Rising Tide of Regeneration

Is a new future emerging in the journey from sustainability to regeneration??

In 1995 Donella Meadows finally sat down to put pen to paper for what many had been asking of her for decades—the “Definition of Sustainability.” She begins by making clear that the true definition of sustainability is felt, not spoken:

“We sometimes say that it’s like jazz, or quality, or democracy—you don’t know it by defining it, you know it by experiencing it, by grooving with it, by living it—or perhaps by mourning its absence.”

A definition was a reasonable request to ask of Meadows given that in the 1972 Introduction to the seminal work, The Limits to Growth, she concludes that it is indeed possible to reach sustainable ecological and economic stability far into the future while meeting everyone’s basic needs. As Meadows later points out in her essay, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)’s report,?Our Common Future (1987), already offers a “perfectly good official definition” of sustainability:

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

From the Brundtland definition, Meadows isolates two component parts whose relationship still defines the field of sustainability today: 1) “meeting needs and 2) doing so in a way that preserves the natural, human, and societal resources from which needs are met.” She laments that sustainability has already become commoditized—bifurcating into camps of those who chose part one or part two, but seldom finding those who insist on both. Self-described “sustainability folks” unify the two parts. They live by “Herman Daly’s Three Rules” written by Daly when he was Senior Economist at the World Bank to clarify what he felt was an unclear definition by the Brundtland Commission. In an interview, Daly describes how “development” conflicts with “sustainability” and he wants to ensure that “sustainable development” does not mean that “development is sustainable.” He suggests three principles of a sustainable human society:

1.Renewable resources shall not be used faster than they can regenerate.

2. Pollution and wastes shall not be put into the environment faster than the environment can recycle them or render them harmless.

3. Nonrenewable resources shall not be used faster than renewable substitutes (used sustainably) can be developed.

Meadows is quick to point out that groups in all forms—nations, companies, cities, farms, households—violate each of these rules and typically all of them (which would still hold true today). However, Meadows interprets the Brundtland language as “preservation” and “protection,” both of which imply maintaining an original state of being. Daly on the other hand wrote of regeneration, which is an adaptive living systems approach to considering natural capital decisions and utilization.?

It would be absurd to suggest that Meadows did not understand and revere complex adaptive living systems, as she was one of the great systems thinkers of the 20th century. So is the semantic distinction between “preservation” and “regeneration” important? Does the definition of sustainability matter? Is there a distinction between “sustainability” and “regeneration” in describing our ambitions and work??

Fixing Language

With a keen eye to publishing the most replete dictionary in the English language, Samuel Johnson wrote in The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language (1747) his intention to “fix the English language.” Johnson foresaw the need to bring discipline to a language that was “copious without order, and energtick [sic] without rules.” Eight years later after compiling the Dictionary of English Language, Johnson wrote in the Preface on first publication:?

“Those who have been persuaded to think well of my design, require that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those alterations which time and chance have hitherto been suffered to make in it without opposition. With this consequence I will confess that I flattered myself for a while; but now begin to fear that I have indulged expectation which neither reason nor experience can justify.”

Wiser in years and practice, Johnson realizes that the idea of “fixing language” is an impossibility. The nature of language, much like complex living systems, is to adapt over time. The task of a definer is to record the language of the day rather than to fix its position to a stationary state. Nearly three centuries ago Johnson learned the lesson in language that we are just awakening to in our economies—our systems must remain adaptive to support the conditions of life. There is no single definition of sustainability any more than there is one of regeneration or capitalism. The definitions are culturally adaptive responses to our changing conditions. Is it not altogether fitting that we continually adapt our words as the emerging future unfolds?

We’re currently in a transitory moment between systems with the recognition it is imperative to change the direction of travel. On the one hand, our dominant economies are based on deeply rooted systems of resource extraction, accumulation, and enclosure. On the other hand, we are recognizing the externalities of business as usual is a threat to individual, societal, and planetary well-being. We are grasping for an emergent future that has let go of one system to make way for the next one.?

As sustainability and regeneration practitioners, we are learning what it means to develop knowledge, strategies, and ways of being that are in keeping with adaptive living systems rather than fixed to a system at a point in time. “Unextraction” of fossil fuels is a perfect case in point. To limit warming to 1.5°C, the authors of this Nature article project that we will need to leave 58% of the world’s oil reserves, 59% of all gas, and 89% of all coal in the ground. By doing so, we not only limit warming and fix natural capital stocks, but also create the conditions for the Earth to regenerate natural capital faster as Daly’s law requires.?

The “net positive” shift (Paul Polman & Andrew Winston) of regeneration is seemingly so basic in principle that it is often difficult to comprehend why it is so difficult to execute. We are learning to move with and within natural systems rather than creating our own closed loops whose externalities surface the Sisyphean task we now find ourselves in—to radically alter our trajectories while simultaneously removing the social and planetary harms liberalism endowed for over two centuries. Regeneration is the journey to learn how we ascend to the mountain summit to gently place the boulder on level ground. The rolling of the boulder back down the mountain one last time is now more than a frustrating inconvenience. It is an existential threat.

Sisyphus by Tiziano, 1548

The next system, regeneration, embodies the diversity of complex living systems. This is what some have called the pluriverse—spaces where diversity thrives by creating the conditions for both independence and interdependence. This systemic shift is a turning backwards while looking forward. We’re learning to retrieve that which we’ve deleted from the logs of history or trampled underfoot because they were threats to a colonial way of being. Even though regeneration is one less syllable than sustainability and perhaps a better encompassing concept of how we need individuals, companies, and governments to operate in this moment, I wholeheartedly agree with Meadows that any single word is inadequate to the task. As she wrote about sustainability:?

"Any word of six syllables is way too long to organize a popular movement around and at the same time way too short to encompass a whole vision. And too many people hear it as 'sustaining' the world we have now, whereas I really mean fomenting a revolution.”

Indeed, what we are looking for is that cultural revolution. Just like jazz, we know it when we hear it, and can indeed groove to it. Regeneration demands a shift in how we come to know. What patterns we are able to see and which ones we perpetuate as we go about our work to contribute to the social and ecological field. In order to see different patterns, we have to open ourselves to new ways of knowing. Those steeped in innovation circles know that creativity requires the ability to see different connections and possibilities at the edges, which is where new spaces open. Regeneration requires radical innovation.

This is an abridged version of The Understory Issue Twenty-Nine: Defining Our Desired Future. To read the essay in its entirety, please click here.

---

From November 2021 through February 2022, Solvable opened the space wide for moving beyond definitions into vision and action with our New Works Regeneration series. All conversations were free, open to be public, and intended to be knowledge commons where conversation becomes a space for emerging eight dimensions of Regeneration:

• Regenerative Futures with Tyson Yunkaporta | Co-hosted with NewStories on November 4th | Recording here
• Regenerative Reporting with Bill Baue | Co-hosted with Anthesis on November 18th | Recording here
• Regenerative Cultures with Andri Sn?r Magnason & Melanie Goodchild | Co-hosted with Turtle Island Institute on December 2nd | Recording here
• Regenerative Economics with John Fullerton | Co-hosted with nRhythm on December 16th | Recording here
• Regenerative Cities with Dominique Hes | Co-hosted with ICLEI Canada on January 6th | Recording here
• Regenerative Agriculture with Nicole Masters | Co-hosted with Social Gastronomy Movement on January 20th | Recording here
• Regenerative Design with Arturo Escobar | Co-hosted with The RSA on February 3rd | Recording here
• Regenerative Leadership with Rebecca Henderson | Co-hosted with Magnolia Moonshot 2030 on February 16th | Recording here

You can read more about the series at https://www.solvable.ca/new-works

Adam Lerner is the Founder & Knowledge Lead of Solvable which guides international corporations and capital towards regenerative futures. Adam also writes The Understory to encourage leaders to act on the courage of their convictions. He lives as an uninvited visitor on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the x?m?θkw?y??m (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and S?l?ílw?ta?/Selilwitulh (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations known as Vancouver, BC.