The hypothesis of an antieconomy developed in part 1 is incommensurate with mainstream economics. This article explores three reasons for this situation: the limits of discipline-based scholarship in general and of mainstream economics in particular, the status of economists in contemporary societies, and the failure of economists to accept any responsibility for the consequences flowing from the application of their theories. Politicians are unable to resist their economic advisors who speak in the name of science, with the result that the (...) democratic process in relation to economic issues is essentially paralyzed. (shrink)

Our knowledge “system” is built up from disciplines and specialties as its components, which are “wired” by patterns of collaboration that constitute its organization. The intellectual autonomy of these components prevents this knowledge system from adequately accounting for what we have gradually discovered during the past 50 years: In human life, society, and the biosphere, everything is related to everything else. It has also created a dual mode of knowing and doing, one embedded in experience and culture and the other (...) separated from them. It is becoming increasingly evident that the lacunae in our knowledge system are directly related to the challenges faced by our civilization. This article outlines a proposal to begin delimiting these lacunae by inserting new components on the basis of roundtables into the knowledge system. (shrink)

This article attempts to make some sense of what is happening to the role of money and the economy in our lives and in our communities. It shows that the picture provided by the discipline of economics makes no sense at all. Corporations and national economies have become wealth extractors as opposed to wealth creators. Only about 3% of daily financial flows around the globe have any meaningful connection to the production and distribution of goods and services or to direct (...) productive investments. Free trade is restricted to the flows of goods and services, but it is forced trade to people and communities. Such flows ought to serve them, but under free trade they are permitted to do more harm than good. These developments have transformed the role of money and the economy into wealth extraction or what may be regarded as antimoney and an antieconomy. The implications are far reaching, and require urgent attention if the present human, social, and environmental crises are not to be intensified. (shrink)

Contemporary civilization has created a fundamental contradiction between the intellectual approach to knowing and the technical approach to doing on the one hand, and the results of their application on the other. These approaches to knowing and doing begin with a process of abstraction that trades breadth for depth, while their application reveals a multitude of problems associated with ignoring the fact that everything is related to everything else in our world. Scientific disciplines and technical specialties create “pure” domains of (...) investigation “uncontaminated” by interactions with all other domains, thereby distorting the internal fabric of relations and its connections with everything else. Hence, the most powerful means humanity has ever created are indissociably linked with the production of chaos in human life, society, and the biosphere. A new domain of study is needed to the interactions between society, technology, science, and the biosphere (STSB). The scope, direction, and methodological challenges are briefly examined, and the possible mission of STSB within the contemporary university. (shrink)

The literature on the impact of urban form design on travel behavior reveals mixed results. Instead of interpreting this finding as an insufficient basis for warranting action, this article suggests that a precautionary approach be introduced. This approach should be based on two interdependent modes of knowing and doing to establish and evolve design exemplars in conjunction with discipline-based analytical exemplars. Even if trends, including the digitization of human life and society, peak oil and climate change turn out to have (...) smaller negative effects than is currently anticipated, we will be ahead with more livable and sustainable urban forms. (shrink)

The strengths and weaknesses of current energy planning can be attributed to the limited economic, social, and environmental contexts taken into account as a result of the current intellectual and professional division of labor. A preventive approach is developed by which the ratio of desired to undesired effects can be substantially improved. It takes into account supply-and demand-side options, renewable and nonrenewable sources, and net energy availability. Alternative energy must be considered within such a strategy, which carefully examines its effects (...) on society and the biosphere. Intellectual barriers are identified, and ways of overcoming them are suggested. (shrink)