1. Introduction
Since the beginning of civilizations, the prod- ucts of resource acquisition, conversion and trans-
fer have been distributed among the constituents of human cultures on the basis of social agree-
ments we now call political economies. Then, as now, these social contracts were critically condi-
tioned by the nature of the ecosystems exploited, the technical means for exploiting them and the
collective wants, needs and preferences of each particular culture. Over the past few millennia,
human cultures developed currencies and pricing mechanisms as a basis for the intra- and inter-cul-
tural exchange of products, resources, and ser- vices with little or no reference to the workings of
the ecosystem being exploited, or the culture’s impacts on them Costanza et al., 1991; Faber et
al., 1996; Faber and Proops, 1997.
During the past few centuries western cultures discovered how to technologically deploy the nat-
ural laws of the abiotic universe to exploit, amend, and replace natural ecosystems of the
earth, thereby extending the scope and scale of ecological risks of industrialization to what are, or
can become, unsustainable levels. But, as yet the social contracts of western political economies
have not been generally amended to recognize the limitations of natural earth processes and ecosys-
tems, let alone to ensure their preservation.
Many ecologists, environmentalists, economists, and others continue to question the ability of the
natural processes and ecosystems of the earth to sustain the current growth trajectories of global
industrialization Firor, 1990; Woodwell, 1990; Costanza et al., 1991; Jelinski et al., 1992; Ham-
mond et al., 1995; Ausubel, 1996; Faber et al., 1996; Vitousek et al., 1997. The primary concern
is whether the diverse needs, wants and prefer- ences of a growing world population can be met
in the face of the perceived risks posed to the atmosphere, hydrosphere and many ecosystems of
the earth by the scope and scale of contemporary industrial, agricultural and natural resource ac-
quisition technologies Firor, 1990; Jelinski et al., 1992; Houghton, 1993; Faber et al., 1996; Chapin
et al., 1997; Vitousek et al., 1997. In addition, there apparently are also increasing risks to the
health of humans, losses of particular species of plants and animals, and degradation of built
structures and various human amenities Council on Environmental Quality, 1995.
Some of the ecological risks of industrialization are already being addressed by adaptations in
products, product life cycles, and processing tech- nologies Ditz et al., 1995; Ausubel, 1996. Public
awareness of over consumption of resources and increasing environmental impacts is growing and
in some instances effective public counter forces are being organized Faber et al., 1996. But,
much more can and must be done in a timely fashion if human cultures of the world are to reap
the potential benefits of greater global industrial- ization without the unwanted and potentially seri-
ous ecological side-effects Jelinski et al., 1992; Ausubel, 1996; Farrell, 1996; O’Rourke et al.,
1996; Vitousek et al., 1997.
Costanza et al. 1991, among others, note that policies that provide economic incentives for re-
ducing the ecological risks can be far more effica- cious
than prescriptive,
rigid regulations.
Regarding regulatory
approaches, Costanza
states, ‘‘They are inherently reactive rather than pro-active. They induce legal confrontation, ob-
fuscation, and government intrusion into busi- ness. Rather than promoting social innovation,
they tend to suppress it. They do not mesh well with market signals that firms and individuals use
to make decisions and do not effectively translate long-term global goals into short-term incen-
tives’’. It can be further observed that uncertain- ties inherent in characterizing complex global
processes are frequently exploited in litigation and politics. The result is often public confusion and
skepticism which allows political disfunction to impede corrective action.
The objectives of this paper are: a to position industrialization in the context of what science
has reconstructed concerning the evolution of the biosphere and the evolving intelligence, informa-
tion, ingenuity and organization of human cul- tures, thereby establishing reference ties to the
nature of ecological systems and risks that are, or should be, of concern to modern cultures; b
restate the urgency to begin amending the price structure of open-market political economies to
modify the ecological flows between economies and their natural environments according to the
risks they impose on the natural processes and ecosystems; and c to show why and how, in
principle, identified ecological risks can be inter- nalized to economic balance sheets of the eco-
nomic
constituents, thereby
economically motivating corrective technological innovations in
the processes and structure of industrial ecosys- tems and adaptations in consumer behavior
Koenig and Cantlon, 1998. The proposed strat- egy does not require prior agreement on assess-
ments of the economic valuation of natural resource stocks or the services rendered by natural
systems as discussed by Costanza et al. 1997. Rather, it is based on the definition of ecological
economics and the principles of dynamic systems control presented in this paper.
2. Background
Kategori