# Transcript

Joseph Tainter
The shorter Oxford English Dictionary also offers twelve definitions of transformation, one of which, number two, seems to match our purposes. It reads: ‘A complete change in character, nature, et cetera.’ Cultures change continuously but we do not consider such changes to be transformative. Instead we can conceive of transformation by the distinction made by Robert Carneiro between social changes that are quantitative and those that are qualitative.
Quantitative changes are small and incremental. Adding new roles to an institution is a quantitative change. Replacing the iPhone 5 with the iPhone 6 is a change that is quantitative. A qualitative change, on the other hand, is a change in the state of a system. The society or other system has been so altered that we recognise it as different. Transformation is qualitative change.
A classic example would be the emergence of industrialism and dependence on fossil fuels. These developments changed humanity’s dependence on immediate solar energy and caused new ways of life to emerge. We recognise this as a transformation – a qualitative change to something that didn’t exist before. Societies and cultures change continuously in small ways and we cannot speak of such quantitative changes as transformation. Transformation is, rather, a major qualitative change so that we recognise that a different way of life has emerged.
Considering transformation as qualitative change has implications for us to consider. One is that transformation is best recognised in hindsight. This is yet another reason why I argue that sustainability must be a historical science. This also suggests that we may not easily predict transformation, when it will occur or what it will consist of. And if we cannot readily predict transformation as qualitative change, we must be humble in thinking that we can direct it.
Qualitative change often brings something that we did not and could not envision. A historical perspective on sustainability and transformation brings up my second topic. Both are great in scale and large in concept. Sustainability and transformation require us to think broadly in terms of time and space. Think of the old admonition to think globally but act locally. Perhaps the greatest challenge we face is that evolution did not equip our species to think broadly in time and space.
Our ancestors never faced problems that were distant in time or space, so evolution never favoured individuals with the capacity to anticipate such problems. Thus most people live their lives locally, concerned with their immediate well-being, yet thinking broadly as precisely what sustainability and transformation require. Our most fundamental challenge is to recognise that we are limited in the very capabilities that are most essential to our future. The point of these observations is that sustainability and transformation require us to think rigorously about our future, discarding imprecise concepts and solutions that have only superficial appeal. In the present context, this leads to the question: transform what?
All of us came to this meeting believe that transformation to sustainability is a worthwhile goal. Yet if pressed on what to transform we would undoubtedly find many answers. This diversity is acceptable. The problem is in not stating one’s transformation goal at the outset. If we fail to state our transformation goal, we will all think that we share the same goal. Confusion and conflict will result when we find that we don’t. Explicitly stating a transformation goal is the first step toward averting this confusion. Similarly we must ask: transform for whom? Not everyone in a community or a society will have the same sustainability goal. Some will deny that there is any problem, now or in the future. People of a conservative disposition may oppose transformation as a matter of principle.
Many others will disagree about what needs to be transformed. Every situation of social change produces winners and losers. It is necessary to expect this at the outset. Transformation to sustainability is achievable only within a context – the context that makes the sustainability goal meaningful. A transformation that is a qualitative change depends on knowing that context. It is not enough to agree on a transformation goal, we must also understand under what conditions the goal is achievable, and recognise when it is no longer meaningful. Many people argue for transformation to a simpler, less costly kind of society. I have no quarrel with this ideal but will mention two points that give one pause. The first is that historically this would be quite rare. In my research, I have learned of only one large-scale complex society that achieved a measure of continuity by simplifying and reducing costs. It is disconcerting to realise that while many people advocate simplification, there is only one society that actually achieved it on a planned basis.
The others either grew in complexity and costliness or collapsed. The second point is that, as economists argue, people respond to incentives. People will not forgo affordable consumption today on the basis of abstractions about the future. We may wish that there were not costs associated with transformation to sustainability, but there will be and we cannot avoid confronting them. In conclusion we must acknowledge that transformation to sustainability presents a dilemma. Transformation is qualitative change, a change in the character of a system. In contrast, to sustain something is to support its continuation. Our predicament is, therefore, that we must reconcile the apparent contradiction between continuity and change. This is a matter of addressing the first question: what do we want to sustain and what do we want to transform?
Can we change in a way to sustain what people value, yet transform what we must?Transformation, as I have argued, is most evident in hindsight. It is also difficult or even impossible to anticipate or direct. In any instance of transformation to sustainability, there would be people who benefit but also many people who prefer the status quo. Transformation can be appropriated by people with selfish agendas, just as the term sustainability has been appropriated to apply to everything from ways of life to ceasefires to eyeshadow.
In the face of such dilemmas, we must be clear not only about what to transform but also for whom, for how long, and at what cost?I am calling for us to approach the goal of transformation rigorously, in contrast to the muddled and imprecise ways we have approached sustainability. We must be logical, explicit and consistent. The alternative is that transformation will come to reflect whatever shifting meanings and agendas people project onto it. Thank you.