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 www.bioman.no, under “invitation
documents”, and/or contact me for more detailed info.
Please take your time to digest the material, but please decide 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) has application
deadline on October 16th 2013: The final announcement text for the research program is now
published:
http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognettnorklima/Nyheter/135_millioner_til_klimaomstilling/1253987666871?WT.mc_id=nyhetsbrevnorklima
http://www.forskningsradet.no/no/Utlysning/KLIMAFORSK/1253982504184
http://www.forskningsradet.no/no/Forskerprosjekt/1186753746501
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 sustainable ingroup 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 achieved
in 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, institutions or 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 system is 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. (www.teebweb.org).
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 purpose of maximizing each
company’s profit, and who are 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 future it 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 ultimate democratic 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 organize the 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?
Climate change
(integrated in every
research area)
Jiska van Dijk, NINA,
Almost every
activity is run by
fossil fuel. Focus
on our
Peak oil analysis;
IPCC time
scenarios, what
about gas
3. How will an
ingroup
democracy be
functional, as
outlined in the
model, within
your research
field?
Necessary
decisions to avoid
strife: Are
decisions of
4. How can a
transition to
such a society
be feasible?
Knowledge
transfer,
bottom up
processes,
will look into the
ALTER-net for more
collaborators
unsustainable
situation (see
enclosed
document
“information for
policy makers”.
resources etc..
limitations,
rationing and
even distribution
easier to manage
in an ingroup
democracy?
political
discussions
Human behavioural
ecology,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 selfpreservation 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.
http://www.forskn
ingsradet.no/prog
nettnorklima/Nyheter/
Folk_flest_frykter_
ikke/12269936093
13
Resource economy,
ecosystem services,
TEEB, MEA:
David Barton, NINA,
Anders Skonhoft,
NTNU
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
Analysis of
historical
parallels. How
vulnerable are
modern
societies? State of
the nation
(Sårbarhetsutvalg
et)
http://www.rif.no
/nyhetsarkiv/245
1-last-ned-stateof-the-nationher-.html
Ecosystem
change, which
ecosystem
services are the
most vulnerable?
The ocean,
phosphate
fertilizer,
transportation/oil
scarcity? Food
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?
See also under
“sociology”. How
much to consume
for each of us?
Sustainable
production for 79 billion?
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?
Dealing with
The Tragedies of
the Commons:
Equality and just
democracy
Communication,
integrated in all our
activities
Ole Andre Sivertsen,
Aase Cathrine
Myrtveit, NRK
Jiska will look into
the ALTER-net for
more collaborators
services, and not a
resource in itself.
Economy, micro- and
macro-, including
(maybe we should
integrate with
resource economy?
How about
neuroeconomics?)
No contacts yet at
BI, how about Kalle
Moene?
Global market
economy analysis,
profit, competition
and bankruptcies.
The money value
delusion; saving
money for a rainy
day
Commerce and
trade, also
Kalle Moene? 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.
production?
Energy and
ecosystem service
costs for
geoengineering,
are such projects
sustainable and
feasible?
Economic
collapses, some
businesses might
have success
vulnerability, see
Sociology (State
of the nation)
Black markets?
Sustainable
production;
setting prices
from resource
use and
production
volumes. The
democracy itself
decides which
level that will
prioritize
products 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.
Price set
democratically
from
sustainability,
resource use and
need. No
aggressive
commercials,
description of
products are
realistic:
Engaging artists
How will the
private
economies
function? Civil
salaries, with
compensations.
In Norway,
about 30 000
people own
other people’s
workplaces,
most of them
own only 1 in
addition to
themselves.
How to treat
this fair and
just?
Discussions on
how such a
society might
be
for this?
Law and legislation
(Perhaps Beate
Sjåfjell, law
professor?)
The legal
background for
property rights for
a small minority to
production means
and workplaces.
Organisation of work
life.
LO researchers?
Today’s paradox:
profitable
workplaces-higher
wages-more
consumptionincreased
productionemptying
ecosystem
services-unsafe
future
Human well-being,
including the Human
Scale Development
approach
Monica Guillen-Royo
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
Diener, E. Helliwell,
J.F., Kahneman, D.
(2010) International
differences in
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)
How will today’s
work life cope
with different
collapses? Local,
regional and
global conflicts.
We know that
recessions with
their effect on
unemployment
deplete people's
wellbeing up to a
25%
unemployment
rate. After that
the fact that
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.
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.
Workercontrolled
workplaces as
empirical
examples? See
chapter 6 in our
book for ideas.
Pensioners,
university
lecturers,
peasants, etc, all
these and other
groups must be
included in the
democracy, not
only production
workers. Thus,
Discussions on
how such a
society will be:
No need to
produce more
than necessary:
Leisure time will
increase?
Involving people
(common
people, not only
researchers) in
the
development of
the model might
increase the
understanding
of the effects.
wellbeing. Oxford:
Oxford University
Press.
Monica Guillen-Royo
Realising the
‘wellbeing dividend’:
An exploratory study
using the Human
Scale
Development
approach (Ecological
Economics 70 (2010)
384–393)
Social medicine,
health care, including
diseases and food
health
Steinar Krokstad:
http://www.adressa.
no/meninger/kronikk
er/article7519279.ec
e Steinar Westin,
Linn Getz, NTNU,
meeting soon!
Culture, media,
communication
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.
others are in the
same situation
reduces the
stigma of the
unemployed.
However, there is
mix evidence
about this, so
difficult to
generalise.
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.
The model is
only a general
frame and
developing it in
cooperation
with the people
who are going
to use it will be
necessary.
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.
Few,
commercialized
artists. The
motivation is
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?
Culture, music
and art are
important life
qualities, more
than
consumption
What is each
NGOs analysis of
the democratic
ingroup model?
Civil salaries will
release this
pressure on the
paradox of
combining career
and childbirth.
May the
democratic
process in itself
be health
promoting?
NGOs, environmental Concern for an
organisations
uncertain future
Gender research and
equality
Status is defined
and related to
income, profitable
occupations most
important.
Culture becomes
the balancing
item, and will
dwindle
New “occupy”
movements?
Well-being, safe
future
How can a
transition take
place?
MORE DISCIPLINES
AND FIELDS OF
EXPERTISE?
PROGRESSION
The announcement text is now out, so it is time to focus on contents, ideas and concrete
formulations. See links on top of this document.
You will be responsible for your discipline or area of interest, and describe hypotheses and methods,
examples and empirical research. PhDs, masters, man-months and budgets included. We may apply
for four-five years, with normal progression and subgoals through the project period.
The Research council is very strict about the length of applications, so that each will need to
formulate a very short text, but we may enclose longer versions.
We will coordinate the process by the use of mail and the homepage www.bioman.no. The
homepage is now open.
On August 27th, there will be another info meeting: http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognettnorklima/Nyheter/Informasjonsmote_om_klimaomstillingsutlysningen/1253987666411?WT.mc_id=
nyhetsbrev-norklima
Some of us should attend.
We should organize a workshop, where we can discuss face-to-face and consolidate ourselves. This is
the natural way humans cooperate… we need to see each other. Hopefully we will find the time.
The deadline for the application is October 16th.
Communication to a broad public is important in scenario research, and we have engaged a
professional film maker to document both process and results. He will also write his own application
including budget. Such a consortium has never been established, and surely the interest for it will be
substantial.
If you haven’t accepted participation yet, please take your time to digest the material, but make
your decision if you want to participate or not as soon as possible.
Attachments and literature
Ecosystem service model, as presented by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(www.teebweb.org) . This figure beholds all the major connections that human life relies on. An
important understanding which has major consequences for politics, economy and population is that
every human is a net consumer of these services.
Literature
(see also the literature list in the attachment “Bongard the biological human BACKGROUND.doc”)
Barkow, J. H., L. Cosmides, & Tooby, J. (1992). The Adapted Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Viking.
Gintis, H. (2009). Game Theory Evolving: A Problem-centered Introduction to Evolutionary Game
Theory (Second Edition ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The Spirit Level - Why greater equality makes societies stronger
(1st ed.). New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience. The unity of knowledge New York: Alfred A. Knopf.