SustainabilityPanel20240118

Sustainability Panel: Nathan Pelletier, Aleksandra Dulic, Gordon Lovegrove, Lael Parrott.

For your reflection, start by typing your name. Use 'Heading' in the style menu for your name.

For your reflection on another class member's reflection, start by typing your name and using the 'Sub-heading 1' style from the pulldown menu

Cole Hooper: Reflection

Last week's seminar was very interesting, and it was a joy to talk with, and listen to our four sustainability scholar guest speakers, each of whom come from a very different background. To begin my reflection, I wanted to jot down a quick comment for each speaker about their perspective and approach to sustainability. (I cannot find their names posted anywhere so I will use a general description, in order of their presentations.)

Nathan Pelletier: Model focused, the nested nature of the environment, society, and economy.

Aleksandra Dulic: Art based, culture focused, how our beliefs dictate our relationship to the environment.

Gordon Lovegrove: Practical, planning focused, how to link different aspects of sustainability work directly to the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Lael Parrott: The value of a planetary perspective versus a landscape perspective, the importance of scale within sustainability issues.

My immediate thoughts following all the presentations related to how I connected with each of the speakers' presentations. I come from a STEM background, and I found that 3 of the perspectives that were presented were more familiar to me, and I was able to engage and respond to the ideas that those speakers presented relatively easily. It was only the Arts perspective, where I felt a little more lost. To me, the ideas that she presented were a little more abstract, and while I could still see the clear ties to sustainable development, the format they were presented in took a lot more work to understand. Reflecting upon this reaction and the thoughts I had is difficult. A small part of me wants to diminish or dismiss the arts perspective, as it seems impractical, or less concrete. However, the other larger part is trying to keep an open mind, and respect other ways of knowing and thinking. As I work to learn more and develop my own perspective on sustainability, it has become evident that sustainability is inherently interdisciplinary. As a result it would be unjust for me to judge other perspectives, due to my own background and training. Even within the conversation that the speakers were having amongst each other, comments were made’ “Why don’t we meet more often?”, “Why don’t we know the other faculty members that work in sustainability?”. I think the answer to these questions is one in the same, the same answer which I attribute to my own initial thoughts. Epistemic differences make it hard to clearly communicate and cooperate across faculties, and disciplines. If I am to succeed in changing my own thought patterns, and if UBCO faculty are to cooperate and collaborate on sustainability issues, we must work on bridging these differences. It is ok to recognize our differences, as those may also be valuable areas to work on, but perhaps the greatest emphasis should be placed on finding commonalities. Clear communication will be the key to identifying these areas of nexus between fields, which could be the spark point for valuable interdisciplinary sustainability research.

JAJ: Thanks for sharing the struggle with appreciating the arts perspective. The arts, culture, etc. is the messy place where our values originate from, a process that is easy to dismiss when it looks like we are getting close to the cliff edge.

Leandro Reflection on reflection

Cole thoughtfully reflects on his experience, engaging with different worldviews presented. I share his feelings on the initial struggle with the Arts perspective, revealing a common bias towards more concrete disciplines. It is also valuable to demonstrate a commitment to open-mindedness and recognition of the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing sustainability challenges. He highlights the need for improved communication and cooperation among faculty members from various disciplines. This reflection points to the extent of finding common ground while respecting differences.

Amir Rahsaz

Reflection 1(Nathan Pelletier)

Nathan Pelletier chose the common and well recognized definition of sustainability as the focal point of his discussion and explained sustainability with a logical and scientific perspective based on models. Maine Keywords were prioritization, sustainability, logic, carrying capacity, bio-physical boundaries, scale, system and subsystem, ecological integration, minimum necessary conditions, distribution justice, system efficiency, complexity, and ecological development perspective.

The presentation itself was a precise example of the minimum necessary conditions, and he managed to discuss the topic of sustainability from an economist's perspective within a 15-minute timeframe.

I observed shortcomings in the scientific approach to sustainability, both in terms of contradictions and questions that were highlighted but not addressed. For instance, how can one simultaneously consider various aspects of a subject? When emphasizing the importance of ecological integration and the need for a flourishing sustainability (not just survival or resilience, but flourishing), Nathan raised the question of how to embrace the complexity of issues and consider ecological integration as a base rule. While the principle of prioritization cannot align properly with a holistic view of a system, the criticism lies in how scientific disciplines approach complex issues like sustainability by solely analyzing and not synthesizing elements. Integrating and understanding complex interrelations requires synthesis rather than just analysis. The speaker's method, as explained, is crucial for adhering to essential minimums to avoid crossing bio-physical boundaries. What mattered significantly was the definition of humans as emerging properties of the Earth (the entire system), compelling individuals to see themselves as part of a whole rather than an entity outside the system. However, he rightly questioned whether it is possible to have a purely objective perspective on sustainability. In this logical framework, it seems impossible, as evidenced by "industrial ecology," where industries use measurable variables like carbon footprint or energy intensity, etc., to adhere to their subjective objectives. And the unanswered question left behind was, what about the variables or elements that cannot be measured, and is the need for the distribution justice even achievable in this system, especially when the definition of efficiency can be subjective and biased? What I learned from the presentation is that a scientific perspective can provide a logical connection between our understanding of resources and the ecosystem's capacity to compensate and replace them. However, in other dimensions such as social justice or fair distribution and actual efficiency, it may not be amazingly effective. The flow of the presentation between different scales and layers emphasized the importance of an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach to the issue, however, what we have right now is like a multidisciplinary perspective. The lecture also highlighted the limitations of logic and science in dealing with a complex problem. What can take shape in this framework is a trade-off where a resource or possibility is exchanged for something else, leaving no room for flourishing.

Reflection 2 (Aleksandra Dulic)

Aleks presented an artist's perspective on sustainability, which closely aligns with my own views on the matter. Her keywords were: participation, dominance, capitalism, social community, divinity, love and art. In several instances, she created interesting contrasts with the previous presentation that approached the topic from an economist's viewpoint. For example, the earlier presentation portrayed humans as emerging properties of the nature and a sub-element of a larger system, whereas Aleks, as a researcher in humanities and arts, depicted humans being constructed by the environment, and reciprocally, the environment shaping by humans. In this mutual interaction, superiority is not granted to either side. This became one of the central themes of her talk, highlighting the need to determine whether our relationship with the surrounding world is about dominance or presence. She questioned whether the prevalent perspectives of capitalism and current capitalist ideologies, with their focus on ownership and superiority, overshadow the indigenous societies that make decisions based on different values.

For instance, she used the comparison between Western Christianity's view, where spirituality originates from a God beyond the Earth, and the indigenous perspective, where spirituality is derived from the land, plants, and everything within it. The latter results in a deep respect for the Earth and its elements, turning them into God-like entities. This part of the presentation raised a fundamental question within me: despite being an atheist, do the roots of Islam and a monotheistic belief in God hinder me from understanding life in the way of an indigenous person? Or is this a matter of acquisition that I can attain?

Aleks used stories and examples to illuminate her stance on sustainability, aligning perfectly with the mindset of an artist who frequently employs allegories. Her comments on Aphrodite as a deity were particularly impactful for me, as she highlighted that preserving what we love doesn't require proof. The essential aspect is how we can extend this love to all elements, becoming stewards and consumers of sustainability. Seeing divinity in everything beyond the realm of cognition requires a certain understanding to instill a deep sense of love for sustainability in our current way of life.

She suggested a solution, drawing on the example of the Silk Okanagan community, emphasizing social feelings and involving all members. This approach ensures that decisions involve everyone, from children to the elderly. What our society needs today is the same social feeling and involvement of everyone in decision-making. Spaces where dialogue can take shape are crucial for fostering participation.

The way she found a connection between traditional shadow puppetry and interactive technologies like AR and VR was very enlightening for me. Understanding the complex relationships between seemingly unrelated elements can reveal their hidden potential. This quality can lead to superior interdisciplinary knowledge, such as using the interactive feature of an ancient tradition for a modern technology.

Reflection 3 & 4 (Gordon Lovegrove , Lael Parrott)

" I had written two reflections before your message to Emma where you mentioned writing only one reflection, and I didn't have the chance to change it. I apologize for not putting everything in one reflection."

Gordon Lovegrove had an engineering perspective and was entirely practical when addressing the issue of sustainability. His definition of engineering, which involves establishing connections between various elements and applying others' knowledge, demonstrated his pragmatic and managerial approach. What set his talk apart was his positive thinking and the need to encourage even the smallest positive actions. The vacuum of action in climate change and sustainability requires more than just slogans and theories.

Lael Parrott focuses more on the human scale for studies and the importance of a tangible scale. I am a strong supporter of this vision. She portrayed the future of the Earth based on prolonged and extensive research amazingly dark. She depicted the impending disaster awaiting humanity in such a scientifically vivid way that it almost resembled art. It was akin to a climate-fiction writer providing a scientific introduction to her novel, explaining the power of visual graphs like hockey stick graphs and others, which can be as impactful in society as a shocking art piece.

JAJ: Good initiative, writing your reflections early while the panel were still fresh. I too think that culture is central to our relationship with the natural world, something we are not often aware of. Recognizing and changing our cultural lens may be important in changing our relationship with the natural world and fending off the looming disaster. The evolution of that cultural lens may also be central to our adaptation to what may be a very different world in the not too distant future.

Armita reflecting on Amir

Amir explained each presentation completely with full details! I noticed that he wrote more about the first two presentations compared to the last two. however I found the latter more interesting. This got me thinking about how different people can see things in their own way, especially when it comes to topics like sustainability.

The contrast Amir mentioned between artistic and economic views on sustainability is something I've also thought about. It's surprising to see such different perspectives coming from the faculty professors of the same university. This shows how complex sustainability is and how it can be seen from many angles.

Amir realizing his own biases towards certain presentations (Maybe because we know each other research area) made me think about my own biases too. At first I was thinking that I accept all the views but now I see that I just accept some of them more! It's important to be aware of them and try to understand different viewpoints. Amir's point about the need for open dialogue is spot on. We can learn a lot from each other by listening and discussing together.

This reflection reminds me to be more open-minded and consider different perspectives when thinking about sustainability. It's not just about accepting what we already believe, but being willing to learn and grow from others' perspective.

Leandro Biondo

The Jan 18th seminar most interesting aspect from my perception was that all four lecturers were professors with a strong background outside of the academy, something not that common in educational institutions, it brought an overall sense of applied sciences in various fields with sustainability aspects that compliment the others and have little relation on their routine. I edited this part as I clearly described too much of the lectures and mixed it with my reflections, so here are only the reflections from my previous writing:

Reflections (edited)

Nathan's presentation highlighted the importance of solid sustainable objectives and a multi-scale approach, challenging misconceptions that might lead to unsustainable practices.

Alexandra's perspective emphasized the need for societal evolution towards a regenerative society, stressing the importance of public discussion and partnership to achieve harmony with nature.

The engineer's viewpoint, exemplified by Gord and Lael, emphasized practical sustainability applications, including political and administrative actions such as the UN's sustainable development goals and local land use regulations.

Parrot's presentation underscored the complexity of sustainability challenges, emphasizing the need for diverse perspectives and collaborative efforts to address them effectively.

These differing views highlight the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability and the necessity of considering both technical and societal aspects in pursuing resilient and sustainable solutions.

Old too long descriptive reflection

(sorry for that, no need to read this section if not looking for more details on the talks, maybe useful for a future visitor?)

In the order we got the differing views, Nathan showed concepts on sustainable objectives somewhat technical and scientific, to highlight the possible targets (who and what we want to sustain). He also went through a representation of the Environment-Social-Economical connecting universes for the subject as a grouping version called "Strong Sustainable Model" were the Circles are inside the others, with a broader Biosphere that contains the Sociological universe and inside it the Economy. This model is considered stronger for the multi-scale approach with emphasis on Biocapacity, Social Justice, Distributive efforts and allocative efficiency. The concepts helped understand some misconceptions that might lead to unsustainable efficiency instead of a resilient society in a changing planet (Strong sustainability model, more complex one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326992075_Environmental_pollution_economic_growth_population_industrialization_and_technology_in_weak_and_strong_sustainability_using_STIRPAT_model ).
Following the strong model we went on a humane turn with Alexandra, focused on more fluid aspects of our society, particularly in the need for grouping ideas and discussing our behavior and problems together in a public way. She visited traditions, values and thoughts on a necessary evolution from the Industrial Age to a Regenerative Society, migrating from a dominance wasteful behavior to a local and relational partnership in various levels. She mentioned the respect previous human organizations had for nature, with the four food chiefs as an example , that what the people consume and know (their food and culture) are inherited from nature itself (,https://www.okanagan.bc.ca/indigenization/four-food-chiefs about the 4 chiefs, we have a sculpture of it) and the relation LAND<=>PEOPLE<=>PLACE is more harmonious. Sure we have a more technological and industrial life, but could we pursue a similar harmony as a globally located humanity in a limited resource sphere?
The second part was more of an Engineer conception of sustainability, the first with Gord with a more political and corporative way and then with Lael on landscape and educational subjects. Some ideas brought on the connection of engineering as applying science to benefit the welfare of the public and the environment, how some experiences went on limiting growth of regions, forming local administrative or consultive groups and committees to manage societies and their resources. Gord cited the 1984 UN's now 17 sustainable development goals, the Netherlands rebuild after war to a more equalitarian country and the 70's land use impositions in BC as well as a water capacity based experience on limiting population size near Calgary that was taken out the same way it was created (city council). (https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/assets/alc/assets/library/archived-publications/legislation-history/agricultural_land_commission_act_1973_to_2000.pdf as an example for evolving rules on the land use in BC)
After the importance of political actuation we went on to see sustainability in system quality and persistency from a Global to Local viewpoint, where Parrot presented the idea of not having a single non contestable solution. We will need solutions tough, and it can be achieved by sharing perspectives and understandings from and to the others in the scenario we already know as being unique in the Holocene, we know as a fact that the last 100 years the trend on temperatures of our environment are awkward and there is no reason to believe it will go back to "normal". At a local scale this discussions need to be started, and with more people, in our case do we know if Kelowna have already surpassed the landscape capacity for housing the city and its people? How can we measure the impacts and possible enhancements that can be made to increase the sustainability and resilience of a country or a city? We got the example of Natural Boundaries and Global doughnuts to have a comparable view of various locations in different scales. (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/935531 for the doughnut example on natural boundaries)

JAJ: Your contribution does summarize the panel contributions quite well, and your longer version connects well to the literature beyond the class. I do not read much here about what the impact of these presentations was on you. What points resonated the most and why? Did it reinforce ideas you already had, or challenge some of your views?

Amir reflection on Leo's reflection

This is the second time I'm writing a reflection on Leo. I remember well that upon reading it, the first concept that came to mind was that Leo merely summarizes the statements of the presenters and does not analyze them from his own perspective. I notice his commitment to discipline through Leo's thematic categorization, which sets the stage for each conversation, akin to how in cartography, each layer is designed separately and then stacked to achieve a synthesis of all. The lack of understanding of Aleks' statements, especially from Cole and Leo, was predictable for me. The strong reason being that interdisciplinary knowledge initially requires the creation of a common language to convey their concepts in a comprehensible form to other disciplines, and fruitful collaboration will begin after this stage. Therefore, a visual language that can have a common boundary with all sciences, especially geography and cartography, which even for specialists in this field is still not recognized, whether it should be classified under the branch of art or science, can be useful for individuals like Leo.

Emma Carey

While each of our speakers had similarities in how they define sustainability, there were marked philosophical differences that emphasized how sustainability is a contested term. I chose to focus mostly on Nathan’s presentation as a way to open broader reflection on the nature of interdisciplinary research. Nathan uses a strong model of sustainability that transforms the previous ‘three pillars’ model of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental) into three nested circles. This revised model does a better job of emphasizing there can be no social or economic prosperity is the environment is destroyed. But, I wonder if this revision of a previous model can truly be effective. Is it still stuck within the same problems of the previous three pillar model where economics become emphasized over the other two? This would require more research to truly determine, but I am interested in Nathan’s comments that he does not generally add questions of normative value in his exploration of product life cycles (with the exception of one project that sounds very interesting). If that second circle of sociosphere that is concerned with distributive justice is not something that researchers focused in the econosphere typically include, how different is this model from the three pillars? This is the problem of how to tackle difficult sustainability issues within one discipline, it is not possible to include all the expertise that are needed from solely one discipline.

I would be very interested to see what sort of project can emerge from an interdisciplinary project around life cycle analysis that includes ecological economist, environmental humanities (that does include questions of values), and ecologists. Would this sort of project be more able to adhere to the three nested circles, ‘strong sustainability’ model? However, there is the perennial issue of difficulties in conducting meaningful interdisciplinary research. I read this book chapter on issues of interdisciplinary research for an event (Jan 25) led by Dr. Astrida Neimanis and Dr. Natalie Forssman on “A More Fractious Kind of Interdisciplinarity”. There is the problem of “fundamental assumptions (e.g. about how an experiment might be, about who does it, about how its objects are produced, and so on) [being] left quite unquestioned” (Callard & Fitzgerald, 2015, p.4). Interdisciplinary research can sometimes be interdisciplinary in name only. Yet, I find myself very curious as to what a collaboration between all four of our panel speakers could look like. Would that even be possible? Can Alex with her view of regenerative sustainability collaborate with Nathan who holds a commitment to the strong sustainability model? These are questions that last week’s panel prompted for me.

JAJ: I appreciate your connection with Nathan's 'hands off' approach to the normative side. In my own education, the role of the economist was described as providing a 'positive' analysis - based on an 'objective' analysis - with the normative decisions left to the policy makers. However, as you and many others have noted, what we analyze and how we analyze it, and the assumptions made, contain many normative elements. While technical analyses need to be done well, I don't think we should avoid the questions of why we are doing these analyses.

Armita Tehranchi

Nathan Pelletier's talk shook the way I think about our existence. His perspective, rooted in economics, philosophy, and ecology, asked deep questions about how our actions align with the Earth's capacity to handle them. It's like he opened a door to a room where everything we do is questioned in terms of sustainability. This made me reflect on our place in the world and how we make choices, often based on personal values. What struck me was the contradiction and complexity in the concept of sustainability that Pelletier highlighted. It's not just about protecting the environment; it's about the values we prioritize and the potential lack of justice in our decisions. This brought to mind a story—a city where everyone was considered crazy, except one healthy person who was undervalued. It made me ponder if our collective decisions are leading us toward an unjust outcome. Aleksandra Dulic's presentation took me into a completely different realm. With a background in engineering, I found it challenging to grasp the idea of art and spirituality. However, she connected us all by emphasizing that, like the Earth, we are made of subatomic particles. This spiritual connection, as she put it, grants equal rights to all components of our living system. Despite the seeming disparity in disciplines, she echoed Pelletier's concern for future generations, pointing out economic inequalities worldwide. The common thread of valuing the well-being of future generations continued in Dulic's talk, making me realize that, regardless of our backgrounds, we share a concern for the world's future. Her presentation challenged my perspective, urging me to see beyond the rigid boundaries of my engineering mindset.

Gordon Lovegrove brought in a new angle, discussing sustainable development goals and how research ties into them. This was an eye-opener because, honestly, I never thought deeply about the broader goals of my research. Lovegrove made it clear that even if our immediate focus might not seem directly linked to well-being, all research contributes, directly or indirectly, to the greater goal of making things better. It made me reconsider the purpose of my research and its potential impact on the well-being of society.

Lael Parrott's presentation took a geographical approach, using maps and graphs to show the transformation of our world. The visual representation highlighted how we've shifted from a sustainable environment to an unstable one. It made me more aware of the consequences of our collective actions on the planet. Parrott emphasized the need for consideration in our choices, tying back to Pelletier's theme of being mindful about the impact of our decisions.

To summarize, these talks collectively conveyed a powerful message. Regardless of our backgrounds—be it economics, philosophy, engineering, or geography—we share a common responsibility. We are unintentionally contributing to the changing face of our world, and it's time to be more conscious of our actions. Sustainability is not just an environmental buzzword; it's a collective effort involving our values, the well-being of future generations, and a broader goal of making the world a better place. From different perspectives, the speakers unveiled a shared reality—we're shaping our world without fully comprehending the consequences. It's a call to action for greater awareness and responsibility in our individual and collective endeavors.

JAJ: I very much agree with the important role of values, a role which is not often stated. If we are going to respect the 'rights' of humans, let alone of other entities on our shared planet, we need to respect the differences in values. We cannot respect these differences if we avoid engaging with each other in this space.

References

Callard, F. & Fitzgerald, D. (2015). Introduction. In Rethinking Interdisciplinarity across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137407962 (This resource is open-access)

Cole Hooper reflecting on Armita

The key point I would like to focus on from Armita's reflection was her comments on our research efforts "unintentionally contributing to the changing face of our world, and it's time to be more conscious of our actions.". It seem as though she made this connection through Gordan Lovegroves presentation, probably through his exercise where he asked us all about our research, and showed how it was connected to one or more of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

This topic is one that I have thought about a great deal. I found that in wildlife or conservation research there is a lot of work that goes on, that is more or less just research for the sake of research. I think that this happens in all fields, STEM especially. Building our general knowledge base, and understanding how the world works is important, no doubt.

However, I am sometimes frustrated by this approach as it diverts funding and efforts away from questions that may be more important to the actual conservation of species, or from improving the sustainability of our societies generally. We have so many problems today, it just seems logical that the vast majority of research effort, should be looking for solutions.

More emphasis should be placed on consciously designing research in a way that is as impactful as possible. Academics should be asking, how will this research manifest in the real world. I think focusing on collaboration and cooperation with the bodies who actually implement policies is the way to achieve this. Generally, I am referring to government here, as this is the level at which change occurs, whether it is municipal, provincial or federal.

I have tried to incorporate this into my work, to practice what I am preaching. From an early stage I worked with BC Parks, asking: "What kind of information would help you tackle this issue?". Then designed my project to at least try to contribute to that in some way; helping the people who will actually affect possible management changes. So thank you Armita for pointing it out as well, and I would urge my classmates to consider this now, and in the future.

JAJ: I very much respect your efforts to start by understanding and connecting with those that can have some impact on the problem you care about, rather than just doing research for research sake. Our academic enterprise discourages this, as the 'peer review' process means that the people we most need to impress for success in our careers are our peers. It is risky as an academic to get engaged with building the relationships that are needed to make a difference in the 'real world', when those things take time and risk not working out. I certainly think we should be working in this space.

Jared Brown

I greatly enjoyed listening to and talking with our guest speakers last week. They all expressed a strong passion for sustainability from the perspectives of their disciplines and the desire to collaborate with one another. Listening to them showed me that regardless of how people perceive the meaning of sustainability, it is a concept that can be used to unite people. I think this will be crucial to take advantage of going forward, given that it is going to take all of us to tackle global-scale sustainability issues like global warming. Gordon’s highlighting of how each of our research projects align with the UN’s sustainable development objectives was an excellent example of how this concept can be used to bring people together. Even though most of us covered different objectives set out by the UN, the concept of sustainable development served to bring us together in that we all want to achieve this state.

I also found connections between some of Aleksandra’s ideas and the disciplines of the other presenters. While I struggled to understand some of her ideas due to my science background, her explanation of “dominance” and “partnership” societies resonated with me. As she mentioned, one definition of sustainability is that it is about how we orient ourselves and our activities in the world. I think this is going to be important for all of us to reflect on going forward and will likely become necessary, given that, as Lael mentioned in her presentation, the changes occurring to the planet will make it necessary for us to change too. Although we still have a long way to go, we are starting to see shifts away from the “dominance” orientation – where nature is viewed as something separate from humans and can always be mastered to meet our ends, towards the “partnership” orientation – where environmental partnership and stability is seen as essential for human well-being. The nested hierarchy that Nathan presented is an example of this. Given that it argues the state of societies and economies are dependent on the stability of the environment, the nested hierarchy highlights that humans are not separate, but a part of the environment. As such, we need to treat it with the same respect and appreciation as we would for ourselves so that its integrity can benefit our well-being.

Sustainability is clearly a complex issue, given how each of our guest speakers had different definitions of the term. We want to maintain diversity of these definitions, but we must also simultaneously find common ground to move forward. We must not only collaborate, but also understand sustainability from the perspective of multiple disciplines within and outside our comfort zone. The importance of interdisciplinary thinking for sustainability can be seen by how Nathan and Lael mentioned the need to manage ourselves within Earth’s limits. Linking back to Aleksandra’s presentation, I think this will involve fundamentally reorienting ourselves and our economies. This may involve moving away from the current model of capitalism, which is inherently linked to prioritizing economic growth and dominating nature for our own desires. We need to learn to limit those desires and take only what we need from nature. Simultaneously, we need an economy that thrives on building things to last and is not dependent on people always buying and wastefully consuming goods. Up until now, modern societies and economies have built themselves on the premise that the planet can always provide resources and absorb our pollution. As we move towards living within limits, the environment, ourselves, and our economies will all be affected. As such, it highlights that an interdisciplinary approach will clearly be needed to learn how to sustainably live within the limits of our planet.

JAJ: Figuring out how to have true partnerships across disciplines is challenging. Within the sciences, it is relatively easy, as the underlying paradigm is the same - the common foundational understanding of the physical world - is the same. Collaborations beyond the sciences don't necessarily share a common foundation, which means that time needs to be devoted to understanding the different 'world views', and then coming to some shared perspective on what should the collaboration do. I find these sorts of collaborations valuable, but they do take time.

Emma's reflection² on Jared

Reading Jared’s reflection was a very interesting way to see how another person perceived this panel session. I really like the generosity he shows to each speaker, discussing their differences and similarities in thinking of sustainability. Ultimately, they are all committed to the common purpose of making the world a better and more sustainable place, but what that means and how to work towards that is different for each of them. I like the idea of finding a common ground from which to move forward, but I do also think about what role conflict can have in ensuring that this common ground is not found artificially quickly. Here I’m thinking of an article we all read last semester in IGS 584 by Tironi (2018) on dissent. His point was that had an open space been formed for academic dissent, a more inclusive and generative solution that included community members’ voices could have been found in his research context of tsunami recovery in Chile.

I like the common link Jared found between Aleksandra’s dominance and partnership societies and Nathan’s strong sustainability model but I wonder if the social justice aspect that Aleksandra emphasized in her presentation is as taken up by the strong sustainability model. There is the aspect of economic distributive justice within in, and I’m not as familiar with that model so it would be interesting to see in what way that concept is taken up in research, theory, and the overall literature.