Absence of degeneration
Picking up from Part 1, and stepping beyond the business domain alone, the absence of degeneration could be considered a neutral position. No further negative impacts, but also potentially, no positive impacts either. It’s a little bit like ‘net zero’ – which essentially promotes for there to be no further greenhouse gas (carbon, methane, carbon dioxide) emissions. One key difference however is that unlike some interpretations of the concept of net zero, the absence of degeneration alone doesn’t imply the presence of regeneration. Nor for that matter, does it imply the existence of any form of positive action. Where positive action is present, we are likely moving toward restoration, and beyond this, regeneration.
Balanced scorecard
If we look at this on a balanced scorecard, we would remain in the same overall position, a negative one. Just with the situation not getting any worse. I say a negative one, because recall from an earlier post that we have already transgressed 7 of the 9 planetary boundaries that define a safe and just living space for humanity. Overall therefore, the position remains negative, albeit admittedly heading in the right direction.
Presence of regeneration
The presence of regeneration is quite different in that it includes by implication, not only the absence of degeneration, but also, it often implies first transitioning through restoration. This would certainly be the case for the 7 transgressed planetary boundary areas.
Is the absence of degeneration enough?
A potentially useful practical question to ask would be whether getting to the point of the ‘absence of degeneration’ alone would be sufficient to address the planetary health challenges we are confronted with? For example, would it be enough to solve the challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification and so on? Would our Earth’s systems naturally and inherently regenerate simply by virtue of experiencing no further degenerative impacts?
What makes the above question a useful one to ask, is that the content of the answer could reveal a direction for restorative human response. Purely from a theoretical point of view, we might conclude that with no further degenerative impacts, Earth’s systems would be able to regenerate inherently without the need for any form of external ‘human’ intervention.
Regeneration needs support
Unfortunately, its not as simple as that. First, it doesn’t take the concept of time into consideration i.e., time lag effects. Second, neither too does it consider the turnaround time required to shift from a degenerative situation to a regenerative one.
To explain, by ‘time lag effects’ I mean the amount of time required to experience any noticeable differences following an implemented address activity. And by ‘turnaround time’, I mean the amount of time required to arrive at a regenerative outcome.
Looking at the big picture, these time-related questions are critical if we consider whether we actually have the luxury of time on our side. I mean the amount of time before we exceed not just the +1.5C global warming level, but the +2C level. A level above which the potential consequences have been described as catastrophic, and likened to an apocalyptic future (Davidson and Kemp 2017).
Third, it doesn’t consider the many manifestations of degeneration that require restorative external intervention before regeneration can inherently commence.
Example: Marine plastics and regeneration
- Consider for example the impact of increased plastic pollution in our global waterways – up to 12 million metric tonnes annually. Merely halting the seepage of further plastics into these waterways doesn’t address the existing problem, namely, the volume of plastics currently in our waterways. For our oceans alone, this is reportedly somewhere in the region of 75 to 199 million tonnes. Nor does it address the significant planetary boundary consequences caused by the slow and even non-existent natural breakdown of these plastics. Moreover, even in the case where plastic waste can break down to the level of microplastics, which can take from a few decades to hundreds of years depending on the kind of plastic, the time duration required to witness the complete breakdown of microplastics, is indefinite.
The absence of degeneration isn’t enough!
On the basis of the above, I argue that simply experiencing the absence of further degeneration isn’t enough. Its a position that likely sees us sliding further backwards in respect to planetary health, where backwards will be able to be measured by the increased frequency and ferocity of the environmental and societal challenges experienced. Thus, with this potential in mind, human-inspired restorative responses, that carry with them the potential for inherent regeneration, are necessary.
Future post
In Part 3 of this series of posts, and closer to the domain of business, I return to the concept of cost internalisation and its relationship with regeneration. In Part 4, I explore what some of these human-inspired restorative and regenerative responses look like, and suggest ways that we can incorporate them into our daily lives.
References
Davidson, J. P., & Kemp, L. (2024). Climate catastrophe: The value of envisioning the worst‐case scenarios of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 15(2), e871.