Invitation to Researchers

Invitation to researchers

Towards sustainability: Modeling a democratic green economy based on evolved human behavior by integrating social and natural sciences

THIS IS THE SHORT VERSION OF THE INVITATION: Please go to under “invitation documents”, and/or contact me for more detailed info.

Please take your time to digest the material, but pleasedecide if you want to participate or not as soon as possible. Time is running fast.

INTRODUCTION

The new climate research program at The Norwegian Research Council (NRC) hasapplication deadline on October 16th 2013:The final announcement text for the research programis now published:

Our application for seed money was granted and received a «very good evaluation» (please find the granted application included in the files «NFR application climate democracy DESCRIPTION and MODEL.pdf).

We hereby seek collaborators who find this approach interesting.This invitation is not detailed enough to cover all the background science. We are therefore primarily dependent on your interest to explore the science background. Our book “The biological human being – individuals and societies in the light of evolution” is a synopsis in Norwegian of the new sciences covering evolved behavior, culture and the consequences for the living conditions. This text is important background science. Unfortunately, only the first chapter of our popular science book is translated, but we have relevant references available in English.

The scope of the project is to focus on the four areas outlined in the table below. These four areas can be seen as a hub in a wheel, thereby forming a platform for genuine multidisciplinary research.

Each discipline is to form its own approach, methods and examples to answer the four questions. We also mildly hint that areas 3 and 4 are more important than the two first, which should merely be obtained as background knowledge for the two important scenario questions,which the seed money from NRC is linked to:

Analyzing and testing a sustainableingroup democracy, including the money value analysis, and how a change to such a democracy may come by.

Our hypothesis is that the democracy model represents a political system that opens for a possible change from today’s focus on money profit to a focus on the products and services themselves, and their use and sustainability, combined with a democratic control over equality. This can be achievedin large societies by organizing representative democracy through ingroups in several levels, from each workplace up to national government (please refer to …MODEL.pdf). Each individual will, through workplaces, institutionsor schools, be part of a functional ingroup, small enough for social control. Through 4-5-6 levels of representative elections, large societies can in this way be managed democratically. In short, by engaging everyone through an ingroup, we hypothesize that it will be possible to organize worker-owned, sustainable production, supervised and controlled by a democracy that may freely make use of today’s extensive knowledge concerning ecosystem services. When the purpose of work and production is the products and services themselves, a society and its members will naturally share a common interest in sustainable production: The driving forces behind profit and growth are not natural laws.

This is the model we invite each of you to analyze from the perspective of your discipline. Predictions

Humans have evolved drivers that change behavior according to group size and level of exposure to others (Barkow, L. Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992; Gintis, 2009). Corruption, nepotism,oligarchy, egoism,and Tragedy of the Commons thrive in outgroup situations when there is lack of social control. Humans have evolved in small groups, and are equipped with cognitive drivers designed for such. Modern societies are too large for the ingroup strategies to dominate.

Scenario research has mostly been about «how it will go»; the underlying economic systemis often treated as untouchable and unchangeable (see the enclosed document “Maintaining….pdf). Our project will go beyond this limit, and focus on the very foundation and purpose of human production and well-being.

There are three basic points:

• The purpose of production is, today, ultimately profit.The concept of “value creation” is today synonymous with making profit. The attempts to cope with this value paradox by integrating ecosystem services with money value and profit, is struggling. (
• Alienation and lack of democracy in these matters. Western democracies usually have elections every 4th year. Because of large, alienating societies and the basic conservative human nature, political alternatives are overall small and insignificant. The decisions that govern a sustainable and safe future are paradoxically taken by a few individuals employed for the purposeof maximizing each company’s profit, andwhoare not elected.
• Within today’s economy and policies, it is unlikely that unpopular and wide-ranging decisions or strategies concerning lower consumption will be accepted by a majority. Human behavior is not evolved to be individually prudent in outgroups. On the contrary, in the relatively near futureit is by now likely that dramatic collapses will occur, because there are no effective control mechanisms in the international economy today. Human cultures have a history of over-exploiting their bases of existence, leading to fights over remnants (Diamond, 2005). This knowledge may put us in a unique position to prevent it to happen again. A complete democracy may be able to moderate conflicts by performing just distributions and rationing, that can be accepted and perceived legally in a society of legitimate equality (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010; Wilson, 1998).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

We want to focus on an ultimatedemocratic ingroup model for our analysis (please refer to ….MODEL.pdf). There are three reasons for this:

1. By focusing on the same hypothesis, different areas and disciplines may create more unified cross-disciplinary research. The results will be more relevant as a holistic approach, and pros and cons will be more commonly accepted. The conclusion might be that the democratic model might be impossible to implement, but during the process, new knowledge will be produced. By stretching the horizon as far as this, we might see possibilities on a closer range.
2. The model is not chosen by random. It fits all modern behavioral sciences. Democracy, human rights, organizational freedom, solidarity, equality and just distribution are concepts that fit the model well.
3. The ingroup model can be, and indeed already is, in use almost everywhere, in organizations covering all human activities. The reason to focus directly on workplace organization is that we need to organizethe ownership to resources and consumption. This is the area that threatens the living conditions for us all, through the physical reality of existence.

Each discipline or area of interest is invited to write its own application, including theoretical background, hypotheses, methods and empirical examples, by focusing on the four questions outlined below. Please bear over with the suggested wordings we have put down in the boxes, your area of research most certainly have other concepts or phrases. We have an extensive archive consisting of ideas and problem areas that could be filled in, but we await your responses: Use words and phrasings from your own field of expertise to fill in the matrix, and focus on the four main themes:

1.Today’s democratic and economic situation, acknowledging lack of sustainability (referring to documents from TEEB/MEA, IPCC etc., see also enclosed material).

2. Within your area of expertise, how will today’s situation cope with future scenarios of scarcity? Given the time perspectives from theme 1, how are the possibilities of adaptation?If not, how will potential collapses be?

3. How will the ingroup democracy model be functional within your area of expertise?The model suggests including every person over the age of 18. From your point of view, how will this be functional? Are there other areas than workplaces where ingroup organization can be fruitful (e.g. organizing gigacities)?

4. How can a transition to such a society be feasible? Does your discipline have any suggestions to smoothen a peaceful change to a sustainable economy and society?

We have started to fill in this table, painfully knowing that we do not master the concepts within each field of research. Therefore, please correct words and phrases, reformulate questions and feel free to extend the table as much as you like, you might need a separate document for each box:

Disciplin/area of research (Please formulate in your own terms)
Collaborators who have accepted this first phase: / 1.Analysis of today’s democratic and economic situation / 2. How will today’s situation cope with future scenarios of scarcity? / 3. How will an ingroup democracy be functional,as outlined in the model, within your research field? / 4. How can a transition to such a society be feasible?
Climate change
(integrated in every research area)
Jiska van Dijk, NINA,will look into the ALTER-net for more collaborators / Almost every activity is run by fossil fuel. Focus on our unsustainable situation (see enclosed document “information for policy makers”. / Peak oil analysis; IPCC time scenarios, what about gas resources etc.. / Necessary decisions to avoid strife: Are decisions of limitations, rationing and even distribution easier to manage in an ingroup democracy? / Knowledge transfer, bottom up processes, political discussions
Communication, integrated in all our activities
Ole Andre Sivertsen,
Aase Cathrine Myrtveit, NRK
Human behaviouralecology,Game theory, neuroeconomics, evolutionary psychology,
(We await your responses before we outline how our concrete contribution will be).
Terje Bongard ++ / Human behavior in experimental situations, strategies in ingroups and outgroups. Alienation, motives for working. / Reactions to scarcity: How strong is instinct of self-preservation in large groups? See also under “law” / Justice and equality in ingroups: Experimental evidence for ingroup stability in the democratic model. Evolutionary background as outlined in our book. / Significance of understanding: Is it possible for individuals in large societies to grasp the crucial point of self-control through ingroup organization?
Sociology, history, politics, political philosophy(invite political parties for comments?)
Persons:SUGGESTIONS? / Political engagement low, resignation, alienation. / Analysis of historical parallels. How vulnerable are modern societies? State of the nation (Sårbarhetsutvalget) / Historical analysis of democracy. Demarcation against –isms.
Analysis of a society built on the model. Civil salaries, rewards, compensations. How to organize birth control.
Might the democratic model be exportable? / People forced to be engaged, discussions, real influence: Significance of understanding: Is it possible for individuals in large societies to grasp the crucial point of self-control through ingroup organization?
Resource economy, ecosystem services, TEEB, MEA:
David Barton, NINA, Anders Skonhoft, NTNU
Jiska will look into the ALTER-net for more collaborators / The speed of overconsumption, how much is left, alternative resources, oil dependence. Bring in the fact that a human being is a net consumer of ecosystem services, and not a resource in itself. / Ecosystem change, which ecosystem services are the most vulnerable? The ocean, phosphate fertilizer, transportation/oilscarcity? Food production? Energy and ecosystem service costs for geoengineering, are such projects sustainable and feasible? / See also under “sociology”. How much to consume for each of us? Sustainable production for 7-9 billion? / Dealing with The Tragedies of the Commons: Equality and just democracy
Economy, micro- and macro-, including (maybe we should integrate with resource economy? How about neuroeconomics?)
No contacts yet at BI, how about KalleMoene? / Global market economy analysis, profit, competition and bankruptcies. The money value delusion; saving money for a rainy day / Economic collapses, some businesses might have success vulnerability, see Sociology (State of the nation) / Sustainable production; setting prices from resource use and production volumes. The democracy itself decides which level that will prioritizeproducts and needs. Knowledge used to produce durable, reusable, recyclable, low emission and additives etc., not for profit.
Share this sustainable technology for free worldwide: Remember that competition is gone, and we all share the same interest in a global sustainable technology. / How will the private economies function? Civil salaries, with compensations.In Norway, about 30000 people own other people’s workplaces, most of them own only 1 in addition to themselves.How to treat this fair and just?
Commerce and trade, also
KalleMoene?other suggestions? / Economic winners are those who sell marketable goods in large quantities and in low qualities. Commercials all over. Each individual has little or no knowledge of goods. / Black markets? / Price set democratically from sustainability, resource use and need. No aggressive commercials, description of products are realistic: Engaging artists for this? / Discussions on how such a society might be
Law and legislation
(Perhaps BeateSjåfjell, law professor?) / The legal background for property rights for a small minority to production means and workplaces. / Unstable transitions, breakdowns and bankruptcies. Is today’s law able to cope with scarcity? “Likely to result in social strife”, as the Information for policy makers’ document put it (p.19) / Juridical analysis of which parts of the constitution that must be changed. Time scale for this process (4 year processes for elections for constitution change etc) / The transition should be deeply anchored in the present democracy; bottom up process.
Organisation of work life.
LO researchers? / Today’s paradox:profitable workplaces-higher wages-more consumption-increased production-emptying ecosystem services-unsafe future / How will today’s work life cope with different collapses? Local, regional and global conflicts. / closer on ingroup functioning and mechanisms, maybe game theory on groups?Legitimate decisions based on solidarity can be made? Readjustments are not threats: Civil salaries and a constant need for labor supply will secure everyone.Rewards for innovations. Worker-controlled workplaces as empirical examples?See chapter 6 in our book for ideas. / Discussions on how such a society will be: No need to produce more than necessary: Leisure time will increase?
Human well-being, including the Human Scale Development approach
Monica Guillen-Royo
Diener, E. Helliwell, J.F., Kahneman, D. (2010) International differences in wellbeing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Monica Guillen-RoyoRealising the ‘wellbeing dividend’: An exploratory study using the Human Scale
Development approach (EcologicalEconomics 70 (2010) 384–393) / The economics of happiness now have evidence that economic growth does not increase happiness in any case, neither for poor, transition or rich countries.
Other changes that come with growth might have an effect though; some of this are increased institutional transparency, political and social participation and affiliation (relationhips). These are factors that give us a double dividend as they do not have (per se) negative effects on the environment and have positive effects on wellbeing. / We know that recessions with their effect on unemployment deplete people's wellbeing up to a 25% unemployment rate. After that the fact that others are in the same situation reduces the stigma of the unemployed. However, there is mix evidence about this, so difficult to generalise. / Pensioners, university lecturers, peasants, etc, all these and other groups must be included in the democracy, not only production workers. Thus, the functionality of the model will depend on the hypothesis that the ingroup mechanisms and the triggering of cooperative behavior will be flexible and adapt to the cultural, historical, economic and political background of the people to whom it will be applied. / Involving people (common people, not only
researchers) in the development of the model might increase the understanding of the effects. The model is only a general frame and developing it in cooperation with the people who are going to use it will be necessary.
Social medicine, health care, including diseases and food health
Steinar Krokstad:
Steinar Westin, Linn Getz, NTNU, meeting soon! / Alienation, medical industry focused on profit. Unsafe and unsustainable food industry (feed concentrates, monocultures, genetic engineering)animal health and ethics loose in the race for profit. / Stress, worries, sick pay removed? Increased prices on medicines? / Ingroup participation increases health? Positive feelings of building a safe future. Legitimate distribution governed by sustainable supply. How to integrate and plan consumption out of need? / May the democratic process in itself be health promoting?
Culture, media, communication / Few, commercialized artists. The motivation is profit. / Culture becomes the balancing item, and will dwindle / Culture, music and art are important life qualities, more than consumption / Well-being, safe future
NGOs, environmental organisations / Concern for an uncertain future / New “occupy” movements? / What is each NGOs analysis of the democratic ingroup model? / How can a transition take place?
Gender research and equality / Status is defined and related to income, profitable occupations most important. / Civil salaries will release this pressure on the paradox of combining career and childbirth.
MORE DISCIPLINES AND FIELDS OF EXPERTISE?

PROGRESSION