How Myopia Archetypes Lead to Non-Sustainability

24 Pages·2017·3.34 MB·English

sustainability
Article
How Myopia Archetypes Lead to Non-Sustainability
PieroMella* ID andMichelaPellicelli ID
DepartmentofEconomicsandManagement,UniversityofPavia,27100Pavia,Italy;[email protected]
* Correspondence:[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
Received:9November2017;Accepted:19December2017;Published:22December2017
Abstract: Muchoftheliteratureonsustainabilityhastriedtodefinethe“virtuousbehaviour”of
“agents” (man and his social and economic organizations) so that it respects the “sustainability
constraint.”Thispaperprovidesa“mirror-image”approach,basedontheideathatitisaboveall
necessarytounderstandwhymenandorganizationstendtodevelop,attimesunconsciouslyand
dishonestly,damagingbehaviourthatturnsintonon-sustainability. Inotherwords,toorientman
toward sustainable behaviour it is indispensable to understand the “reasons” for the behaviour
thatproducesnon-sustainableeffects. Regardingsustainabilityproblems, weshallintroducethe
hypothesisthatnon-sustainablebehaviourisnotirrationalinanabsolutesensebutderivesfromthe
actionofthreeconnected“behaviouralarchetypes”thataccuratelydescribethe“natural”behaviour
of individuals in pursuing their aims: behaving in a way that will provide evident short-term
advantages,bothindividualandlocal,whileignoringthedisadvantagesandharmsuchbehaviour
producesinthelongrun, atthecollectiveandgloballevel. Tosolvetheproblem, weshalltryto
identifythe“levers”thatweakenthearchetypesandreversetheireffects,therebyrequiringsacrifices
which are unacceptable to some. The paper presents four emblematic cases of non-sustainable
behaviouranddemonstratesthatsustainabilitymustbecomeafundamentalstrategicdriver.
Keywords: sustainability;systemthinking;archetypesofmyopia;sustainabilityasastrategicdriver;
tragedyofthecommons;wastedisposal;globalwarming
1. Introduction
In recent years firms have been subject to increasing pressure in terms of sustainability
and sustainable development—according to the well-known definition given by the WCED-the
“BrundtlandCommission”[1](p.43):“developmentthatmeetstheneedsofthepresentwithoutcompromising
theabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds”—asregardsbothcurrentprocessesaswellas
thosebeingdeveloped.
More that a definition, this quote is a “plea” to undertake sustainable behaviour to ensure
that today’s benefits do not become harmful for future generations. It is also possible to
reformulatethehopesoftheBrundtlandCommissionasfollows: if,ontheonehand,agents—men
and organizations—have to continually develop, on the other they must avoid non-sustainable
environmental, economic and social behaviour. If such behaviour already exists, they should try
toremedythedamageandaboveallavoiditsrepetition.
Over these decades, the definition of sustainable development evolved. This definition was
vaguebutitcleverlycapturedtwofundamentalissues,theproblemoftheenvironmentaldegradation
that so commonly accompanies economic growth and yet the need for such growth to alleviate
poverty[2](p. 1).
Whyisthispleanecessary? Arenothumanagents—men,organizationsandnations—ableto
assesstheirownbehaviourandchoosethatwhichdoesnotcauseirreversibleharmforourfuture
survival?Istherean“irrational”rationality?Doesthenon-sustainabilityoftoday’sactionsandpolicies
Sustainability2018,10,21;doi:10.3390/su10010021 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability2018,10,21 2of24
derivefrombadfaith,ignorance,individualinterests? Whyaremanandhisorganizationsincapable
ofseeingintothedistantfutureandinsteadbehaveinamyopicmanner?
Theaimofthisconceptualpaperistobuildasuitablemodeltounderstandhumanbehaviour
thatderivesfromamyopicvisionofitsconsequences. Theattemptwillbemadetodemonstratethat
theproblemofnon-sustainabilityoriginatesfromtwofundamentalfactorsorcognitivecauses:
(1) thetendencyoftheindividualtorepeatbehaviourthatgiveshiman“immediateadvantage”
that can be observed and measured and at the same to ignore, or not give much weight to,
thedisadvantagessuchbehaviourwillcauseinfuturefortheindividualinquestionorforothers.
(2) thelackofanadequateinformationsystemforindividualsregardingthepresentstateofreality
and its future evolution; such ignorance blocks them from modifying their myopic thinking
avoidingthedisastrouseffectsoftheirbehaviour.
In fact, many authors and commentators confuse causes with effects. When one asserts that
globalwarmingderives,amongothercauses,fromCO emissions,orthatthepollutionoftheseasis
2
causedbytheexcessiveconsumptionandfailuretoproperlydisposeofplasticmaterials,onedoesnot
explainanything;wemustunderstandthecausesthatdrivetheeconomytoproducetheseemissions
orconsumersmakeextensiveuseofplasticmaterialsandwebelieveintheneedtoinvestigatethe
behaviourofproducersandconsumers. Theobjectiveofthisstudyistopresentasimplebutgeneral
recurrentmodel—anarchetype—thatcanshedlightonthemotivationsofirrationalbehavioursthat
producenon-sustainableeffectsandtooutlineastrategytoweakenthesebehaviours.
The Systems Thinking approach will be used to construct this model based on Peter Senge’s
approach in The Fifth Discipline [3] (recently formalized by Mella [4]), one of the most effective
instrumentsforobserving,modelingandunderstandinghumanandorganizationalbehavioursince
itlinksacoherentconceptualframeworkandsimple, symboliclanguagethatallowsonetoeasily
buildandquicklyinterpretoperationalsense-makingmodelstodescribe,understandandsimulate
thebehaviourofawiderangeofdynamicphenomena[3–5].
2. ReviewoftheEssentialLiteratureonSustainability
The concept of sustainability had its earliest origins in the international debate: “The limits
to growth” [6], which centered on how man should intervene to create a curve of logistic
accommodationtoresourcestolimitexponentialgrowthinpopulation,food,industrialproduction,
energyconsumptionandCO emissionsandtoavoidacatastrophe.
2
Later, in the 1980s and ’90s, serious environmental problems, such as the reduction in the
ozone layer and climate changes, caused a greater focus on the concept of sustainable growth.
Thenatureofthedebateshiftedfrom‘limitstogrowth’totheconceptofsustainabledevelopment,
withthepublicationofthemorecelebratedreports: “WorldConservationStrategy”,publishedbythe
InternationalUnionfortheConservationofNatureandNaturalResources[7]and“OurCommon
Future”publishedbyWCED[1].
Themodernconceptsofsustainabilitybegantotakeshapeduringthe1990s,afterwhichtherewas
agrowthinthenumberofdefinitionsinvariouscontexts. Wehaveseenaproliferationinthebusiness
andmanagementliterature,withanexplosionintheinternationalliterature,inwhichsustainabilityis
themaintheme. Thetermsustainabilityisfrequentlyusedtodescribeproblemsrelatedtotechnology,
economicdevelopmentandmanagerialapproachesinvariousfieldssuchassustainabletechnology,
sustainableeconomicsandsustainablebusiness. Toensureasustainableeconomy,severalkeyareas
havebeenexplored,suchasenvironmentaleffectsandtheconsequencesfornaturefromunconstrained
economicgrowth, alongwiththeprospectsforeconomicactivitythattakesgreateraccountofthe
socialandenvironmentalconsequencesofmarketbehaviour[8–10].
Costanza and Patten [11] take the meaning of sustainability from biology, where the term
originated: “Biologically,sustainabilitymeansavoidingextinctionandlivingtosurviveandreproduce.
Sustainability2018,10,21 3of24
Economically,itmeansavoidingmajordisruptionsandcollapses,hedgingagainstinstabilitiesand
discontinuities. Sustainability,atitsbase,alwaysconcernstemporalityandinparticular,longevity”.
Sustainabilityisusuallydefinedas:“abroadinterpretationofecologicaleconomicswhereenvironmental
and ecological variables and issues are basic but part of a multidimensional perspective. Social, cultural,
health-relatedandmonetary/financialaspectshavetobeintegratedintotheanalysis”[12].
With regard to the economics of production organizations, sustainability means adequately
sustainingbusinesses,avoidingperiodsofinstabilityanddiscontinuityandallowingeconomicactivity
tosurviveovertime. Thebasicideaisthatsustainabilityinterfaceswiththeeconomythroughthe
socialandecologicalconsequencesofeconomicactivities[13].
Manyeconomicdefinitionsofsustainabilityhadbeenputforth. Wecanmentionseveralrecurring
aspectsofthedefinitionofthisterm[14]:
(1) itreferstoawayofobservingenvironmentalproblemsinrelationtotheeconomyandsociety;
(2) theinterconnectionsareusuallydescribedasatriangle,a‘three-leggedstool’;oroverlapping
circlesinaVenndiagram,wherethethreeelementscanbediverselydescribedastheeconomy,
environmentandsociety,orequity,ecologyandtheeconomy;
(3) despite the fact the specific elements and their relevance can change, what distinguishes
sustainabilityistheobservationofthesystemicconnectionsandtheideathattheconstituent
elementsshouldbemutuallysustainingandreinforcing;
(4) the focus on intergenerational equity; that is, guaranteeing to future generations the same
conditionsavailabletothepresentgeneration;
(5) afinalaspectsharedbythevariousdefinitions,whichdiffersfromthetraditionalwayofobserving
theenvironment,theeconomyandsociety,istheneedtogobeyondthemerecompatibilityof
existinglawsandregulations.
Nevertheless,ingeneral,asPearceetal.[15]hascommented: “definingsustainabledevelopment
isnotadifficultissue. Thedifficultissueisindeterminingwhathastobedonetoachievesustainable
development,assumingitisadesirablegoal”.
Toincreasethedisseminationofsustainableobjectives,numerousinternational,national,stateand
localgovernmentprotocolsandpolicies,aswellasthe‘missionstatements’ofcorporationsandNGOs,
include a commitment to sustainable development. Based on the guidelines of the “Brundtland
Commission” [1], the United Nations has defined a series of Millennium Development Goals.
Thesegoalsaimateconomicdevelopmentandtheeliminationofpovertyandtheobjectivesinclude
humanrights,health,educationandenvironmentalquestions.Inthiscontextthe:“efficienciesofmarkets,
combinedwiththeresourcesandmanagerialexpertiseoflargemultinationals,areconsideredcrucialsuccess
factorsinachievingthesegoals”[16].
Inaddition,theGlobalCompactinternationalinitiativewasstronglyrequestedbytheUnited
Nationstogetcompanies,togetherwithUNagencies,toembraceasetofsharedvaluesandprinciples
intheareasofhumanrights,laborandenvironmentalstandards. Alongwiththisprocesstoinvolve
firms in promoting sustainable growth, the Triple Bottom Line has gained acceptance as a new
instrumenttomeasurecompanyperformancefollowingthreeapproaches: economic,environmental
andsocial[17–21]. Attheinternationallevel,thisemphasishasledtoaconsiderableefforttodefinethe
commonstandardsforthedraftingofsustainabilityreportsandtoidentifyperformanceindicatorsthat
couldhighlightthevaluecreatedinthesocialandenvironmentalareasaswell. TheGRI—Sustainability
ReportingGuidelinesonEconomic,EnvironmentalandSocialPerformance[22],areamongthemostwidely
usedforsustainabilityreporting,withthepurposeofcommunicatingandcalculatingtheimpactof
businessactivitiesontheeconomic,socialandenvironmentalareas.
Recently, there has been interest in making company activities more sustainable and also in
developingsustainabilityasadriverforcorporateeconomicsuccess[8,23–25]. Anumberoftheoretical
works have conceptualized the link between environmental performance, social performance
and financial performance [26–29]. In this context, Schaltegger and Synnestvedt [30] underline
Sustainability2018,10,21 4of24
Sustainability 2018, 10, 21 4 of 23
Sthusattaincaobirlpityo 2r0a1t8e, 1m0, a21n agement would have to identify a specific set of restrictions/incentive4s off o23r
targeting the cost savings and implement concrete actions. Therefore, today “there is wide consensus
environmentalprotectionand,asasecondstep,defineobjectivesandgoals,formulateplanstargeting
that the idea of sustainability figures as one of the leading models for societal development by indicating the
ttahregceotisntgs atvhien gcossatn sdaviminpglse manedn timcopnlcermeteenat cctoionncsr.eTteh aecretifoonres,. tTohdearyef“otrhee,r etoisdwayid “etchoenres eins swusidteh acotnthseenisdueas
direction in which societies ought to develop” [31].
tohfastu stthaei nidaebail iotyf sfiugsutareinsaabsiolintye ofifgtuhreelse aadsi nognem oofd tehlse floerasdoincige tmaloddeevlesl ofoprm seonctiebtyali nddeivcealtoipnmgethnet dbiyr eicntidoincaitninwgh tihche
dsoirceiecttiieosno iung whthticohd seovceileotpie”s [o3u1g].ht to develop” [31].
3. Method: Senge’s Systems Thinking Approach
33.. MMTeeththheoo dldo:: gSSiece nnoggfee ’S’ssy SSstyyessmtteesmm Tssh TTinhhkiinninkkgii nncgga nAA ppbppe rroosuaaccmhhm arized by this general rule [4]: if you want to
underTTshhtaeen lldoo ggtiihcc eoo ff“ wSSyyossrttleedmm” ss yTTohhuii nnmkkiiunnsggt ccoaabnns ebbreev ess uutmmhemm aavrraiirzzieeaddb lebbsyy ttthhhaiisst ggreeennpeererraasell nrrtuu llteeh [e[44 ]]d:: yiifnf ayymoouuic sww aoannf tt itttsoo
puuhnneddneeorrmssttaaennndda thathened“ w “lowinrolkdr l”dthy”eo muyo mutuo sgmteotuhbsest re rovtboes ethfroverevm at rhiuaenb ilvteaasrrtyiha, abtrleersep petrtheitasievt nert et(phorefetdesneyn ntra emtchuicers siodvfyein)t sasmpyhiscetsne moomsf eonitfas
ipannhtedernclioonmnknetenhceatm edatn ovdga eritlaihnbeklre tsot hwfeohmrom setuo mngieattachrreyo,r- dretypon eatfimotirivmces ,( ooufnnte ittnhaerrye oc, nureres hpivaeent)idtsi,yv dsete er(miovfsete ofnrfo inmrtee ctruhceros nmivnieecc)r toes-dydsvytanermaimasb ilceossf
owinf htetohrsceeo mncnoameccrptoeo-ddn yevnnaatr miavbiaclsrei,sao bwnlehtsho esaeon nmde ahocranon -dtdh,yedn eaormitvhieecrsfr , ocomonn ttdhhieet iomonniec r thoha-edn yddn,y adnmearimicvsieco sff rtoohmfe ctthohemes epm oivncareorni-tadbvylanersaia.m bTliecoss
uoannf ddtehoresn tactnhodem optthohene erngcltoo nbvdaalir tiiadobynlnetsah meaidncdys n oaofmn ittchhseeso efo ttshhyeessrte emcvoasnr, idaiibtt iloeinss . nTtheoecue sdnsydaneryras mttaoinc sdi notvhfe estgthilegosabeta el vdtahryeina ab“mlceasicu. ssTaoolf
cutohnnedsneeercsstytiasotnnedsm” st,bhieett iwsgelnoeebnca elvs sadarriyaynbtaloemsin ictvshe asott ficg oathnteeststihet uest“eyc satthueemsamsl, c boiynt npiesrc etncioiesnceesl”sys baiedrtyew nettoeif nyiivnnavgre isathtbiegle asltienth eatahtre cc ohn“acsiatniutsu soatfel
cctahouensmnese bcaytniodp nreseff”ce icsbtesel,t yweisdepeeennc tiaivflaylyrini atghblteeh sce irtlihcnuaetlaa rcr oconhnaseitnists uaotnefd cta htuheseems f aebendydb eapfcfrkeecsc tisas,needlsy p loeidocpieasnl ltwyifhythiicnehgc imtrhcauek leali rnthoenea rev scaahrnaiaidnbslt ehosef
icfneaetuedsrbecasoc knasnnaden cedtfefedlco toaspn,s dews ipnheticechiraamlcltyai vktehe,e ts hocei trvhcauartli awarb hloeensnei stnh taeenr vcdoa lntuhneees c foteeefdd ab aavncakdrsi ianabntleder aclchotoaipvnseg ,wes oehvitcehhna ttmhwaohkseeen otthfh eteh vev aacrlauiuaebssaleol,sf
iianntvteearrrccioaonbnnlneeecccthteeaddn vgaaenrdeiav ibenlnteestrh amoctsuievstoe n,f setohc eetshcsaaatur wislayhl ,ecihnna ttnehrgece ov. nalnueecst eodf av avraiaribalbelsem chuasntgnee ceevsesna rtihlyosceh oanf gthee. causal,
interAcAo fnfoonrremmcataell daa nvndadr sisaiimmblpeplsle em llaaunnsggtu unaaeggcee ettsoos accrooirlrryre ecllahatateen vgvaear.ri iaabblleess aanndd vvaarriiaattiioonnss hhaass bbeeeenn ssuuggggeesstteedd bbyy PPeetteerr
SSeennggeAe,, wfwohrhomo applr roaopnpdoos sseeisms ttpool err eelpapnrregesuseeangntet ttthohe ec occararuueslseae-t-eeef fvffeeaccrtit arrbeellleaastti ioaonnndss uvusasirinniaggt iooornriiese nnhttaeesdd baaerrerrnoo wswussg,, gwweisittthhe dtth hbeey i inPnpeptuuetrt
vvSaearnriiagabeb,ll eewss h((cocaa upusrseoesps)) oiisnne stth hteoe ttraaeiilpl aranensdde ntthth eet hooeuu tctpapuuutst evv-aearfrifiaeabcbtlle erses (l(aeeftfiffoeecnctsts s)u) asatit nttghh eeo hrhieeeaanddt oeodff ttahhrere oaawrrrrsoo,w ww,, iatashs ssthhhoeow winnnp iuinnt
the following Model 1.
vthaerifaobllloesw (icnaguMseos)d ienl 1th.e tail and the output variables (effects) at the head of the arrow, as shown in
the following Model 1.
cause/effect relationship cause/effect relationship
X cause/effect relationship Y X cause/effect relationship Y
“s” “o”
+/X- (same direction) +/-Y +/X- (opposite direction) -/+Y
“s” “o”
+/- (same direction) +/- +/- (opposite direction) -/+
MMooddeell 11.. DDiirreeccttiioonn ooff vvaarriiaattiioonn iinn ccaauussee//eefffefecct trreelalattioionnsshhipipss. .
Two interconnecteMd ovdaerli a1b. Dleisr eccatinon s ohfo vwar itahtieo n“ sina mcaeu”s e(/“esff,e”c to rre l“a+ti”o)n sohri p“so. pposite” (“o,” or “−“)
directTiowno oinf tevracroiantnioenct. eTdhvea r“isaabmlees”c adnireschtoiown thmeea“nsasm the”at( “asn,” inorcr“e+as”e) oorr “doepcpreoassitee ”in( “toh,”e oforr“m−e“r)
Two interconnected variables can show the “same” (“s,” or “+”) or “opposite” (“o,” or “−“)
pdrioredcuticoens oaf vcoarnisaetiqoune.nTth ien“csraemasee” odri rdecetciroenamsee ainn sththea tlaatnteirn; c“reoapspeoosritdee”c rdeiarseectiinonth einfdoircmateersp trhoadtu caens
direction of variation. The “same” direction means that an increase or decrease in the former
ianccroenasseeq/udeencrteianscere ians ethoer tdaeilc vreaarsiaebinlet phreoldatutecer;s“ ao dppecorseiates”e/dinircercetaiosne iinn dthicea theesatdh avtaarniaibnlcer e[3a2s,e3/3d].e c rease
produces a consequent increase or decrease in the latter; “opposite” direction indicates that an
inthTewtaoil ovra rmiaobrlee vparroidaublceess faodrmec rae aclsoes/edin ccaruesaasle cihnaitnh,e ohre laodopv, awrihaebnle t[h3e2y,3 a3r]e. connected at the same
increase/decrease in the tail variable produces a decrease/increase in the head variable [32,33].
time iTnw towoor dmiroercetivoanrsia; bthlees ffiorsrtm caaucsloesse dvacraiuastaiolnchsa iinn, tohrel osoepc,owndh ebnutth tehyisa lraetecor ncnauecsteesd vaatrtihateiosnams ient itmhee
Two or more variables form a closed causal chain, or loop, when they are connected at the same
fiinrsttw. Tohdeirree actrieo onns;lyth tewfior bstacsiacu tsyepsevsa orfi altoioopn:s inthesecondbutthislatercausesvariationsinthefirst.
time in two directions; the first causes variations in the second but this later causes variations in the
Thereareonlytwobasictypesofloop:
1f.i rst.R Tehineforrec ianrge looonplys t[Rw]o, ibn awsihci ctyh pthees voaf lluoeosp o:f the two variables have the same direction of variation: “s
11.. aRRneedini nfsof”roc riocnrign “glooo loapnos dp[R so],[” Ri;n ]t h,wiishn iincwhte htrhcicoeh nvnatelhuceteisov noa—fl tuhinees stwuocfoc etvhsaseriviatebw lreoesp hvetaaivtriieoa ntbhsl eeo ssfa thmhaeev sdeyisrttheecemti’sosa ncm yocefl evd—airrreieacitntiifooonnr:c e“ossf
tahvnea drrie asct”ipi oornor:c “a“los i naacnnrddea sso”e”s;o otrhr“ irsoe dianuntecdtricooon”ns;n, teahcsit ssiohinno—wtenrinc i onsn utnhcceee cfstosiloilvonew— rienipnge Mstiutoicodcneessl s2oi:fv tehree spyesttietmio’ns scyocflteh—erseyinsftoermce’ss
tchyec rleec—iprreoicnaflo inrcceresatshees orer criepdruocctaiolnins,c arse ashseoswonr irne tdhue cftoilolonws,inags sMhoodwenl 2i:n thefollowingModel2:

Model 2. Reinforcing loops.
2. Balancing loops [B], in which the valMMueoosdd oeefll 22th.. eRR eetwiinnoffoo (rroccriinn mgg olloorooepp) ssin.. terconnected variables show a different
2. dBiarleacntciionng loofo vpas r[iBa]t,i oinn :w “hs iachn dth oe“ v oalru “eos oafn tdh es ”t waso s (hoorw mno irne )t hine tMercoodnenl e3c: ted variables show a different
2. Balancing loops [B], in which the values of the two (or more) interconnected variables show
direction of variation: “s and o“ or “o and s” as shown in the Model 3:
adifferentdirectionofvariation: “sando“or“oands”asshownintheModel3:

Model 3. Balancing loops.
Model 3. Balancing loops.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 21 4 of 23
targeting the cost savings and implement concrete actions. Therefore, today “there is wide consensus
that the idea of sustainability figures as one of the leading models for societal development by indicating the
direction in which societies ought to develop” [31].
3. Method: Senge’s Systems Thinking Approach
The logic of Systems Thinking can be summarized by this general rule [4]: if you want to
understand the “world” you must observe the variables that represent the dynamics of its
phenomena and link them together to form unitary, repetitive (often recursive) systems of
interconnected variables whose macro-dynamics, on the one hand, derive from the micro-dynamics
of the component variables and on the other condition the dynamics of these variables. To
understand the global dynamics of these systems, it is necessary to investigate the “causal
connections” between variables that constitute them by precisely identifying the linear chains of
causes and effects, especially the circular ones and the feedbacks and loops which make the variables
interconnected and interactive, so that when the values of a variable change even those of the causal,
interconnected variables must necessarily change.
A formal and simple language to correlate variables and variations has been suggested by Peter
Senge, who proposes to represent the cause-effect relations using oriented arrows, with the input
variables (causes) in the tail and the output variables (effects) at the head of the arrow, as shown in
the following Model 1.
cause/effect relationship cause/effect relationship
X Y X Y
“s” “o”
+/- (same direction) +/- +/- (opposite direction) -/+

Model 1. Direction of variation in cause/effect relationships.
Two interconnected variables can show the “same” (“s,” or “+”) or “opposite” (“o,” or “−“)
direction of variation. The “same” direction means that an increase or decrease in the former
produces a consequent increase or decrease in the latter; “opposite” direction indicates that an
increase/decrease in the tail variable produces a decrease/increase in the head variable [32,33].
Two or more variables form a closed causal chain, or loop, when they are connected at the same
time in two directions; the first causes variations in the second but this later causes variations in the
first. There are only two basic types of loop:
1. Reinforcing loops [R], in which the values of the two variables have the same direction of variation: “s
and s” or “o and o”; this interconnection—in successive repetitions of the system’s cycle—reinforces
the reciprocal increases or reductions, as shown in the following Model 2:

Model 2. Reinforcing loops.
2. Balancing loops [B], in which the values of the two (or more) interconnected variables show a different
Sustainability2018,10,21 5of24
direction of variation: “s and o“ or “o and s” as shown in the Model 3:

Model 3. Balancing loops.
Model3.Balancingloops.
Senge proposed a particularly useful class of Systems Thinking models he named “systems
archetypes”. Thesearegeneralrecurrentmodelsofrelationsthatrecurinvarioussituationsandin
differentenvironments.
Oneofthemostimportantandpotentiallymoreempowering,insightstocomefromtheyoung
fieldofsystemsthinkingisthatcertainpatternsofstructurerecuragainandagain. These“systems
archetypes”or“genericstructures”embodythekeytolearningtoseestructuresinourpersonaland
organizationallives.[... ]Becausetheyaresubtle,whenthearchetypesariseinafamily,anecosystem,
anewstory,oracorporation,youoftendonotseethemsomuchasfeelthem. Sometimestheyproduce
asenseofdéjàvu,ahunchthatyou’veseenthispatternofforcesbefore. “Thereitisagain”yousayto
yourself[3](p. 93).
Theaimofarchetypesistorapidlyincreasetheobserver’scapacitytoseethesystemicproblems
andtheirstructuresandtoaccustomtheregulatorsandmanagerstosharpentheirperceptioninorder
tobeabletoeasilyidentifythesystemicstructuresthatleadtoproblematicsituationsandtheleverage
effectofthesestructures,inordertoformulatedefinitivesolutions.
The systems archetypes—of which there are only a relatively small number’—suggest that
notallmanagementproblemsareunique, somethingthatexperiencedmanagersknowintuitively.
Ifreinforcingandbalancingfeedbackanddelaysarelikethenounsandverbsofsystemsthinking,
thenthesystemsarchetypesareanalogoustobasicsentencesorsimplestoriesthatgetretoldagain
andagain[3](p. 81).
Wecanstatethattheproblemslinkedtosustainabilityarise,aremaintainedandaredifficultto
resolvebecausetheyderivefromtheeffectofthreefundamentalarchetypesthatguideindividual
behaviourtogeneratenon-sustainableeffects.
4. ThreeTypesofInstinctiveArchetypalMyopicBehaviour
Thefirstofthetwofactorsthatproducenon-sustainableeffects,indicatedinSection1,canbe
understoodfromtheexplanatorypotentialofthreefundamentalarchetypeswhich,whilenotincluded
in Senge’s list of archetypes, when taken together provide a convincing explanation of how and
whenauseful,repetitivebehaviourofan“agent”—whetheritbeaman,aterritorialorganization,
acommunity,anation)canproducenon-sustainableglobalresultsevenifthebehaviourisrational
initself.
Thefirstarchetype,calledthe“Short-TermMyopiaArchetype”(Figure1)[4](p.234),describesthe
behaviourinnateinallmen(agents)ofpreferringbehaviourthatproducesshort-termadvantages
(consideredinabroadsense)withoutconsideringthepossibledisadvantagesfromtherepetitionof
suchbehaviour.
AsshownfromthestructureofthearchetypeinFigure1,arationalagentthatassignsahigh
value to short-term advantages deriving from his behaviour (vertical arrow “s”) will most likely
repeatthisbehaviournumeroustimes,therebyreinforcingthedesiretoobtainimmediateadvantages
(loop[R1])withoutreflectingwhetherdisadvantagesthatinthelong-runproduceconsiderableharm
(downwardverticalarrow)accompanythoserepetitiveimmediateadvantages. Theperceptionof
short-term advantages reduces the capacity to assess the long-term disadvantages and motivates
the agent to continue to repeat such behaviour (loop [R2]). The two loops [R1] and [R2], acting
together,reinforceshort-termpreferences,inevitablyproducingdelayedandlarge,oftencatastrophic,
problemswhentheeffectofthedisadvantagesbecomesevident. ThemodelinFigure1clearlyshows
whythisarchetypeiscalledthe“Short-TermMyopiaArchetype”;itrepresentsthetypicalstructure
Sustainability 2018, 10, 21 5 of 23
Senge proposed a particularly useful class of Systems Thinking models he named “systems
archetypes”. These are general recurrent models of relations that recur in various situations and in
different environments.
One of the most important and potentially more empowering, insights to come from the young
field of systems thinking is that certain patterns of structure recur again and again. These “systems
archetypes” or “generic structures” embody the key to learning to see structures in our personal and
organizational lives. […] Because they are subtle, when the archetypes arise in a family, an
ecosystem, a new story, or a corporation, you often do not see them so much as feel them. Sometimes
they produce a sense of déjà vu, a hunch that you’ve seen this pattern of forces before. “There it is
again” you say to yourself [3] (p. 93).
The aim of archetypes is to rapidly increase the observer’s capacity to see the systemic problems
and their structures and to accustom the regulators and managers to sharpen their perception in
order to be able to easily identify the systemic structures that lead to problematic situations and the
leverage effect of these structures, in order to formulate definitive solutions.
The systems archetypes—of which there are only a relatively small number’—suggest that not
all management problems are unique, something that experienced managers know intuitively. If
reinforcing and balancing feedback and delays are like the nouns and verbs of systems thinking,
then the systems archetypes are analogous to basic sentences or simple stories that get retold again
and again [3] (p. 81).
We can state that the problems linked to sustainability arise, are maintained and are difficult to
resolve because they derive from the effect of three fundamental archetypes that guide individual
behaviour to generate non-sustainable effects.
4. Three Types of Instinctive Archetypal Myopic Behaviour
The first of the two factors that produce non-sustainable effects, indicated in Section 1, can be
understood from the explanatory potential of three fundamental archetypes which, while not
included in Senge’s list of archetypes, when taken together provide a convincing explanation of how
and when a useful, repetitive behaviour of an “agent”—whether it be a man, a territorial
organization, a community, a nation) can produce non-sustainable global results even if the
behaviour is rational in itself.
Sustainability2018,10,21 6of24
The first archetype, called the “Short-Term Myopia Archetype” (Figure 1) [4] (p. 234), describes
the behaviour innate in all men (agents) of preferring behaviour that produces short-term
oafdvthaentbaeghesa v(cioounrsidoferaegde nint sa wbrhooadsh soewnsea)n winitnhaotuet tceonndseidnecryintgo tahdeo ppotsasib“sleh odrits-asdigvhatnetda”gersa tfiroonma ltihtye,
trheepreetbityiomn aonf isfeuscthin bge“htaevmiopuorr.a lmyopia”.
Short-term
advantages
s o
“Perception” of “Perception” of
R1 R2
short-term long-term
advantages disadvantages
s
s o
Behavior
s
d
d ela y e
Long-term
disadvantages
FFiigguurree 11.. AArrcchheettyyppee ooff SShhoorrtt--tteerrmm pprreeffeerreennccee ((TTeemmppoorraall mmyyooppiiaa)) [[ssoouurrccee:: [[44]] ((pp.. 223355))]]..
Thereisnowayout: thisarchetypeisalwayslurkingandoperatesatalltimesandinallplaces,
regardless of whether agents are carrying out repetitive behaviours. When we perceive its action,
astrategyisnecessarytoweaken,dampenormitigateitsdangerouseffects. Duetothehumannature
of the agent, it is very difficult to contrast loop [R1]; instead, it is necessary to weaken loop [R2]
byimplementingaconvincinginformationcampaigntomakethedecision-makerconsciousofthe
long-termdisadvantagestheshort-termbehaviourcanproduce.
Asecondandequallyfrequentarchetype,entirelysimilarinstructuretothefirstarchetype,isthe
“LocalMyopiaArchetype”[4](p. 236): eachindividual-agenttendstoprefertherepetitivebehaviour
thatbringslocaladvantages,ignoringtheglobaldisadvantagesthatsuchbehaviourcancause. Athird
archetype,alsosimilarinstructure,isthe“IndividualMyopiaArchetype”,socalledbecausetheagents
preferindividualadvantageseveniftherepetitivebehaviourwillproducedisadvantagesforlarger
groups. Localandindividualevaluationsprovideevenmoreincentivetorepeatthebehaviourthat
producedadvantageslinkedtothegreatfutureglobalandcollectivedisadvantages.
The“Local”and“Individual”Myopiaarchetypesarelinkedtothatofthe“Temporal”Myopia
archetypeinthatthelocalandindividualadvantagesfromrepetitivebehaviourareusuallyperceived
intheshortterm,whilethenegativeeffectsusuallyoccurinthelongterm. Forthisreason,wecan
refertothethreearchetypesasparticularcasesofaunitarymodelcalledthe“Short-Term,Localand
IndividualMyopiaArchetypes”,showninFigure2.
It is natural to accept sacrifices more willingly for our family than for the collective.
Local advantages or disadvantages from public works (pollution sites, dams, highways, nuclear
powerplants,etc.) prevailovertheglobaladvantagesordisadvantagesthepublicworkswillprovide
the larger collective or territory. “Not in my backyard” is the most common individual response
to the community’s request to put up with the construction of public works for the advantage of
thecollective.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 21 6 of 23
As shown from the structure of the archetype in Figure 1, a rational agent that assigns a high
value to short-term advantages deriving from his behaviour (vertical arrow “s”) will most likely
repeat this behaviour numerous times, thereby reinforcing the desire to obtain immediate
advantages (loop [R1]) without reflecting whether disadvantages that in the long-run produce
considerable harm (downward vertical arrow) accompany those repetitive immediate advantages.
The perception of short-term advantages reduces the capacity to assess the long-term disadvantages
and motivates the agent to continue to repeat such behaviour (loop [R2]). The two loops [R1] and
[R2], acting together, reinforce short-term preferences, inevitably producing delayed and large, often
catastrophic, problems when the effect of the disadvantages becomes evident. The model in Figure 1
clearly shows why this archetype is called the “Short-Term Myopia Archetype”; it represents the
typical structure of the behaviour of agents who show an innate tendency to adopt a “short-sighted”
rationality, thereby manifesting “temporal myopia”.
There is no way out: this archetype is always lurking and operates at all times and in all places,
regardless of whether agents are carrying out repetitive behaviours. When we perceive its action, a
strategy is necessary to weaken, dampen or mitigate its dangerous effects. Due to the human nature
of the agent, it is very difficult to contrast loop [R1]; instead, it is necessary to weaken loop [R2] by
implementing a convincing information campaign to make the decision-maker conscious of the
long-term disadvantages the short-term behaviour can produce.
A second and equally frequent archetype, entirely similar in structure to the first archetype, is
the “Local Myopia Archetype” [4] (p. 236): each individual-agent tends to prefer the repetitive
behaviour that brings local advantages, ignoring the global disadvantages that such behaviour can
cause. A third archetype, also similar in structure, is the “Individual Myopia Archetype”, so called
because the agents prefer individual advantages even if the repetitive behaviour will produce
disadvantages for larger groups. Local and individual evaluations provide even more incentive to
repeat the behaviour that produced advantages linked to the great future global and collective
disadvantages.
The “Local” and “Individual” Myopia archetypes are linked to that of the “Temporal” Myopia
archetype in that the local and individual advantages from repetitive behaviour are usually
perceived in the short term, while the negative effects usually occur in the long term. For this reason,
we can refer to the three archetypes as particular cases of a unitary model called the “Short-Term,
Sustainability2018,10,21 7of24
Local and Individual Myopia Archetypes”, shown in Figure 2.
Short-term,
individual and
local advantages
s o
Perception of short- Perception of long-
R1 R2
term, individual and term, collective and
local advantages global disadvantages
s
s o
Repetitive
Behavior
s
d
e
y
a
el
d
Long-term,
collective and
global disadvantages

FFiigguurree 22.. ““SShhoorrtt--TTeerrmm,, LLooccaall aanndd IInnddiivviidduuaall MMyyooppiiaa AArrcchheettyyppee”” [[ssoouurrccee:: [[44]] ((pp.. 223366))]]..
5. ThreeStrategiestoCountertheArchetypes
The“Short-Term,LocalandIndividualMyopiaArchetype”,showninFigure2,clearlyillustrates
thatinmanycasesofrepetitivebehaviourtherationalityofshort-term,localandindividualbehaviour
isillusoryandtheapparentrationaldecisionsofthesingleagentsareirrationalinthelongrunin
a broader context and for the entire collective. The individual advantages prevail and as long as
thearchetypecontinuestooperate,everyagentbehavesbasedonhisown“individual”rationality
and,withoutrestrictionandadequateinformation,failstoperceivea“global”rationality. Figure2
revealsthatinordertodealwiththeproblemofsustainabilityinindividualbehaviour,notonlyinthe
economicareabuttheenvironmentalandsocialonesaswell,itisnecessarytoweakentheloops[R1]
and[R2]. ThemodelinFigure3,derivedfromFigure2,allowsustounderstandthatthereareonly
threepossibleactions(levers)tocountertheMyopiaarchetypes.
(1) The first solution is to eliminate or weaken loop [R1] by activating an effective system of
disincentivestodiminishtheshort-term,individualandlocaladvantagesanddecreasetheagent’s
perceptionoftheconvenienceoftherecurrentbehaviour,therebyproducingthebalancingloop
[B1]. Thedisincentivesmaytaketheformofsanctionsfortheagent’sbehaviourortheimposition
ofcostsortaxesproportionateinsomewaytotheagent’sadvantages.
(2) A second solution is to eliminate or weaken loop [R2] through the balancing loop [B2] by
stimulatinganeffectivestreamofinformationthathighlights,inapersuasiveapproachproportional
totheamountofshort-termadvantages,thenegativelong-rundisadvantagestheagent’scurrent
behaviour may produce. The more relevant the agent’s advantages and disadvantages are,
themoretheinformationmustbepersistentovertimeanddiffusedovervastterritories.
(3) Athirdsolutionoperatesdirectlyontheagent’scurrentbehaviourthroughthebalancingloop
[B3],introducingincentives(socialandeconomicbenefits,rewards,taxbreaks,etc.) topersuade
the agent to decrease the intensity and frequency of his current behaviour and implement
processesandtechnologiescapableofreducingthelong-termglobaldisadvantage.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 21 7 of 23
It is natural to accept sacrifices more willingly for our family than for the collective. Local
advantages or disadvantages from public works (pollution sites, dams, highways, nuclear power
plants, etc.) prevail over the global advantages or disadvantages the public works will provide the
larger collective or territory. “Not in my backyard” is the most common individual response to the
community’s request to put up with the construction of public works for the advantage of the
collective.
5. Three Strategies to Counter the Archetypes
The “Short-Term, Local and Individual Myopia Archetype”, shown in Figure 2, clearly
illustrates that in many cases of repetitive behaviour the rationality of short-term, local and individual
behaviour is illusory and the apparent rational decisions of the single agents are irrational in the
long run in a broader context and for the entire collective. The individual advantages prevail and as
long as the archetype continues to operate, every agent behaves based on his own “individual”
rationality and, without restriction and adequate information, fails to perceive a “global” rationality.
Figure 2 reveals that in order to deal with the problem of sustainability in individual behaviour, not
only in the economic area but the environmental and social ones as well, it is necessary to weaken
the loops [R1] and [R2]. The model in Figure 3, derived from Figure 2, allows us to understand that
Sustainability2018,10,21 8of24
there are only three possible actions (levers) to counter the Myopia archetypes.
Discouragement, Information on the
punishment, costs disadvantages of
for current behavior the current behavior
s s
B1 Short-term, B2
o individual and local s
advantages
s o
Perception of short- Perception of long-
R1 R2
term, individual and term, collective and
local advantages global
disadvantages
s
s o
Current
Behavior
o
s
Incentives, rewards, e d
benefits to modify B3 ela y
d
the current behavior
s Long-term,
collective and global
disadvantages

FFigiguurere3 3..A Acctitoionnsst otow weeaakkeennt hthee“ “mmyyooppiaiaa arrcchheetytyppees”s”t hthaattm maakkeei titd difififfcicuultltt otop peercreceiviveet htheep prorobblelmemo off
susustsataininaabbiliiltiyty[ b[basaesdedo onn:[: 3[43]4]( p(p..3 399)]).].
(1) The first solution is to eliminate or weaken loop [R1] by activating an effective system of
ThethreeactionsthatproduceloopsB1,B2andB3donotnecessarilyhavetobeimplemented
disincentives to diminish the short-term, individual and local advantages and decrease the
atthesametimetocounterloopsR1andR2anddirectlyimpactCurrentBehaviour. Thechoiceof
agent’s perception of the convenience of the recurrent behaviour, thereby producing the
whichtousetocontroltheharmfuleffectsofthearchetypedependsonthetypeofbehaviourone
balancing loop [B1]. The disincentives may take the form of sanctions for the agent’s behaviour
wants/mustregulateandonthenatureoftheagentsthatproducesuchbehaviour. Inmanycases,the
or the imposition of costs or taxes proportionate in some way to the agent’s advantages.
repeatedbehaviourproducessuchgreatadvantagesfortheagentsthattoweakentheharmfuleffects
thejointactionofallthreeleversisindispensable.
ItisnecessarytostatethatthearchetypesinFigures1and2actatboththeleveloftheindividual
and that of the collective, or population of similar agents, who, by producing similar short-term
behaviour/effectsproducecumulativeeffectsthat,whensummed,leadtolong-termcollectiveand
globaldisadvantagesforthecollectiveorthepopulationconsideredasawhole. Ifanindividualuses
aplasticbag,heproducesgarbage;ifmillionsofindividualsbehaveinthesameway,pollutionofthe
landandseaoccurs,whichisnotanticipatedbytheindividualagents.
On 5 October 2017, a conference was held in Malta on “Our Ocean,” with the objective of
gettinggovernmentsandfirmstomakemoreofacommitmenttopreservingtheseafromplasticand
non-biodegradablerefuse.
The very properties for which plastics are famed can also be considered their greatest flaw.
Longevity,robustnessandabundancehasledtomarineplasticpollutionbeingdubbed“oneofthe
most serious emerging threats to marine biodiversity”, according to the Convention on Biological
Diversity. Thescaleandquantityofplasticproductionistrulystaggering—PlasticsEuropeestimates
thatglobalplasticproductionnowexceeds280milliontonneseachyear. Theindustryitselfisworth
overUS$1trillionaccordingtoexperts[35](online).
AbandonedplasticbagshaveevenbeenfoundonthehighestpeaksoftheHimalayas.
Sustainability2018,10,21 9of24
Wasteisanequallycomplexissuefurtherupthemountain,whereclimbersfrequentthesame
fewroutestoattemptsafeascents—andwheretheyleavebehindtheirrefusetoavoidcarryingany
extraweight. Plastics,tents,oxygentanksandeventhecorpsesofpastclimberslayscatteredonthe
slope[36](online).
Inordertobetterunderstandtheactionofthe“myopiaarchetypes”—bothatanindividualand
collectivelevel—andtobecomeawareofthevariousformsofinterventionavailable,itisusefulto
presentsomeemblematicsituations,whilealsorecognizingthattheserepresentonlyasmallpartof
awiderangeofpossibilities.
6. MyopiaArchetypesDescribingIndividualandLocalBehaviour
TounderstandthemodusoperandioftheMyopiaArchetypes,itisnecessarytopresentasthefirst
casetheTemporalMyopiaarchetype,whichactsinallpartsoftheworldtodeterminethedestiniesof
alargenumberofpeoplethatmakerecurringuseofsubstancesthatbringgreatimmediatebenefits
whilealsoproducingirreversiblelong-termharm: thehardenedsmokerswho,togainthebenefitof
nicotineintakecigaretteaftercigarette, yearafteryear, increasetheirchancesofseriouslong-term
healthdamage(Figure4).
In many countries, public health regulators have come up with two measures to combat
thisarchetype:
(1) activateloop[B1]todiscouragetheperceptionofabenefitfromsmoking(currentbehaviour)
byinstitutingvariousbans,suchasprohibitingsmokinginmostenclosedpublicspaces,while
driving, in offices, etc., with fines for transgressors and by gradually raising cigarette and
cigarduties;
(2) activating loop [B2], with information campaigns aimed not only at habitual smokers
(“smokingkills”iswrittenoncigarettepacketsinmanypartsoftheworld)butalsoandmainly
atpotentialsmokers: youthandschool-agechildren.
If we also consider the effect of individual myopia, the immediate individual advantages
clearlyproduceverysignificantcollectivedisadvantages: thegrowthinthenumberofpeoplewith
smoke-related diseases leads to an increase in collective health costs, reduces individuals’ work
capacityandleadstoburdensforfamilies.
Thearchetypesthatregulatethebehaviourofsmokerscanbeappliedtomanyotherrecurrent
behaviourssimilarinnature—immediatebenefitsandconsiderablefutureharm—suchasthehigh
consumptionofalcoholicbeverages,drugsandstimulants(doping),sleepingpillsandantidepressants
andotheraddictivesubstances. Suchrepetitivebehaviournotonlycauseslong-term,seriousharmto
thehealthofindividualsbutalsoactsintheshorttermtointerfereintheirdrivingcapacityorcause
themtoperceiveanalteredreality,etc. Atthecollectivelevel,thereclearlyisseriousdamagetosociety.
Inthesesituations,itispossibletoactivateloop[B3](Figure4)toprovideincentivesforindividualsto
entersupportgroupsand/orundergotreatmentforalcoholanddrugdependence. Theimmediate
localadvantagescauseglobaldamageanddisadvantagesinsubsequentdecades,asdescribedinthe
modelinFigure5.
To stimulate economic development, some countries or areas within a country allow their
businesses to use fossil fuels and processes that produce high levels of toxic gas emissions and
polluting material. The local advantage is immediate: it allows these firms to win out over their
competitorsandtogrow,allowingthecountry,orarea,todevelopintermsofemploymentandper
capitaincome. Suchpermissivebehaviour,whenrepeatedovertheyears,produceslong-termdamage
tothehealthofcitizensandtotheglobalenvironment.
Sustainability2018,10,21 10of24
Sustainability 2018, 10, 21 9 of 23
Ban on smoking Information on the
and increased cost damage caused by
of cigarettes current behavior
s s
B1 Short-term individual B2
o pleasure from smoking s
s o
Perception of short- Perception of long-
R1 R2
term individual term, collective
pleasure damage
s
s o
Repeated
smoking
o
s
und Ienrcgeon ttirveeast mtoe nt B3 d ela y e d
for smoking
s Long-term, individual
(addiction) and social
problems and disadvantages

FigureF4ig.uTrhe e4“. mTyhoep “iamayrocphieat yaprechs”ettyhpaets”g utihdaet thgueibdeeh athvei obuerhoafvsiomuor koefr ssamnodkecrosn saunmd ecrosnosfuimnteorsx icoaf ting
andnainrctooxtiiccastuinbgs atanndc neasr.cotic substances.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 21 10 of 23
In many countries, public health regulators have come up with two measures to combat this
archetype: Ban on use of polluting Information on the
processes; taxes on damage from
(1) activate loop [B1] to discoeumriasgseio tnhse p erception of a benefict ufrrormen stm boekhianvgio (rc urrent behaviour) by
s s
instituting various bans, such as prohibiting smoking in most enclosed public spaces, while
driving, in offices, etc., with fines for transgressors and by gradually raising cigarette and cigar
duties; B1 Local advantages B2
o from unlimited s
(2) activating loop [B2], with informadtieovnel opcammenpta oifg cnosu natrimy ed not only at habitual smokers
s o
(“smoking kills” is written on cigarette packets in many parts of the world) but also and mainly
at potential smokers: youth and school-age children.
If we also consider theP eerfcfeepctti oon fo fi ndividual myopia, thPeer ciemptmioend oifa tloe nign-dividual advantages
R1 R2
advantages from local, term, collective
clearly produce very significant collective disadvantages: the growth in the number of people with
low-cost development damage
smoke-related diseases leads to an increase in collective health costs, reduces individuals’ work
s
capacity and leads to burdens for families.
s o
The archetypes that regulate the behaviour of smokers can be applied to many other recurrent
behaviours similar in nature—immediate benefits and considerable future harm—such as the high
Production with
consumption of alcoholic beverages, druggsa s eamndis siosntism ulants (doping), sleeping pills and
o
antidepressants and other addictive substances. Such repetitive behaviour not only causes
s
ctlohleneaigrr- ltdye rriimsv psi,n erosIegrlneild ourccuiuateocipsnnue atgds ic g vaiphaetmryassor a omcetgoreme sc tmitoasso uoes tsdsshiooe ieafnc ytinshhe d ete y am.l t Ihtno B o tph3f ee i rnscede isivvitieud aaudtnaielo lasan lytsbee,u dr itet dais l rspeoao lasisctiytbs, leeint tc o.t h Aaect t sithvhoaetr ect o tlloelreomcpt i[vtBoe3 i]lne (vtFeeirglf,eu trrheee ir4ne)
to provide incentives for individuals to enter support groups and/or undergo treatment for alcohol
and drug dependence. The immedsia te Lloocnagl- atedrvma,n gtalogbeasl caanuds seo gclioalb al damage and disadvantages in
problems and disadvantages
subsequent decades, as described in the model in Figure 5.
for the health of citizens
and the global climate
Figure 5. The “Short-Term and Local Myopia Archetype” that guides the local behaviour of areas
Figure5. The“Short-TermandLocalMyopiaArchetype”thatguidesthelocalbehaviourofareas
packed with industries, which, to produce at low costs, use materials and processes with high levels
packedwithindustries,which,toproduceatlowcosts,usematerialsandprocesseswithhighlevels
of pollution.
ofpollution.
To stimulate economic development, some countries or areas within a country allow their
businesses to use fossil fuels and processes that produce high levels of toxic gas emissions and
polluting material. The local advantage is immediate: it allows these firms to win out over their
competitors and to grow, allowing the country, or area, to develop in terms of employment and per
capita income. Such permissive behaviour, when repeated over the years, produces long-term
damage to the health of citizens and to the global environment.
7. The Effects of the Myopia Archetypes on Population Dynamics
The myopia archetypes act at the collective and global levels to guide the behaviour of
individuals in a group or population viewed as a whole. As an example, consider the action of the
Individual Myopia archetype, which guides the action of the average person who, instinctively, feels
the need to reproduce, thereby gaining the immediate individual advantages of joy and pride from
the birth of a child, advantages that reduce the perception of the global disadvantages and harm to
the environment, society and the economy from non-sustainable overpopulation. It is important to
note that “population” dynamics are not only triggered by the innate instinct to reproduce but are
normally accentuated by the culture of society. Repetitive behaviour in the short term triggers an
increase in population; in cases of abundant resources, this increase is an advantage for society. Once
the resource constraints have been exceeded, there is the risk of overpopulation and
non-sustainability for the environment, society and the economy, as shown in Figure 6.