{"title":"我们能综合不同的发展理论吗?","authors":"G. Ahamer","doi":"10.30884/seh/2021.02.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Different ideas of ‘development’ provide different recommendations for socio-political action. Because of this self-evident fact, an attempt is made to bring together antagonistic systems of understanding of ‘development’ from an evolutionary perspective in a discursive manner, ultimately to gain greater acceptance for the resulting basic strategies in different camps. Attitudes that are either optimistic or critical regarding the chances of ‘development’ (so-called ‘preanalytic visions’) are described on the basis of (i) literature (Section 2) and (ii) data (Section 3) and the resulting recommendations for action are compared with each other. As an attempt at mediation between both paradigms, an original conception inspired by evolutionary thinking is proposed here: based on the data structures of the author's ‘Global Change Data Base’ (GCDB), a long-term dynamic of global techno-socio-economic development can be assumed which is characterised by a succession of initially growing and then saturating structural parameters. Particularly in the energy industry and land use, such a sequence of initially budding, then blossoming and finally maturing development phases (= ‘blossoming evolution’) seems to be present if the data sets of all states are analysed in the long term (Section 4). A thinking in transitions (Section 5, 6) thus appears justified, appropriate and helpful. In this sense, any strategic climate or development policy measure is based on an already ongoing (rolling) global structural change. In the light of the concept of ‘blossoming evolution,’ it therefore seems helpful (as well as easier to implement) to reinforce or mitigate such alreadyoccurring evolutionary dynamics in a suitable way in order to come as close as possible to the goals of sustainable global development. Social Evolution & History / September 2021 80 Summing up, this text suggests that any developmental measures should be placed in a suitable context of evolutionary autopoietic dynamics, which is in any case driving history.","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can we Synthesise Different Development Theories?\",\"authors\":\"G. Ahamer\",\"doi\":\"10.30884/seh/2021.02.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Different ideas of ‘development’ provide different recommendations for socio-political action. Because of this self-evident fact, an attempt is made to bring together antagonistic systems of understanding of ‘development’ from an evolutionary perspective in a discursive manner, ultimately to gain greater acceptance for the resulting basic strategies in different camps. Attitudes that are either optimistic or critical regarding the chances of ‘development’ (so-called ‘preanalytic visions’) are described on the basis of (i) literature (Section 2) and (ii) data (Section 3) and the resulting recommendations for action are compared with each other. As an attempt at mediation between both paradigms, an original conception inspired by evolutionary thinking is proposed here: based on the data structures of the author's ‘Global Change Data Base’ (GCDB), a long-term dynamic of global techno-socio-economic development can be assumed which is characterised by a succession of initially growing and then saturating structural parameters. Particularly in the energy industry and land use, such a sequence of initially budding, then blossoming and finally maturing development phases (= ‘blossoming evolution’) seems to be present if the data sets of all states are analysed in the long term (Section 4). A thinking in transitions (Section 5, 6) thus appears justified, appropriate and helpful. In this sense, any strategic climate or development policy measure is based on an already ongoing (rolling) global structural change. In the light of the concept of ‘blossoming evolution,’ it therefore seems helpful (as well as easier to implement) to reinforce or mitigate such alreadyoccurring evolutionary dynamics in a suitable way in order to come as close as possible to the goals of sustainable global development. Social Evolution & History / September 2021 80 Summing up, this text suggests that any developmental measures should be placed in a suitable context of evolutionary autopoietic dynamics, which is in any case driving history.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Evolution & History\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Evolution & History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2021.02.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Evolution & History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2021.02.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Different ideas of ‘development’ provide different recommendations for socio-political action. Because of this self-evident fact, an attempt is made to bring together antagonistic systems of understanding of ‘development’ from an evolutionary perspective in a discursive manner, ultimately to gain greater acceptance for the resulting basic strategies in different camps. Attitudes that are either optimistic or critical regarding the chances of ‘development’ (so-called ‘preanalytic visions’) are described on the basis of (i) literature (Section 2) and (ii) data (Section 3) and the resulting recommendations for action are compared with each other. As an attempt at mediation between both paradigms, an original conception inspired by evolutionary thinking is proposed here: based on the data structures of the author's ‘Global Change Data Base’ (GCDB), a long-term dynamic of global techno-socio-economic development can be assumed which is characterised by a succession of initially growing and then saturating structural parameters. Particularly in the energy industry and land use, such a sequence of initially budding, then blossoming and finally maturing development phases (= ‘blossoming evolution’) seems to be present if the data sets of all states are analysed in the long term (Section 4). A thinking in transitions (Section 5, 6) thus appears justified, appropriate and helpful. In this sense, any strategic climate or development policy measure is based on an already ongoing (rolling) global structural change. In the light of the concept of ‘blossoming evolution,’ it therefore seems helpful (as well as easier to implement) to reinforce or mitigate such alreadyoccurring evolutionary dynamics in a suitable way in order to come as close as possible to the goals of sustainable global development. Social Evolution & History / September 2021 80 Summing up, this text suggests that any developmental measures should be placed in a suitable context of evolutionary autopoietic dynamics, which is in any case driving history.