Complexity and Sustainable Development

8/11/2019 Complexity and Sustainable Development

1/19

1

Complexity and Sustainable DevelopmentMiguel Briceo

Central University of [email protected]

Abstract

The predominant approach in Science and Technology is exhibiting major

shortcomings, while it is becoming clear that in a significant number of cases, the verysuccess of compartmentalized scientific approaches has led to the aggravation of the

environmental and development problems they set out to resolve. This increasing

complexity and connectedness means that the components of problems are not nearly as

easy to separate as they once were. Development and environmental problems musttherefore be approached not only as complex problems per se, but also as inseparable andmutually determined.

Sustainable development is the name given to the quest for such a solution, in which

development is understood to be the genesis and unfolding of qualitative potential not justthe pursuit of quantitative growthandsustainability covers the ecological, economic, andsocial dimensions. The new knowledge production model proposed here to face thechallenge of such complexity is that of transdisciplinarity, which shall be made up oftheoretical structures, research methods and practical procedures that cannot be found in the

current disciplinary or interdisciplinary maps.

KEY WORDS: Development, Sustainability, Complexity, Inter/Transdisciplinarity.

Limits posed by disciplinary sciences to sustainability

In what way, if any, does sustainable development pose S&T challenges that differfrom other major challenges of our times, such as globalization, economic competitiveness,and so on? Two years ago, a group of specialists of the Latin American and Caribbean

region met in Santiago, Chile, in order to find an answer to this question.

In the final report of this Latin American and Caribbean Regional Workshop onScience and Technology for Sustainable Development held by ECLAC

1, participants came

to the conclusion that in many instances, it is becoming clear that the predominant approach

in S&T is exhibiting major shortcomings, and that in a significant number of important

cases, the very success of compartmentalized scientific approaches has led to theaggravation of the environmental and development problems they set out to resolve.

However, they still acknowledged the fact that major advances due to specialization within

a number of disciplines have contributed to improving the quality of life of millions ofhuman beings.According to specialists, a number of processes have played a part in this. One of

these is the fundamental uncertainty introduced both by our limited understanding of

human and ecological processes and the intrinsic indeterminism of complex dynamicsystems (including human components, man-made infrastructure and artificial objects, and

1 ECLAC. (2002). Report on the Latin American and Caribbean Regional Workshop on Science and

Technology for Sustainable Development. Santiago, Chile, 5-7 March 2002.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://sustsci.harvard.edu/events.htm#lahttp://sustsci.harvard.edu/events.htm#lahttp://sustsci.harvard.edu/events.htm#lahttp://sustsci.harvard.edu/events.htm#lamailto:[email protected]


2/19

2

natural components) that comprise the subject of sustainable development, and by the

myriad of human purposes and choices.

The current historical context exhibits major differences to the relatively recent past.

On the one hand, the world is moving through a period of extraordinary turbulence andvolatility reflecting the economic, cultural, social and political processes associated with

globalization. In addition the speed and magnitude of global change, the increasingconnectedness of the social and natural systems at the planetary level, and the growingcomplexity of societies and of their impacts upon the biosphere, result in a high level of

uncertainty and unpredictability.

On the other hand, current trends are proving to be ecologically and sociallyunsustainable. In recent years millions of the regions inhabitants have slid into poverty

and live in deteriorated environmental conditions. In this respect, problems and situations

have become increasingly complex in recent decades. According to the workshops

participants, the main reasons for this include:

Ontological changes: many human-induced changes in the nature of the real worldare proceeding at unprecedented rates and are resulting in growing connectivity

among processes and phenomena at different levels.Epistemological changes: changes in our understanding of the world related to themodern scientific awareness of the behavior of complex systems, includingindeterminism, self-organization and emergent properties.

Changes in the nature of decision-making: in many parts of the world, a moreparticipatory style of decision-making and government, together with the widening

acceptance of additional criteria such as the environment, human rights, gender, andothers, as well as the emergence of new social and economic actors such as non-

governmental organizations and transnational corporations, has increased the

number of dimensions used to define issues, goals and solutions and henceaugmented the complexity of decisions.

In short, increasing complexity and connectedness mean that the components ofproblems are not nearly as easy to separate as they once were. Development and

environmental problems must therefore be approached not only as complex problems perse, but also as inseparable and mutually determined. The above described situationrepresents an exceptional challenge to science and technology, particularly to the analytical

compartmentalization of disciplines, which represents the bulk of activities and priorities ofcurrent S&T systems in both north and south.

In the face of the need for a holistic or systemic approach to sustainable

development problems, together with the associated epistemological, methodological,strategic and institutional implications, the workshops participants proposed to develop a

regional vision taking into account the specific features, problems and opportunities of the

region. Sustainable development is the name given to the quest for such a solution, inwhich development is understood to be the genesis and unfolding of qualitative potentialnot just the pursuit of quantitative growth and sustainability covers the ecological,economic, and social dimensions.

For the workshops participants, it is becoming increasingly clear that sustainable

development requires the coordination of measures at the local or micro level (at whichmany of the problems are manifested and solutions are put into practice) and the macro

national and international level (policies, agreements, economic instruments which


3/19

3

help to create an environment that is conducive to and supportive of micro actions). It is

also clear to them that not all sustainable development problems have a technological

solution; in fact, the deep-rooted ecological and social unsustainability of world

development patterns reflect more the asymmetries of economic, political and militarypower that characterize our time, rather than technical or demographic factors.

Methodological challenges that shall be overcome

Sustainable development, its requirements on inter-disciplinarity and the need for an

integrated approach to attain it, pose the need to examine a number of epistemological

issues, which in this case are highly related to management and decision-making processes

aimed at the practical achievement of sustainability. To be able to examineinterdisciplinarity and then transdisciplinarity, we shall first dwell on a number of key

issues such as the unit or units of analysis to be used, the issue of integration, and the

criteria of truth. In this sense, the recognition that human (social, economic, etc.) activities

and the environment are coupled and therefore mutually determined systems (as well as

strongly non-linear, complex and self-organizing) leads to the conclusion that the main unitof analysis must encompass the total coupled system or socioecological system (defined

at the scale appropriate for the problem considered) and the associated processes.An integrated approach to research and to the management of these systems for

sustainable development is therefore required. This integration may have several facets

(among disciplines, between science and policies, between understanding and action,among spatial-temporal scales, among quantitative and qualitative factors, and among

science and other forms of knowledge). In the research sphere, integration implies the

adoption of a systemic approach of complex systems (the scientific study of wholes) and an

inter-disciplinaryor even trans-disciplinaryresearch style. For this reason, and withinthe framework of the analysis presented here, the specialists that took part in the workshop

considered the following issues to be key challenges:

1.

Methodologies relating to supradisciplinary approaches. Sustainabledevelopment can be approached from many different disciplines, but none of these

alone can provide an answer to the main problems of sustainable development.

Moreover, a multidisciplinary team can contribute little if the experts from eachdiscipline limit themselves to producing a technically correct vision of their own

specialty, and lack the ability or willingness to combine their knowledge with that

of other disciplines. The step from the multidisciplinary to the interdisciplinary (and

then to the trans-disciplinary) level requires the development of team work andmethodologies articulating different sciences (and even different areas of expertise

within the same science), which, in terms of their application to sustainable

development-related disciplines, are still in their infancy and need to be developed.

2. Methodologies relating to prediction of events and situations. Theinterdisciplinary approach, especially in relation to sustainable development, tends

to involve long-term time horizons. There is also a conflict between the time scalesof sustainability and political decision-making, which means that methodologies for

anticipating problems need to be strengthened. In this respect, scenario-building,


4/19

4

mathematical modeling and trend studies are examples of methodological

proceedings that should be put to good use.

3.

Methodologies relating to monitoring and impact indicators. Giventhat human activity has a cumulative effect on natural resources, studies should be

based on the evolution of a range of sustainability indicators. It is thereforenecessary to identify the most crucial sustainable development indicators andmonitor them over the long term.

4. Methodologies for the rigorous processing of qualitative variables.Many of the variables and processes that are important for sustainable development

are by nature qualitative (e.g. cultural and political factors). In many cases, althoughthe variables and relations are quantifiable in principle, in practice it is very difficult

to arrive at an estimate of the corresponding values. It is therefore essential to

develop scientific methodologies of qualitative analysis which are logically

rigorous, verifiable and reproducible.

5. Methodologies relating to kinds of knowledge. The Latin American andCaribbean region is home to a wealth of traditional/local knowledge. Scientificknowledge and other kinds of knowledge are potentially complementary.

Indigenous and rural knowledge is the result of many centuries and sometimes

millennia of accumulated wisdom on how to use and live alongside natural

resources. For this region it is important to develop methodologies to integrate thisknowledge into conventional scientific/technological systems.

6. Methodologies for establishing priorities, monitoring andevaluation of innovation. S&T institutions usually have a weak capacity to

communicate with political decision-makers, which must be reinforced. The sameproblem can be found in the implementation of innovations at the local level. In

order to improve those relationships it is necessary to identify new methods to

communicate the opportunities and threats scientists identify and technologistsdevelop. Comprehensible models and simple and realistic indicators are needed for

political decision-makers, community members and for non-experts who can

participate and help in monitoring. The development of methodologies for

Science-Policy and Science-Community dialogues is an important strategy.

7. Research strategies.

a.

The design of strategies should be based on prospective studies, assessmentsof regional capacity, research agendas driven by the needs of users and

strategies to promote changes in attitudes. In this respect, research strategies

must be comprehensive and must provide the opportunity to implement

models for the analysis of complex systems and the use of modern tools.b. It is essential to mobilize scientific and technological know-how in order to

identify and achieve alternative forms of integration into the world

economy, using technological innovation as a contribution to sustainable


5/19

5

development. Any strategy must take into account the effect of the reduction

of the role of the State on research. There is a need to design options to

secure financing for knowledge generation in order to preserve biological

and cultural wealth and monitor and control the appropriate use of resources.c. Civil society and its organizations should be engaged in all the phases of

scientific research that affect them or is pertinent, from the conception of theproject and the definition of objectives, rationale and expected outputs, tothe enjoyment of the benefits resulting from the research. This will require a

combination of research and societal learning, including elements of

collective action, innovative public policies and broad socialexperimentation.

d. It is essential to work with all social groups to understand how they develop

their know-how and conduct social practices. In this context, mechanisms

should be created to report on the social relevance of scientific andtechnological research and to secure the transfer and return of knowledge to

all the actors involved. The generation of knowledge for sustainable

development requires efforts that transcend national borders and institutionaland financial mechanisms that can operate at a supranational level. Sources

of funding that are stable and reliable over time are also crucial for scientific

and technological research activities.

Sustainability principles that shall be shared

The attainment of such interdisciplinarity would require the consideration of a range of

basic shared criteria that shall serve as guidelines in the process that started with

destabilization. The Hannover Principles for Sustainability2prepared for the Worlds Fair

EXPO 2000 could serve this purpose. These principles are:

1.

Insist on rights of humanity and nature to co-exist in a healthy, supportive, diverseand sustainable condition.

2. Recognize interdependence. The elements of human design interact with and

depend upon the natural world, with broad and diverse implications at every scale.

Expand design considerations to recognizing even distant effects.3. Respect relationships between spirit and matter. Consider all aspects of human

settlement including community, dwelling, industry and trade in terms of existing

and evolving connections between spiritual and material consciousness.4. Accept responsibility for the consequences of design decisions upon human well-

being, the viability of natural systems and their right to co-exist.

5. Create safe objects of long-term value. Do not burden future generations with

requirements for maintenance or vigilant administration of potential danger due tothe careless creation of products, processes or standards.

6. Eliminate the concept of waste. Evaluate and optimize the full life-cycle of products

and processes, to approach the state of natural systems, in which there is no waste.

2The Hannover Principles. Design for Sustainability. Prepared for EXPO 2000. The Worlds Fair. Hannover,Germany 1992 William McDonough Architects.


6/19

6

7. Rely on natural energy flows. Human designs should, like the living world, derive

their creative forces from perpetual solar income. Incorporate this energy efficiently

and safely for responsible use.

8. Understand the limitations of design. No human creation lasts forever and designdoes not solve all problems. Those who create and plan should practice humility in

the face of nature. Treat nature as a model and mentor, not as an inconvenience tobe evaded or controlled.9. Seek constant improvement by the sharing of knowledge. Encourage direct and

open communication between colleagues, patrons, manufacturers and users to link

long term sustainable considerations with ethical responsibility, and re-establish theintegral relationship between natural processes and human activity.

The Hanover Principles should be seen as a living document committed to the

transformation and growth in the understanding of our interdependence with nature, so thatthey may adapt as our knowledge of the world evolves.

Theory resources that shall be applied

Intersubjectivity and hybridity

Bringing together different disciplines is not enough for the practice of

interdisciplinarity. The mere encounter of different knowledges does not automatically

result in an interdisciplinary research study. In general terms, interdisciplinary researchcould be defined as the confrontation of different organized or disciplinary knowledges,

whichin the field of environment, sustainability and within a certain (empirical) spatial-

temporal frameworkallow for the design of research strategies that are different to those

that would be applied separately if such interaction had not taken place. The theoretical and

methodological control is attained through the permanent change of the research subjects(authors and actors), which constitutes the intersubjective controlof research.Although an interdisciplinary research study shall not apply within other contexts or

groupings of different types of knowledge, its methodologies and results are far from just

repeating the dynamics of disciplinary research, both in terms of theoretical-methodological

dimensions, or results and learning processes in the subject-object-subject relations.

When carrying out interdisciplinary work the researcher is not isolated anymore,taking refuge behind their desk in the solitude of their office dealing with their particular

disciplinary object. The idea is not to eliminate individual production and creation, but to

prevent this process from resulting in a few intersubjective biases. Within an

interdisciplinary framework of research, what is subjective becomes intersubjective andobjective at the same time. There is a constant exchange of subjectivities and multiple

deliberate actions towards the construction of objectivities.

The understanding of interdisciplinary work is a theoretical exercise that demandsreflection on the very process taking place and on its conclusion. It is an important

intellectual resource, whose use has significant implications. It is not easy to identify the

boundaries among the different knowledges. The confrontation of personal experiences atdifferent levels is, in fact, a reunion of successive actions of approaching, amalgamating,


7/19

7

excluding and incorporating information, concepts and opinions that are permanently being

created and recreated throughout the intellectual evolution of an individual.

Therefore, hybridity of knowledges can be found in the intellectual evolution ofboth an individual and a social group. In this sense, interdisciplinary construction isconsidered a result of hybridity (or dialog of knowledges), but hybridity is not always

necessarily interdisciplinary, since it requires a deliberate, explicit, controllable andselective intention. We are talking about a construction resulting from a research actioncarried out by different researchers working on the basis of their own logics and

disciplinary procedures.

There is a difference between a weak and a strong hybridity of knowledges.Theformer would not be explicitly aimed at producing a kind of knowledge that is different

from the disciplinary one. The latterto be found in a context of interdisciplinaritydoes

not give priority to one type of knowledge over the others, since all knowledges taking part

are oriented towards the research on socio-environmental problems without trying toindividually impose objects or logics during the process of common knowledge

construction.

Complex systems and self-organization

The theoretical discussion on interdisciplinarity demands a profound reflection on

the notions of complex systems and self-organized whole3. Interdisciplinarity does not

emerge spontaneously from the different knowledges. When reality is reevaluated, there isa need to recreate it in a different way, and when classified in a different manner, it is given

another meaning through other analysis categories. These categories imply another

perception and understanding of the world, while they suggest other ways to

appropriate/affect it. Thus, new epistemological referents are essential in interdisciplinarypractices within the society-nature framework.

Complexity

Complexity has turned out to be very difficult to define4. The dozens of definitions

that have been offered all fall short in one respect or another, classifying something as

complex which we intuitively would see as simple, or denying an obviously complex

phenomenon the label of complexity. Moreover, these definitions are either only applicableto a very restricted domain, such as computer algorithms or genomes, or so vague as to be

almost meaningless. Bruce Edmonds5, from the Centre for Policy Modelling of the

Manchester Metropolitan University, gives a good review of the different definitions and

their shortcomings, concluding that complexity necessarily depends on the language that isused to model the system. Still, it seems to be a common, objectivecore in the different

3Garca, R. (1994). Interdisciplinariedad y sistemas complejos. Ciencias Sociales y Formacin Ambiental.Barcelona: Gedisa.4 Heylighen, F. (1997). The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution. In F.

Heylighen & D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Retrieved fromhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.html5Edmonds, B. (1996). What is Complexity? The philosophy of complexity per se with application to some

examples in evolution. In F. Heylighen & D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.html


8/19

8

concepts of complexity. The original Latin word complexussignifies entwined, twistedtogether. This may be interpreted in the following way: in order to have a complex you

need two or more components, which are joined in such a way that it is difficult to separate

them. Similarly, the Oxford Dictionary defines something as complex if it is made of(usually several) closely connected parts. Here we find the basic duality between parts

which are at the same time distinctand connected. Intuitively then, a system would be morecomplex if more parts could be distinguished, and if more connections between themexisted. More parts to be represented means more extensive models, which require more

time to be searched or computed. Since the components of a complex cannot be separated

without destroying it, the method of analysis or decomposition into independent modulescannot be used to develop or simplify such models. This implies that complex entities will

be difficult to model, that eventual models will be difficult to use for prediction or control,

and that problems will be difficult to solve. This accounts for the connotation of difficult,which the word complexhas received in later periods.

The aspects of distinction and connection determine two dimensions characterizing

complexity. Distinction corresponds to variety, to heterogeneity, to the fact that different

parts of the complex behave differently. Connection corresponds to constraint, toredundancy, to the fact that different parts are not independent, but that the knowledge of

one part allows the determination of features of the other parts. Distinction leads in the limit

to disorder, chaos or entropy, like in a gas, where the position of any gas molecule is

completely independent of the position of the other molecules. Connection leads to order ornegentropy, like in a perfect crystal, where the position of a molecule is completely

determined by the positions of the neighboring molecules to which it is bound. Complexity

can only exist if both aspects are present: neither perfect disorder (which can be describedstatistically through the law of large numbers), nor perfect order (which can be described

by traditional deterministic methods) are complex. It thus can be said to be situated in

between order and disorder, or, using a recently fashionable expression, on the edge of

chaos.The simplest way to model order is through the concept of symmetry, i.e. invariance

of a pattern under a group of transformations. In symmetric patterns one part of the pattern

is sufficient to reconstruct the whole. For example, in order to reconstruct a mirror-symmetric pattern, like the human face, you need to know one half and then simply add its

mirror image. The larger the group of symmetry transformations, the smaller the part

needed to reconstruct the whole, and the more redundant or ordered the pattern. Forexample, a crystal structure is typically invariant under a discrete group of translations androtations. A small assembly of connected molecules will be a sufficient seed, out of

which the positions of all other molecules can be generated by applying the different

transformations. Empty space is maximally symmetric or ordered: it is invariant under any

possible transformation, and any part, however small, can be used to generate any otherpart.

It is interesting to note that maximal disorder too is characterized by symmetry, not

of the actual positions of the components, but of the probabilities that a component will befound at a particular position. For example, a gas is statistically homogeneous: any position

is as likely to contain a gas molecule as any other position. In actuality, the individual

molecules will not be evenly spread. But if we look at averages, e.g. the centers of gravityof large assemblies of molecules, because of the law of large numbers the actual spread will
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CONSTRAI.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CONSTRAI.html


9/19

9

again be symmetric or homogeneous. Similarly, a random process, like Brownian motion,

can be defined by the fact that all possible transitions or movements are equally probable.

Complexity can then be characterized by lack of symmetry or symmetry breaking,

by the fact that no part or aspect of a complex entity can provide sufficient information toactually or statistically predict the properties of the others parts. This again connects to the

difficulty of modeling associated with complex systems.Edmonds notes that the definition of complexity as midpoint between order anddisorder depends on the level of representation: what seems complex in one representation,

may seem ordered or disordered in a representation at a different scale. He gives the

following example: A pattern of cracks in dried mud may seem very complex. When wezoom out, and look at the mud plain as a whole, though, we may see just a flat,

homogeneous surface. When we zoom in and look at the different clay particles forming

the mud, we see a completely disordered array. The paradox can be elucidated by noting

that scale is just another dimension characterizing space or time, and that invariance undergeometrical transformations, like rotations or translations, can be similarly extended to

scale transformations.

Havel6calls a system scale-thinif its distinguishable structure extends only over

one or a few scales. For example, a perfect geometrical form, like a triangle or circle, is

scale-thin: if we zoom out, the circle becomes a dot and disappears from view in the

surrounding empty space; if we zoom in, the circle similarly disappears from view and only

homogeneous space remains. A typical building seen from the outside has distinguishablestructure on 2 or 3 scales: the building as a whole, its components such as windows and

doors, and perhaps the individual bricks or the material used to build it.

A fractalor self-similarshape, on the other hand, has infinite scaleextension:however deeply we zoom in, we will always find the same recurrent structure. A fractal isinvariant under a discrete group of scale transformations, and is as such orderly or

symmetric on the scale dimension. The fractal is somewhat more complex than the triangle,

in the same sense that a crystal is more complex than a single molecule: both consist of amultiplicity of parts or levels, but these parts are completely similar.

To find real complexity on the scale dimension, we may look at the human body: if

we zoom in we encounter complex structures at least at the levels of complete organism,organs, tissues, cells, organelles, polymers, monomers, atoms, nucleons, and elementary

particles. Though there may be superficial similarities between the levels, the relations and

dependencies between the different levels are quite heterogeneous, characterized by bothdistinction and connection, and by symmetry breaking.

We may conclude that complexity increases when the variety (distinction), and

dependency (connection) of parts or aspects increase, and this in several dimensions. These

include at least the ordinary 3 dimensions of spatial, geometrical structure, the dimension of

spatial scale, and the dimension of temporal or dynamical scale. In order to show thatcomplexity has increased overall, it suffices to show, that all other things being equal

variety and/or connection have increased in at least one dimension.

Variety and constraint will depend upon what is distinguished by the observer.What the observer does is picking up those distinctions which are somehow the most

6Havel, I. (1995). Scale Dimensions in Nature. International Journal of General Systems 23 (2), 303-332.Retrieved fromhttp://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.html
http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.htmlhttp://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.htmlhttp://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.htmlhttp://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.html


10/19

10

important, creating high-level classes of similar phenomena, and neglecting the differences

which exist between the members of those classes7. Depending on which distinctions the

observermakes, he or she may see their variety and dependency (and thus the complexityof the model) to be larger or smaller, and this will also determine whether the complexity isseen to increase or decrease.

Though we are in principle unable to build a complete model of a complex system,the introduction of the different dimensions discussed above helps us at least to get a bettergrasp of its intrinsic complexity, by reminding us to include at least distinctions on different

scales and in different temporal and spatial domains.

Self-organization

Complex systems normally consist of many joined elements. The simple behavioral

rules governing the relation among the different elements cause a global behavior of the

whole system. These simple rules are responsible for the emergence of something more

complex that reacts contrary to the behavior of the individual elements. Therefore, the local

action and reaction relationships originate an arising global structure that also has an effecton the local interactions. The local rules to which many elements of the system aresubmitted give rise to a more global structure that cannot be exclusively explained throughthose rules.

The field of research called synergetics, founded by Hermann Haken8, deals withthe processes of self-organization in physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics andmedicine, stating that the self-organization processes or structural formations develop on

the basis of unitary basic rules. The fundamental prerequisites for self-organization are the

following:

1. The system must be open, which ensures a continuous exchange of matter, energyand information with the environment.

2.

The system must operate far from thermodynamic equilibrium, so that matter,energy and information flows experiment a dynamics.3. The system must consist of many subsystems, whose dynamics is enriched by

matter, energy and information flows.

4. The subsystems taking part must show non-linear concerted interaction, onlyenabling the emergence of non-linearity bifurcations and, thus, of models. If theexchange of matter, energy and information of the system with the environment

reaches a critical value, spontaneous spatial and temporal structures can emerge by

means of the self-organization of the subsystems at the microscopic andmacroscopic level.

The physical condition needed for self-organization is that an open system operates

far from equilibrium with hypercritical entropy export (Kolmogorov). This way, self-organization shall be understood as an irreversible process of spontaneous generation of

7 Heylighen, F. (1990). Relational Closure: a mathematical concept for distinction-making and complexity

analysis. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics and Systems '90: World Science Publishers (pp. 335-342). Retrievedfromhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.html8 Haken, H. (1990). Synergetik: eine Einfhrung; Nichtgleichgewichts-Phasenbergnge undSelbstorganisation in Physik, Chemie und Biologie. 3rd rev. and enl. ed. Berlin: Springer.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.html


11/19

11

ordered structures that are driven far from an equilibrium induced from outside (from theenvironment), but not certainly generated by and based on inner laws. By means ofcooperative actions of the subsystems, this irreversible process gives rise to more complex

structures of the whole system.Self-organized systems are characterized by the following physical processes and

principles:a.

Master-slave principle. This principle was first formulated by Hermann Hakenand is also known as slaving principle. In systems close to their instability points

(bifurcationpoints), where the system can change its behavior qualitatively, thereare just a few collective variables (order parameters) prescribing the self-organizedmacroscopic pattern of an open system, which is governed by the remaining degrees

of freedom. Finally, a few variables considerably determine the dynamics of the

system and enslave the influence of the remaining variables. This reduction of the

degrees of freedom to the critical point (bifurcation point) is the core principle ofHakenssynergetics.

b. The systems show a tendency to preserve themselves and to maintain stability. The

systems self-reference manifests in its behavior of self-preservation (resilience).Little inner or outer disturbances generally affect the order maintenance of a system,

but in normal conditions, this does not occur in self-organized systems, since they

constantly stabilize themselves.

c. The systems tend to regenerate (feedback), giving rise to feedback loopsthat allowfor the preservation of the systems stability. The negative feedback loops provide

for an inner systemic maintenance and the regulation of the systems parameters

pushing it towards stability achievement.d. There is a tendency to criticality: self-organized systems composed of many

interacting elements, naturally evolve to a critical state9that is maintained (a state in

which quality changes, symmetry breakings and phase transitions of the systems are

possible). This dynamics becomes evident by observing a slowly accumulating pileof sand that periodically collapses in an avalanche a behavior that has been

referred to as on the edge of chaos. The critical state of a system is, therefore, anattractor of the system that can have a fractal structure. Besides, a geometricaldescription of the fractal is possible. Fractal structures are spatial and temporal

manifestations of self-organized criticality, as well as instantaneous representation

of self-organized critical processes.

Towards the production of interdisciplinary knowledge

According to Dimas Floriani10

we shall start from the principle that there is no ideal

situation for interdisciplinarity, i.e. that the different experiences carried out so far arelimited and non definitive. Another main question to be discussed is whether there is a need

9Bak P. & Chen K. (1991). Self-organized Criticality. Scientific American, 264, 46-53.10Floriani, D. (1999).Interdisciplinariedad: Teora y Prctica en la Investigacin y la Enseanza Ambiental.Retrieved from http://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htm. Presented at the Latin American and Caribbean

Workshop on Environmental Education, held in Santiago de Cali, Colombia, in November 1999, in which the

central topic was Interdisciplinarity: theory and practice in environmental education and research.
http://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htmhttp://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htmhttp://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htm


12/19

12

to collectively construct interdisciplinary work. The practice of interdisciplinarity poses

two main questions:

1. How can the participation of researchers from different disciplines be coordinated

to a research practice of interdisciplinary nature?2. How can those different disciplinary knowledges be organized as a coordinated

agreed action that allows for a contribution of each of them?Obviously, we are talking about a collective work made up of personal and institutionalknowledges and efforts. Thus, tensions shall occur at different levels: personal, related tothe individual idiosyncrasies, interests and capabilities, power strategies (leadership),

awareness of the nature of interdisciplinary work, democratic and cooperative spirit, etc.;institutional: a) at the macro levelresistant/enabling attitude towards the incorporation ofnew academic practices, approaches and ideas regarding groups and corporations, new

interactions, financing and legislation system related to sectors, departments, courses,

faculties, budget allocation for research, etc.; b) at the micro level (of theinterdisciplinary unit) number of disciplines coming together for research; balance or

imbalance among live, nature and society sciences; leadership strategies in research

(awareness of process leadership and legitimization of its direction); individualized orshared leadership system (coordination); charismatic or acknowledged leadership; relation

between academic education and research (postgraduate education). All these aspects are

crucial for the determination of the direction, in which the experience is moving, as well as

its problems and the significance of the tensions occurring throughout the research process.There is an initial stage of destabilization, in which each type of knowledge feels

powerless in the face of the complexity of the problems dealt with; the most important

thing is to keep a rational attitude and to understand that this is a moment of deliberatedestruction of the disciplines secure environment. Balance restoration (a new stability)

will follow this first stage when each discipline feels compelled to make a contribution with

its own means and methods in terms of the basic information they can provide (geography,

economics, sociology, demography, anthropology, geology, biology, agronomy, statistics,etc.).

However, from a qualitative perspective, the most important feature of such a moment

(destabilization) is that a new effect will be generated, which is absent within theframework of disciplinary work. This effect is that of enriching the point of view of one

discipline with the points of view of the other disciplines. The latter will be already

endowed with new strategies and will thus be able to bring about new perceptions for theirown logics and for those of the other disciplines.

Each professional is the bearer of their specific knowledge. In the following stage, it is

expected that each disciplinary perception and contribution can be enriched by other

approaches, perceptions and ideas that derive from such collective construction on a

common research problem. Within a disciplinary framework, the possibilities of gainingnew perceptions are very scarce, since these are usually determined by the disciplines own

logical approach. Besides, interdisciplinary practice within the field of environment and

social development takes place in the space where the dynamics of the society-system andthose of the nature-system interact. It is not only an empirical physical space, but also an

intellectually constructed space.

Data collection and their progressive construction within the common research spaceenable the emergence of the research study problems. Without data problematizing there is

no good research problem. The confrontation of the different socio-environmental data,


13/19

13

their behavior in space and time and the functions and dysfunctions (conflicts) of theobserved dynamics (bio-demographic and social dynamics, material practices, bio-energetic

dynamics of ecosystems, public policies, etc.) permit to arrange them in a cross-products

matrix. Although this is still a stage for the recognition/reconstruction of reality by thevarious disciplines, elaborate data are in fact the inputs for the following stage that of the

construction of a common problematic situation that will be subject of research.The basic stages of interdisciplinary work construction shall be summarized as follows:1) data and information collection; 2) preliminary discussions; 3) identification of the main

socio-environmental conflicts; 4) selection of research priorities; 5) explicit announcement

of cross-discipline themes; 6) common agreement on the methodologies; 7) hypothesizing;8) application of research tools; 9) data validation; 10) presentation of final results.

Interdisciplinarity shall not be taken for granted. Neither is it something we can simply

decree. It is a constituent of the interdisciplinary process resulting from the association of

disciplines. Interdisciplinary action takes place in parts of the boundaries where realityrepresentation occurs, and it expands by means of the combined action of the different

disciplines concerned. The boundary is not an impassable limit, but it is a limit that allows

for differentiation and reunion of the distinct domains as each discipline perceives thespecificities of reality in their own way to create a comprehensive synthesis of the

multiplicity of the real.

Transdisciplinarity: a strategy for sustainability attainment

The need for transdisciplinarity arises from developments in knowledge and culture

that are characterized by the above-described complexity, hybridity, non-linearity, and

heterogeneity. Based in its new role, social epistemology attempts to reconcile normative

philosophy with an empirical sociology of knowledge. Transdisciplinarity has been definedas a common system of axioms for a set of disciplines. Many theorists are credited with

coining the term, including Jean Piaget and Andre Lichnerowicz

11

. More recently, a newdefinition has appeared. Gibbons, et al.12

identify a fundamental change in the ways thatscientific, social, and cultural knowledge are being produced. The elemental traits are

complexity, hybridity, non-linearity, reflexivity, heterogeneity, and transdisciplinarity. The

new mode of production is transdisciplinary in that it contributes with theoretical

structures, research methods, and modes of practice that are not located on currentdisciplinary or interdisciplinary maps. One of its effects is to replace or reform established

institutions, practices, and policies. Problem contexts are transient and problem solversmobile. Emerging out of wider societal and cognitive pressures, knowledge is dynamic. It isstimulated by continuous linking and relinking of influences across a dense communication

network with feedback loops. As a result, new configurations are continuously generated.

11Klein, J. T. (1998). Social Epistemology of Transdisciplinarity. Bulletin Interactif du Centre Internationalde Recherches et tudes transdisciplinaires, 12 - February. Retrieved from http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htm.12Gibbons, M. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in

Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htmhttp://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htmhttp://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htmhttp://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htmhttp://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htm


14/19

14

According to Edgar Morin, cognitive strategies tend to simplify knowledge and to

make it more complex in a complementary and contradictory manner13

. On the one hand,simplification: a) chooses what appears to be interesting for knowledge and eliminateseverything that is not considered its objective, b) takes into account what is stable andcertain, avoiding what is uncertain and ambiguous, c) produces knowledge that can be

easily used by and for action. On the other hand, complexification also aimed atachieving effective action: a) tries to take into consideration the largest amount of dataand concrete information, and b) tries to identify and take into account what is varied,

variable, ambiguous, fortuitous, and uncertain.

The vital mission of knowledge involves therefore two complementary and at thesame time contradictory exigencies: simplifying and complexifying. Cognitive strategies

shall combine, vary and choose either simplification or complexification. In this sense,

Morin says that we shall assume our responsibility for the promotion and development of

diversity, and that we shall pursue to construct an epistemology that is rooted in the ideathat preserving variety is crucial for the survival of all living systems biological, but also

social ones. This type of epistemology shall also acknowledge the fact that homogeneity in

the biological world means rigidity and death, and that variation is a gift, that it meansrichness and development, while monotony is equal to impoverishment.

Human intervention in the dynamics of complex systems can bring about

unexpected reactions of the affected system. Besides, human attempts to manage natural

systems have occasionally failed, because some practices that are positive for one part ofthe system sometimes are not appropriate for the whole system

14.

Taking into consideration that sustainability and sustainable development are

concepts that are strongly related to the ability of systems to absorb perturbations, evolveand coevolve with other systems with which they interact, sustainability related policies

as they pursue profound transformation of social organization and economic activity

should go beyond multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches and get to work on the

basis of a transdisciplinary vision, through which problems and questions can be tackledand addressed as a whole and within changing environments. Apart from including general

principles of protection, investment and cooperation, sustainability and sustainable

development should also involve permanent scientific research on the new technical andinstitutional alternatives to protect resources from the action of destructive forces, as well

as investment in the possibilities of future resources and try to serve different interests. This

way, innovation becomes a crucial mechanism to better adjust the practices related to theuse of resources to the heterogeneous ecological and socioeconomic conditions, and toadapt to changes

15. Within this framework, if sustainability is understood as an integrating

and unifying principle based on the systems resilience16, political responses shall be

13 Morin, E. (2002). El Mtodo: El conocimiento del conocimiento. Madrid: Ediciones Ctedra. In A.Elizalde, Universidad, Ciencia y Tecnologa para la Sustentabilidad. Universidad Mayor de San Simn,Retrieved fromhttp://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.doc.14Jimnez, L. (2002). La Sostenibilidad como Proceso de Equilibrio Dinmico y Adaptacin al Cambio.

Revista Desarrollo Sustentable, 800, June-July. Madrid: Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas e Instituto deCiencias Ambientales. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.15Sikor, T. & Norgaard, R. (1999). Principles for Sustainability: Protection, Investment, Co-operation, and

Innovation. In J. Khn et al. (Ed.), Sustainability in Question, Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing.16Maintenance of productivity and equity levels in the face of inner and outer perturbations.
http://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.dochttp://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.dochttp://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.dochttp://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.doc


15/19

15

framed within the context of the uncertainty inherent to the self-regulating dynamics of the

systems. The implementation of sustainability schemes not only requires the maintenance

of the ecosystems capabilities, but it is also necessary to promote the ability of human

systems to create social, economic and institutional maintenance mechanisms that are ableto strengthen their self-organizing resilience and their adaptation capacity.

There is an ever-growing need for a new vision oriented by preventive andadaptation-based approaches, which allows for a better management of changing complexsystems. Professor Lovelock

17even points out the inability of the human race to intervene

in environmental systems, which results from the lack of understanding and knowledge

regarding the reactions that can derive from such intervention. He stresses the inability ofthe human race to manage organized complexity, while suggesting that the human raceshall be ascribed a modest role in the history of evolution. If we are to make moresustainable the systems that are considered to be complex and adaptable (among which we

could include natural and human systems that interact systemically), we need to understandthe problems and restrictions of their evolutionary dynamics.

In such dynamics, however, it is important to consider that under certain conditions,

when systems are undergoing exaggerated tension, transformation processes are notgradual, but bifurcation18points and abrupt changes emerge. As Ehrlich19points out, theacceleration of cultural evolution is a factor that is typical of the human race that isdifferent from natural change, because people are able to plan and alter human

development. It is a key factor shaping our destiny in a more considerable way thanbiological evolution itself.

Conclusions

Beyond the Leonardo World

Wherever we go in our world, we discover a deep-rooted, long-standing reasonfounded on scientific and technical faculty, a reason that manages, builds, administrates and

destroys. Mittelstrass20

calls this world the Leonardo World, after the great Renaissanceengineer, artist, philosopher and scientist, Leonardo da Vinci. It is a world in which man is

constantly confronted with his own works, a world which is increasingly becoming an

artifact, as fragile as nature but ever less nature itself. The Leonardo World is growing and

its motor is science and technology. Behind the widespread formula of technologicalchange stands an indisputable reality, the reality of a Leonardo World.

Jrgen Mittelstrass means transdisciplinary exchange in the sense of real

interdisciplinary research, since it affects the disciplines and subject-areas as well as their

historical boundaries. Interdisciplinary exchange in its correct sense neither moves in andout between disciplines, nor floats above them. Instead, it abolishes the boundaries between

subject-areas and disciplines where these have lost their historical memory; thus, in truth, it

represents transdisciplinary exchange, but transdisciplinary exchange in the sense of real

17Lovelock, J. (1992). GAIA: Una ciencia para curar el planeta . Barcelona: Integral, Oasis.18Laszlo, E. (1990).La gran bifurcacin. Barcelona: Gedisa.19Ehrlich, P. (2000).Human Nature. Washington DC: Island Press.20 Mittelstrass, J. (1995). Transdisciplinarity. Panorama, 5, 45-53. Retrieved fromhttp://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htm
http://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htmhttp://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htmhttp://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htm


16/19

16

interdisciplinary research, which detaches itself from its disciplinary boundaries, defining

and solving its problems without recourse to specific disciplines. This, by the way, is what

important research has always done.

For Mittelstrass, it is clear that the path from discipline-based study totransdisciplinary exchange leads neither to a unified theory of science nor to an inter-

discipline encompassing separate disciplines. The discipline-based system remains theorganizational form of the sciences, even if nature itself sets no frontiers between physics,chemistry or biology; transdisciplinary exchange is a research imperative, not least because

of the problems developing for the world in which we live. However, the very fact that we

are confronted with the development of problems, in other words with their changingconstellations, signifies that, from an institutional point of view, transdisciplinary exchange

should not become anchored as a new inter-discipline. Not only should research be

organized on transdisciplinary lines and address the specific problems posed by a specific

case, but the real world should also enlist the sciences on a transdisciplinary basis toapproach the specific constellation of the problem at hand.

But speaking now in terms of both the theory and organization of science, that

transdisciplinary exchange is first and foremost a principle of research, and only in secondplace a theoretical principle. As a principle of research, transdisciplinary exchangeconnects the discipline-based sciences with their scientific future and with a real world

whose inner, rational form itself is a scientific one, a Leonardo World determined by

scientific progress. In this sense, the transdisciplinary future of science is also the future ofthe world in which we live.

The Shift from unity to complexity

Complexity is a thematic of transdisciplinarity for several reasons. Modern societiesare increasingly ruled by unwanted side effects of their differentiated subsystems, such as

the economy, politics, law, media, and science

21

. These systems have developed their ownrunning modes or codes, to use Niklas Luhmanns term, that enable them to be highlyproductive. Yet, differentiation produces imminent side effects in other fields that cannot be

handled within the codes of the system. Indicative of this development, the problems of

society are increasingly complex and interdependent. They are not isolated to particular

sectors or disciplines, and they are not predictable. They are emergent phenomena withnon-linear dynamics. Effects have positive and negative feedback to causes, uncertainties

will continue to arise, and unexpected results will occur. Reality,therefore, is a nexus of

interrelated phenomena that are not reducible to a single dimension.Complexity is also a thematic of epistemological conceptualization of

transdisciplinarity as a form of post-normal science. Transdisciplinarity is also implicated

in a larger development the changing character of knowledge. Even in a single field,

there is a complex matrix of disciplines and fields. Work on sustainability, for instance, waspreviously restricted to specialized, environmentally-oriented subdisciplines at the margins

of existing disciplines. The inclusion of stakeholders (those concerned and interested in

21Klein, J. T. (2003). Unity of Knowledge and Transdisciplinarity: Contexts of Definition, Theory and theNew Discourse of Problem Solving. Detroit, Michigan: Interdisciplinary Studies Program, Wayne StateUniversity. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htm
http://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htmhttp://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htmhttp://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htmhttp://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htm


17/19

17

projects) not traditionally involved in research has been a further catalyst for change. The

strong problem-orientation also links transdisciplinarity and sustainability with action

research as a means for the study of complexity.

A broader and future view of transdisciplinarity

At the International Transdisciplinary Conference held in Zurich, February 27 -

March 1, 2000, a group22

decided to call the attention of the participants at the Conference,and other audiences, to their firm belief in the need to place the human being, in his

different levels, at the centre of concerns of Transdisciplinarity in science and society. As

explained by the authors, their Statement on a broader view of transdisciplinarity was made

by them as an essential enhancement of the conclusions of the Conference. To conclude, weshall point out the key points that coincide with our analysis, which would allow for a

prospective approach of the topic handled:

1. We believe that the transdisciplinary vision offers an active, open concept of nature

and the human being, which, while not exhaustive, can be used more effectively tohelp achieve the goal of human survival and justice than can any definition or

reduction to a formal structure. This vision transcends the individual fields of theexact sciences, the humanities and social sciences and encourages them to become

reconciled with one another and with art, literature, poetry and spiritual experience

and to validate their respective insights.2. Transdisciplinary epistemology, attitude and practice imply the recognition of the

methodological utility of the concepts of the three pillars of transdisciplinarity

complexity, the logic of the included middle, and levels of Reality (fractality)all of which emerge from the data of modern (quantum physics) science, from thedialogue with other cultures and from the cognitive corpus of all the great

knowledge traditions of the present and of the past. Therefore, transdisciplinaryepistemology, attitude and practice require a spirit of rigor, openness and toleranceof other points of view, and a commitment to transdisciplinary resolution of

differences. To solve problems efficiently, it is necessary to adopt transdisciplinary

understanding of complexity and its descriptions as in systems theory and 2nd order

cybernetics.Such a methodology is essential to help ensure real changes in societyincluding new social, economic and organizational forms and make possible critical

advances in problem solving.

3. A transdisciplinary approach is required to resolve the contradictory truths of thetriad Democracy - Science - Market Economy, at the level of social reality.However, at a higher intellectual level of reality, the triad Metaphysics -Epistemology - Poetry are co-participants in the dynamic development of newknowledge of space, time, causality, truth and contradiction, and provide neededinsights into the relation between the real and the imaginary. A complete

22 Joseph E. Brenner, Ph.D., Les Diablerets, Switzerland; Paulius Kulikauskas, Byfornyelse Danmark,

Denmark and Lithuania; Maria F. de Mello, Researcher at CETRANS Transdisciplinariedad Educational

Center) - Escola do Futuro, University of So Paulo, Brazil; K.V. Raju, from Anand, India; Amrico

Sommerman, publisher, coordinator of CETRANS - Escola do Futuro - University of So Paulo, Brazil; Dr.

Nils-Gran Sundin, docent, Collegium Europaeum, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from the Internet,

Byfornyelse Denmark, Copenhagen (2000)http://www.transdisciplinariedad.net/statemnt.htm
http://www.transdisciplinariedad.net/statemnt.htmhttp://www.transdisciplinariedad.net/statemnt.htmhttp://www.transdisciplinariedad.net/statemnt.htmhttp://www.transdisciplinariedad.net/statemnt.htm


18/19

18

transdisciplinary approach to problem solving therefore requires integration of the

insights of both levels.

4. Sustainability of each human being and of development of their society is a central

concern. The principles, logic and methodology of transdisciplinarity shall provide aframework for understanding the ontological and ethical basis of sustainability, in:

a.

an understanding of it as part of the dynamics of nature;b.

a vision of the complex interdependence of individuals, institutions andcommunities implying their increased commitment to sustainable mutual

benefit to the individual and society;

c. a model for a humane form of globalization, going beyond a society ofknowledge for profit to one which reveals and uses knowledge in a context

of mutual respect, trust and responsibility for action.

References

Bak P. & Chen K. (1991). Self-organized Criticality. Scientific American, 264, 46-53.

ECLAC. (5-7 March 2002).Report on the Latin American and Caribbean Regional Workshop on Science andTechnology for Sustainable Development. Santiago, Chile.

Edmonds, B. (1996). What is Complexity? The philosophy of complexity per se with applicat ion to some

examples in evolution. In F. Heylighen & D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Ehrlich, P. (2000).Human Nature. Washington DC: Island Press.

Floriani, D. (1999). Interdisciplinariedad: Teora y Prctica en la Investigacin y la Enseanza Ambiental.Retrieved from http://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htm. Presented at the Latin American and Caribbean

Workshop on Environmental Education, held in Santiago de Cali, Colombia, in November 1999, in which the

central topic was Interdisciplinarity: theory and practice in environmental education and research.

Garca, R. (1994). Interdisciplinariedad y sistemas complejos. Ciencias Sociales y Formacin Ambiental.Barcelona: Gedisa.

Gibbons, M. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research inContemporary Societies. London: Sage.

Haken, H. (1990). Synergetik: eine Einfhrung; Nichtgleichgewichts-Phasenbergnge undSelbstorganisation in Physik, Chemie und Biologie. 3rd rev. and enl. ed. Berlin: Springer.

Havel, I. (1995). Scale Dimensions in Nature. International Journal of General Systems 23 (2), 303-332.Retrieved fromhttp://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.html

Heylighen, F. (1990). Relational Closure: a mathematical concept for distinction-making and complexity

analysis. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics and Systems '90: World Science Publishers (pp. 335-342). Retrievedfromhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.html

Heylighen, F. (1997). The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution. In F. Heylighen

& D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved fromhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.html

Jimnez, L. (2002). La Sostenibilidad como Proceso de Equilibrio Dinmico y Adaptacin al Cambio. RevistaDesarrollo Sustentable, 800, June-July. Madrid: Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas e Instituto de CienciasAmbientales. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
http://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htmhttp://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htmhttp://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.htmlhttp://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.htmlhttp://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.htmlhttp://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.htmlhttp://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htm


19/19

19

Klein, J. T. (1998). Social Epistemology of Transdisciplinarity. Bulletin Interactif du Centre International deRecherches et tudes transdisciplinaires, 12 - February. Retrieved from http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htm.

Klein, J. T. (2003). Unity of Knowledge and Transdisciplinarity: Contexts of Definition, Theory and the NewDiscourse of Problem Solving. Detroit, Michigan: Interdisciplinary Studies Program, Wayne State University.Retrieved fromhttp://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htm

Laszlo, E. (1990).La gran bifurcacin. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Lovelock, J. (1992). GAIA: Una ciencia para curar el planeta. Barcelona: Integral, Oasis.

Mittelstrass, J. (1995). Transdisciplinarity. Panorama, 5, 45-53. Retrieved fromhttp://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htm

Morin, E. (2002). El Mtodo: El conocimiento del conocimiento. Madrid: Ediciones Ctedra. In A. Elizalde,

Universidad, Ciencia y Tecnologa para la Sustentabilidad. Universidad Mayor de San Simn, Retrievedfromhttp://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.doc.

Sikor, T. & Norgaard, R. (1999). Principles for Sustainability: Protection, Investment, Co-operation, andInnovation. In J. Khn et al. (Ed.), Sustainability in Question, Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing.

The Hannover Principles. Design for Sustainability. Prepared for EXPO 2000. The Worlds Fair. Hannover,Germany 1992 William McDonough Architects.
http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htmhttp://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htmhttp://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htmhttp://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htmhttp://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htmhttp://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htmhttp://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htmhttp://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htmhttp://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.dochttp://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.dochttp://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.dochttp://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.dochttp://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htmhttp://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htmhttp://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htmhttp://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htm

Documents

Complexity and Sustainable Development