412 Enabling Policies and Institutions for Sustainable Agricultural and Food Systems
with ‘view of human nature’ being the most difficult to discern. The treatment of
social organization is mixed. Equity, and especially population, are central issues in
virtually all of the reports and are addressed in some detail. None of the reports,
however, offers a comprehensive or coherent picture of social goals, processes, and
relations: the attributes listed in Table 20.2 are a collection of brief and disparate
mentions culled from the texts. The same scattershot approach involved in the
models applies to politics and institutions, with the difference that these are at least
recognized by the modellers as important topics – not that this recognition results
in any comprehensive or systematic treatment. Finally, lifestyle and security issues
generally receive brief mentions, but are not elaborated.
Further generalizations may be gleaned from a more detailed look at each of
the attributes. All of the models treat nature primarily as a bundle of natural
resources. None of the reports includes an overt discussion of conceptions of time
or notions of legitimate modes of understanding, but implicit in all of them is a
linear view of time and a reliance on rational, analytical scientific thought and
quantitative data.
The models are fairly evenly split on whether individuals or society as a whole,
values, or economic structure drive social change, but none of them explores this
issue beyond the level of assertion. The reports also split on the issue of whether
population is a problem. All models except those by Kahn et al (1976) and Gold-
smith and colleagues (1972) state explicitly that equity is a major social goal, and
the latter implies it. The notion of equity adopted is itself limited, focusing on the
admittedly pressing issue of inter-generational equity and particularly apparent
distributional inequalities among nationstates. On the other hand, the complexity
of equity deliberations such as the valued goods to be distributed, the relevant
populations used to structure analysis and the philosophical principles by which to
define social justice receive scant attention. Those studies that propose means of
achieving equity advocate economic growth (Kahn et al, 1976; Bruckmann, 1976;
Leontief et al, 1977; Mesarovic and Pestel, 1974) or redistribution (Goldsmith et
al, 1972, implied by Bruckmann, 1976; Herrera et al, 1976; Leontief et al, 1977).
Most of the models advocate economic growth, although Meadows et al (1972)
and Goldsmith et al (1972) oppose it, and Mesarovic and Pestel (1974) call for a
different kind. With the exception of Kahn et al (1976) and Bruckmann (1976),
all agree that technology is not the solution to environmental and economic prob-
lems, with Leontief taking a middle position. It is interesting to note that, except
on the issue of equity, the positions taken by Kahn et al (1976) and the advocates
of the LAWM model are the most alike: they agree that population growth is not
a problem and that resources are not limiting; they advocate economic growth,
believe in technological solutions and argue that environmental concerns are sec-
ondary to economic ones.
As mentioned above, for those attributes (e.g. philosophical assumptions, social
organization) central to a deeper understanding of society, the models take a haphaz-
ard approach, implicitly assigning peripheral importance to them. On the question
of ‘human nature,’ for example, all but Kahn et al (1976) – who emphasize struggle