Milbrath, Lester W. 1994. "Stumbling Blocks to a Sustainable Society: Incoherences in key premises about the way the world works." Futures 26(2): 117-124.

Thesis:

The dominant social paradigm (DMS) differs markedly from the basic premises of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP). Articulating and understanding these differences is necessary to facilitate dialogue across the political gridlock regarding economic growth and environmental preservation.

Summary:

Wise policy making requires clear communication. Differing societies and/or interest groups may be using similar vocabulary when discussing "sustainable development," but may be speaking from markedly different paradigms, or "epistemological systems for interpreting reality." In contrast to the dominant social paradigm (the DSP), whose premises are usually assumed rather than articulated, Milbrath builds upon Dunlap and Van Liere's "new environmental paradigm" (the NEP) to articulate premises of sustainable natural systems. Milbrath argues that "adherents of the two paradigms talk past each other with mutual incomprehension." Clarifying the basic suppositions of the two paradigms, and evaluating their validity will encourage clearer discourse.

First, Milbrath delineates the NEP's imperatives of natural systems, where systems are seen to be diverse, interlocked, highly complex, and mutually changing, and are subject to limits on resource consumption and overpopulation by any one species. In these systems, species survive by finding a niche that utilizes and reinforces support from one or more other species, Hence, "cooperation, not competition, is the key to survival" (p.118). These imperatives are in contrast to the assumptions of the dominant social paradigm found in industrialized nations, where "growth is the honorific concept," leading to unsustainable consumption, overpopulation and mislead notions of the "survival of the fittest."

Secondly, Milbrath discusses the set of social imperatives that all societies aim to fulfill. These include security, order, justice, continuity, compassion, cohesion, agreement on fundamental values, provision of basic human needs and the opportunity for human self-fulfillment and expression. These imperatives are not in dispute between the two social paradigms. However, many societies have tried to fulfill these social imperatives without taking the ecological imperatives into account. There are logical incoherences in this one-sided thinking. "Maximization of output" injures people and the environment. It is an unviable, unsustainable path.

Finally Milbrath lists desirable social norms that can be derived from attention to physical and social system imperatives. These include developing a "global bioethic," fostering democratic participation in decision making without the bounds of class and gender inequalities, and controlling technology to be used within a holistic framework that takes into account long-range impacts. Diverse systems, whether physical or social, are more resilient to shock than are imbalanced systems. Thus, a diverse, broadly informed, holistically thinking public is crucial in developing wise policy.

Key Words: Dominant Social Paradigm, New Environmental Paradigm, Equity (international, gender, interspecies, class), Biodiversity, Global Bioethic, Ecopolitical thinking