IV. New Responsibility: Organising Sustainability

Transnational networking, technological advance, and the conflict potential of a shrinking world are setting the stage for reconceiving the idea of sustainability. Agenda 21 from the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit anchored the concept of sustainability as a controlling principle in the international community. The Agenda 21 platform formulated action commissions to secure sustainable use of natural resources. Ecological aspects were to be integrated into all political areas.

However, narrowing the term to only its economic and ecological dimensions is inadequate for the future. Sustainable development also requires fixing lasting societal structures that are prepared for the future, as well as the development of sustainable regulatory instruments in politics. To think of sustainability only as a goal would be just as inaccurate; it is much more a quality criterion for assessing the models of order and strategies of future societies with respect to three fundamental parameters of political and societal affairs: political freedom, economic competitiveness, and social cohesion. To date, the assessment of these three goals has been carried out differently. In the USA, political freedom and economic prosperity are in the foreground. Societies in Europe turn their gaze more towards social unity and political freedom and neglect economic competitiveness. Asian countries have tended to emphasize economic growth and social cohesion, at the relative cost of political freedom.

Technical, economic, social, and cultural changes are affecting the results of these achievements and confronting all societies with growing conflicts among goals. The models of order of the past, nation-state and national economy, no longer provide sufficient answers to the question: in which political system, and with what instruments, can a society balance these goals? The national economy does not take into consideration the production factor of the environment; nor does the concept of nation-state impart sensible insights into which type of politics is suitable for the problems of future societies in order to fulfil desired and accepted developments.

Contrary to the Agenda 21 targets, the planning and application of sustainability have their defects. On one hand, they are based on the responsible actors' differing perceptions; on the other hand, on the contextual reference to durable politics. There can hardly be globally connected sustainability conditions, because those conditions are dependent on time, situation, culture, and knowledge. Differing views exist on just how to apply them. Because the term sustainability has been used normatively from the beginning, a standard definition is practically impossible and the concept of sustainability, as well as the programme and discourse, become like a vague cipher, a process for changing societies that can approach the model via stipulations or legal regulations, as well as by voluntary processes.

The deficient application of sustainable solutions may result from the inaccuracy of differing definitions or operationalisations. It is more important to recall, however, that the neo-classic economic model knows neither nature's nor society's barriers. Economical conduct aims at the maximising of economic returns and ignores the biospheres and sociospheres as cost factors. The economic system does not necessarily produce individual or collective behaviour that enforces the protection of natural and societal living spaces. With that, the following question becomes fundamental: how can individual or group behaviour overcome generational barriers and change in favour of balanced economic, social, ecological and cultural factors?

The concept of sustainability that originally came from the ecological problem of unlimited resource consumption, must therefore consider the political and social dimension of human problems. It is about re-designing our balance because protecting natural life, economic performance, social responsibility, and political control belong together. The expanded process of finding and defining goals shows that in addition to efficient technology (and how it can be developed within the framework of digitalised and biotechnical systems), innovative management of the political system and changes in individual conduct can open up real potential for sustainability. The necessity of social learning exists alongside the possibilities of technological innovation.

In the energy field today, for example, one can see that a substantial increase in fossil fuels usage causes the sulphur and nitrogen emissions to rise drastically on global scales, despite the most modern reduction technology. The transition from the present approach to a sustainable energy use pattern appears to be quite conceivable by the year 2010. The technical questions are not of crucial importance here. The problem is how necessary general conditions can be created in order to produce a structural and conscious change.

It is a question of political instruments, moral norms and a new interpretation of what one understands as prosperity. In the industrial nations, the following question is increasingly being asked of governmental, as well as non-governmental institutions, and enterprises: how can economic competitiveness, scarce resources, stable political conditions, and social justice be combined? The linking of these goals is becoming more difficult to imagine in a transnationally networked society.

The objective of development requires an assertive conversion to social learning and, taking into account the accelerating globalisation of many life factors, international co-operation. The consequences of the transnational society require a qualitatively new approach to international co-operation. Steering world development with internationalisation and globalisation on the one side, and differentiation and regionalisation on the other, counts as the largest challenge for political, economic, and social leaders:

• Coming developments force the merging of worlds that have been independent until now, i.e. the separation of state, economic, and social fields is being abolished. New potentials for both synergy and conflict are arising as a result.
  
  
• Knowledge and orientation achievement in various areas must be brought together; structures of forming opinions and preparing decisions must be developed; and institutions for applying these decisions must be adapted and extended.
  
  
• At the same time it is necessary to convey the political and economic problems, options, and acting strategies to society in order to include those who do not share the definite view of world-wide interdependence.

The greatest amount of influence can be brought about by the actors in North America, Europe, and East Asia. The economic power and the intensity of interdependence among these regions form the engine of change in culture, society, and politics. These three zones are leading global thinking. Sufficient material and intellectual resources, institutional structures, and political-cultural readiness exist for global co-operation.

The modernisation of thinking demanded of America, Europe, and Asia will, however, only appear as the outcome of a concentrated cultural feat. The variety of the existing perceptions, goals, and solutions found in economics, politics, and society offers the real substance for change. Each of the three zones is characterised by specific experiences and preferences, strengths and weaknesses. Because a common challenge from the outside is lacking, their modernisation potential lies in the creative utilisation of their differences, i.e. in dialogue about and for the future, in the application of the insights gained therein, and in mutual learning. Globalisation and its control makes demands on the American, European, and Asian societies from the inside out - their capability for cultural renewal will decide their common future.

Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4

TOP