoritarianism and temporary authoritarianism or the cooperation of authoritarianisn. In 2016 perhaps Brexit came as a surprise because of knowledge gaps in democratic theory, but maybe 2016 Trumpism should not have been a surprise as THE SAME PLAYBOOK was at play, and this should have been a wake up call to traditional democracy theory based thinkers to adapt liberal democracy thinking to absorve to the coming new liberal democracy landscape where normal democratic outcomes are competing for power, no longer against other normal democratic outcomes as before 2016, but AGAINST EXTREME DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES.
It seems in the UK, in the USA, in Europe as a whole, they have been treating extreme democratic outcomes as either normal democratic outcomes or abnormal outcomes without probably realizing that if certain conditions are met, extreme democratic outcomes can become long term temporary authoritarianism periods, and if some other especific conditions are met, democracy will end and extreme democratic outcomes will become permanent authoritarianism. The liberal democracy landscape changed in clear ways in 2016 yet democratic countries keep running the system the same way as they did in the past giving space to exism movements not just to materialize by to gain power. And this raises the question, relevant to all democracies and democratic thinkers: The rise of effective target chaos in 2016 and the failure for democracies to adapt and deal with it, how are they link to exism movements?
You see internal and external dynamics in majority rule-based countries with actual extreme democratic outcomes at play and in countries with want to be extreme democratic outcome around, all majority ruled based countries, but even though this has been going on since just before 2016 BREXIT and 2016 USEXIT and continues today with the coming of an extreme democratic outcome in Argentina...
Yet politicians in normal democratic outcome run countries have not yet CLEARLY figured out that the idea that DEMOCRACY is a mess within democratic competitors like NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME AGAINS NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME, where both are normal democratic outcomes with the best interest of the majority at hand but different approach has CHANGED as when competition is between A NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME VERSUS AN EXTREME DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME the nature of the MESS changes as the extreme democratic outcome is not restricted or bound or it does not believe in the democratic values and rules under which it is born; and hence, cometition has a different structure. Hence, the way democratic outcomes compete with extreme democratic outcome needed to change since 2016, but it has not changed yet.
It seems normal democratic outcome run countries appear to be still following normal democratic theory when competing with EXTREME DEMOCRATIC THEORY/ exism theory, which indicates why they have been more often than expected been taken victim of the Murphy’s law under efficient targeted chaos.
Hence, everything changes when we shift from normal democratic outcome to extreme democratic outcome in majority ruled based countries, both internally (extreme democratic outcome vrs normal democratic outcome) and externally (extreme democratic outcome-based country versus normal democratic outcome-based country, and there is a reason to rethink to keep democratic norms where the best interest of the majority, not the minority, rules under majority rule democratic based systems.
And this raises the question: Does paradigm exism theory explain why normal democratic outcome-based countries should not be expected to get along with extreme democratic outcome-based countries?
What do you think? What is your view on the answer to this question.
You have seen the comings and goings now of Trumpism, Brazilianism, and Brexism, 2016 to 2024 and the common theme is why they failed to persist in power ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER.
If you look at the evolution of democracy theory since 2016 paradigm shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies in some countries you and you adjusted your previous democratic thinking as now EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS and THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN A CONJUNCTURAL CAUSALITY MODE play a key role.
If you take into account this, then you may be able to see that the necessary and sufficient conditions for normal liberal democratic outcomes to come to exist and persist has changed as conditions have changed.
And this raises the question: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for normal democratic outcomes to maintain power regardless of the coming and going of exism movements and dictatorship threats?
What do you think the necessary and sufficient condition is?
Note: The answer is short.
It seems that since 2012 Rio +20 Conference, the world has been moving away from science based perfect market thinking, a moved that apparently has been helped by the confusion created by the 2012 green market paradigm shift avoidance move or the green market shift avoidance period 2012-2024, and this raises the question, Is science based on a political definition science?
What do you think? Yes, why? No, why not?
We know that there are flawed paradigms and golden paradigms. A pollution production market is a flawed paradigm and a pollution-less market is a golden clean market paradigm.
And this raises the question: Is a circular non-renewable energy dominant based economy delinked from social friendliness a golden clean market paradigm?
What do you think? Why?
Imagine the WCED 1987 would have set only one sustainable development goal, closing the renewable energy technology gap to make renewable energy a permanent substitute of non-renewable energy as soon as possible and address pollution production head on by transitioning out of dirty economies.
Imagine 2012 RIO +20 would have made only one goal to support the implementation of green markets, to set up a system around implementation, financing, and monitoring of the closing of the renewable energy technology gap in each country as soon as possible to address pollution reduction head on by making pollution reduction a profit-making opportunity.
Imagine the 2015 Paris agreement had only one goal implemented in a socially friendly manner, to close the renewable energy technology gap as soon as possible to lead the dirty economy behind and stop providing benefits to those making money from dirty development.
Instead, attention has been placed on managing the consequences of pollution production markets which keeps renewable energy as a permanent complement and send dirty markets under permanent dirty market failure.
And this raises the question, should making renewable energy a permanent substitute be a clear and practical SDG goal?
What do you think?
Imaging a world under perfect red market thinking or under perfect socially friendly capitalism since 1776 had Adam Smith giving us that model then instead of the perfect traditional market, would that have created environmental sustainability problems too by 1987/WCED?
What do you think?
Yes, and why do you think so? No, and why do you think so?
Note:
This requires a little thinking outside the box
Under perfect market paradigm shift avoidance, the responsibilities of governments and of corporations in development change, which raises the question: Under perfect market paradigm shift avoidance, who is to be blamed if social and/or environmental systems collapse, governments or corporations? Why?
Who do you think is to be blamed? And why do you think that is the case?
A short answer who and why is the best.
At least in the economic arena, by this time the norm should have been green microeconomics and green macroeconomy since 2012 Rio +20 as the tools to be taught to deal with the environmental crisis as consensus on paradigm change to green market, green growth, and green economies was reached/RIO +20 Conference/UNCSD 2012, but traditional economic thinking and traditional macroeconomic thinking is still the norm, which means that universities knowingly or not are normalizing paradigm shift avoidance, and blocking the growth of knowledge a la Thomas Kuhn; and this raises the question: Paradigm shift avoidance and universities, do they have a duty to science based paradigm evolution of knowledge?
what do you think?
Simply state Yes and give your opinion on why you think Yes or say No, and state your opinion on why you think No.
Just as in the case of greenwashing where people can get tricked because the word GREEN sounds good, the same can be said with respect to the current move from linear economic thinking to circular economic thinking where some people may be tricked because the word CIRCULAR sounds good.
But those familiar with science based revolutions a la Thomas Kuhn should be able to spot WHERE THE TRICK IS.
And this raises the academic question, Why the current move from linear economic thinking to circular economic thinking is inconsistent with Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop?
What do you think?
Can you see the inconsistency?
And hence, can you see the trick?
Can you see the why? If yes. please share your thinking.
Note:
You need to understand first what was wrong with traditional market thinking, which 1776-1987 had led to a critical socio-environmental sustainabiility problem as indicated by WCED 1987/Our Common Future
This is an academic question, not a political one.
Think of the environmental sustainability problem the Brundtland Commission highlighted and documented in 1987(WCED) in “Our Common Future” as an environmental pollution production market problem, the consequence of a market failure that was always there and which has always been there embedded in the perfect traditional market thinking, but it was assumed away using environmental externality neutrality assumptions. A problem that can only be solved by internalizing the environmental cost of production in the pricing mechanism of the traditional market to shift it to green market pricing. Hence, only when we fix the root cause of the environmental pollution production problem, the environmentally distorted traditional market prices, we address the environmental pollution problem head on as when doing this we are making environmental pollution reduction a good business opportunity for green producers.
Since we have not fixed the root cause of the problem yet as there are no green markets in place today to transition green economies towards the environmentally clean economies; then this raises the question: Is the current traditional circular economy thinking push worse for the environment than the perfect traditional market economy thinking of Adam Smith that created the environmental problem in the first place?
If Yes, why? If, No, why not?
What do you think?
The growth of science based knowledge or contribution to knowledge a la Thomas Kuhn is foward looking as FLAWED paradigms(STATUS QUO) enter the Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop under academic integrity, where abnormalities are removed to solve critical problems like social and/or environmental sustainability problems leading to new paradigms and knowledge as the old knowledge base is left behind, backward moves and paradigms avoidance moves are inconsistent with Thomas Kuhn's thinking.
Therefore, the move from a flawed paradigm backwards in the face of critical social and/or environmental problems is ao flawed paradigm to another even more flawed paradigm.
We know formally since 1987 WCED that the traditional market thinking/linear market thinking was a flawed paradigm socially and environmentally. Hence a move from linear economic thinking to circular economic thinking is a move from a flawed paradigm to a flawed paradigm without forward looking growth of scientific knowledge a la Thomas Kuhn as the status quo paradigm/linear traditional market goes into DEEP double down flawed paradigm/circular traditional market regardless of the history of economic thought 1987-2023.
And this raises the question: Will the move from linear to circular economic thinking be remembered in the historty of economic thought as a backward deep paradigm double down?
What do you think? If No, why do you you think so? If Yes, why do you think so?
You are probably familiar with the concept of greenwashing, which took relevance just before, on, and after 2012 Rio + 20/The future we want, where ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY TOOK THE FRONT STAGE.
Now 2024 traditional economic thinking has been resurrected after being left behind by the 1987/WCED/Our Common Future as it had the root cause of the socio-environmental sustainability problems they documented embedded in it, BY SIMPLY MAKING IT CIRCULAR. nothing else required related to the embedded problem still at play:
And this raises the question, Why circular economy thinking is more than greenwashing?
Any ideas? Feel free to share them.
When it comes to climate change decision makers always tell you follow and respect the science.
When it comes to pandemics like Covid 19 decision makers always told you to respect and follow the science, ...
BUT when it comes to economics, decision makers are not calling for follow and respect the science. They quietly have apparently moved away of requiring economics to stay a science.
Since 2012 when decision makers avoided to shift from traditional market thinking to green market thinking, the science based evolution point a la Thomas Kuhn as there was consensus then for paradigm change, they have slowly move away from science by going dwarf green markets a la environmental externality management first, and now it seems they are going to square one, circular economic thinking, a thinking totally delinked from the problem we are supposed to be trying to solve, the environmental problem.
Hence, there are science based ways to fix the environmental problem and there are non-science based to patch and manage the environmental problem.
But science follows the scientific truth, if the science does not support what those decision makers want to do, no matter how much they play with the theory and the practice, why support thinking not based on science aimed at perpetuating the problem?
And this raises the question: If climate change action is based on science and the economy to implement it is not, is that good for the environment?
I think No, what do you think? If you think Yes, why? If you think No, why no?
Note; This is an academic question, not a political one.
Think about it, the WCED 1987 told us among other things that to be environmentally friendly we have to go beyond business as usual using sustainable development means, which by 2012 Rio + 20 the world had agreed that the WIN-WIN economy and environment model was the way to shift to a world under green markets, green growth, and green economies, BUT then soon since 2012 the environmentally sustainability pretending began as instead of green markets the world ended up with green dwarf green markets, dwarf green growth, and dwarf green economies. But now that PRETENDING seems to be coming to an end AS the world, against 100% the Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop expectation seems ready to go back to square one as in 1987, but now with CIRCULAR traditional economic thinking and academic tunneling. And this raises the question, Does going traditional circular economic thinking means the environmental sustainability pretending is over?
What do you think? Yes, and why you think so? No, and why you think No?
The WCED 1987 documented traditional economic thinking as the source of social and/or environmental sustainability as it turned out to be socially and/or environmentally unfriendly.
This is because traditional market pricing only account for the economic costs at a profit, and hence, traditional markets are externalizing social and/or environmental cost associated with economic activity. AS TRADITIONAL MARKET EXPANDS, THE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITIES AND THEIR SUSTAINABILITY GAPS EXPAND.
Hence, Making traditional economic thinking circular still has the social and environmental externality problem associated with it SO IT CAN NOT BE THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS IT CREATES. This means that selling circular economic thinking as the solution of sustainability problems requires either paradigm shift knowledge gaps or willful academic blindness as the drivers of willful academic tunneling as the mean to present it or promote it.
And this raises the question; Can we make circular economic thinking the solution of critical problems like the environmental unsustainability without the use of alternative academic facts?
I think No, what do you think? Yes, why you think so? No, why you think so?
Out of nowhere apparently came at the same time in 2023, researchers from different countries, governments from different countries, different international organizations and banks, all are praying in the name of CIRCULAR ECONOMY at the same time, from different angles and levels.
Probably some of them are the same researchers, countries and organizations that in 1987 were praising the SCIENCE BASED call *WCED 1987 Our Common Future to move away from traditional economic thinking as the only way to correct its social and environmental market failures are now endorsing.
Perhaps some of them are the same researchers, countries and organization that in *2012 UNCSD Rio +20 conference The Future We Want were endorsing the SCIENCE BASED decision to go green markets, green economies and green growth to solve the environmental market failure embedded in the pricing mechanism of the traditional market.
THEN THEY apparently forgot that, and they are now PROMOTING THE PROBLEM AS THE SOLUTION, BUT THIS TIME THE PROBLEM IS CIRCULAR, an apparent contradiction.
Keep in mind that the environmental market failure associated to the traditional market that go uncorrected by going circular economy MEANS now that under CIRCULAR ECONOMY THINKING we formally have a life under a PERMANENT MARKET FAILURE that is profitable for those polluting and for those cleaning after them.
Is this science or ideology? Can the root cause of a sustainability problem be made the solution to that problem just by making the problem circular?
And this raises the question: Is the 2023 circular economy push perfect academic tunneling?
I think yes. What do you think?
The WCED 1987 documented that business as usual was socially and/or environmentally irresponsible and needed to be made socially and/or environmentally responsible by means beyond traditional economic/development thinking.
The current circular economy thinking appears directed at magically, without addressing the root causes of social and/or environmental problems highlighted by the WCED 1987/Our Common Future, making the irresponsible traditional market thinking responsible just by making it circular.
A linear pollution production problem is solved by a circular pollution production problem apparently, do you see the signs of an academic paradox/contradiction?, which raises the question: Can an irresponsible market/the problem be made responsible/the solution just by making the problem circular?
If you think yes, why? If you think no, why?
I think No!
To be able to deal head on with the social and environmental sustainability failures linked to NON-CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY thinking the Brundtland Commission in 1987(WCED) led us away from that type of thinking by recommending sustainable development tools....The WCED did not recommend then to go CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY THINKING to solve the social and environmental problems created by traditional economic thinking as in both economies you are not accounting for the social and environmental costs of doing business.
To be able to deal head on with the environmental sustainability failures linked to NON-CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY thinking the United Nations Commission on Sustainabiled development in 2012(UNCSD) was leading ust the way of circular green markets through green markets, green growth and green economies, away from business as usual.....The UNCSD did not recommend then to go CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY THINKING to solve the environmental problems created by traditional economic thinking as in both economies you are not accounting for the environmental costs of doing business.
In other words, the WCED was trying to fix a social and environmental sustainability problem by using sustainable development means to leave traditional thinking behind; and the UNCSD was trying to fix an environmental sustainability problem using green market thinking.
If the circular economy thinking has the same problems as the non-circular economic thinking of Adam Smith in social and/or environmental terms, how can circular economy thinking be presented today as the solution to the problem that the circular economy is also contributing to?
And this raises the question, Does CIRCULAR ECONOMY THINKING means a WORLD living under permanent social and environmental market failure?
What do you think? If you think No, why do you think so? If you think Yes, Why do you think so?
The Brundtland Commission told us in 1987 in "Our Common Future" that the traditional development model has failed us as it has brought with it deep social and environmental sustainability problems, and to leave TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC THINKING BEHIND they recommended sustainable development thinking, sadly they did not set priorities such as to focus sustainable development thinking to fix the social sustainability problem first, then the environmental sustainability problem or to focus on the environmental sustainability problem first, and then the social sustainability problem or focus on solving both problems, the social and environmental sustainability problems at the same time.
Notice, the WCED did not recommend to go CIRCULAR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT to lead traditional thinking behind.
This lack of foresight led to a very active competition between different sustainable development schools of thoughts, where in 2012 Rio +20 the WIN-WIN ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENTA MODEL or the ECO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL OF THOUGHT WON the sustainable development contest; and they indicated the need to go green market, green growth, and green economies in THE FUTURE WE WANT(UNCSD 2012) as now, there was a priority, to solve the environmental sustainability problem first through green market circularity as WIN-WIN meant that now the environmental cost associated with economic activities were going to be reflected in green market prices.
Notice, that RIO +20 conference did not recommend to go CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY then because they knew it is not pollution reduction friendly as it only account for economic cost of production; and hence it is not consistent with the environmental responsibility priority they had set to advance now environmentally friendly development models.
Both the WCED 1987 approach and the UNCSD 2012 approach are approaches leading the world away from BUSINESS AS USUAL as both of them knew that the sustainability issues they were tasked to solve are driven by irresponsible market behavior in social and/or environmental terms.
Now like if the WCED 1987 process and the UNCSD 2012 process never took place, out of no where the world is systematically pushing the idea of CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY to solve the development problems IT HAS CREATED as documented by those 2 different but linked processes.
They are presenting the idea of the CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY as a solution to the environmental market failure the WCED and the UNCSD linked to traditional market thinking under broken circularity in practice, but circular in theory by the environmental externality neutrality assumption given to us by Adam Smith in 1776 and under which his market can expand for ever without producing environmental externalities. Hence, it seems like the market supporting this CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY is no longer a traditional market, and hence, it is no longer AN ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PRODUCTION MARKET.
And this raises the question, What type of market and price structure is behind this current push on traditional economy circularity?
What do you think?
There is an environmental pollution problem linked to the environmental pollution production market of Adam Smith the world has been trying to solve ongoing since 1987/Our Common Future and later in 2012/RIO +20 The Future We Want. Both the WCED 1987 and the UNCSD 2012 recommended solutions other than CIRCULAR ECONOMY THINKING. They did this as they knew that this thinking is not environmental pollution reduction friendly and it is not pollution-less market/environmentally clean market friendly.
In other words, both the WCED and the UNCSD knew that the working of the traditional economy, circular by assumption or by definition leads to environmental problems, reason why the WCED asked us to go beyond traditional economic thinking, circular or not, to solve the sustainability issues of the day.
Yet today October 2023, the circular economy is presented, contrary to the facts above, as the solution to environmental problems caused by the traditional economy that feeds them or will feed them as now polluting is profit making and cleaning pollution is also profit making. This makes the circular economy a predetermine or science-less approach that can only be supported by alternative academic facts as it is not aimed at fixing the root cause of the environmental problems.
And this raises the question: Is the current circular economy thinking push a current example of academic tunneling?
What do you think? Yes, and why you think so? or No, and why you think so?
Avoiding the shift from perfect traditional market thinking to perfect green market thinking since 2012 RIO +20 has created a deep green market paradigm shift knowledge gap.
Flipping perfect traditional market thinking to imperfect dwarf green market thinking since 2012 to avoid the shift to perfect green markets has created a deep dwarf green market paradigm flip knowledge gap too.
These knowledge gaps are apparently helping those researchers and institutions implementing development under permanent environmental market failure as well as confusing environmental stakeholders on proper place for action and protest as the responsibility of governments, of businesses and of consumers are changed, and even inversed depending on the market in question.
And this raises the question, green market paradigm shift knowledge gaps and dwarf green market paradigm flip knowledge gaps, are they academic tunneling/willful blindness push helpers?
What do you think?
Under perfect green markets if there is a market failure, should governments be expected to act as market failure correctors and enforcers in the face of social pressure?
I think yes, what do you think?
The dirty economy is an economy running on dirty energy and the clean economy is an economy running on clean energy.
To seriously address the pollution generation problem of the dirty economy to go beyond living under polluting environments we have to transition it to the clean economy so one day we can be living in clean environments as living under polluting environments for ever is a daunting idea. Which raises the question, Is the idea of going carbon neutral through for example sequestration a clean market friendly idea?
What do you think?