This is so simple in Nature!

One of the many wonders of natural ecosystems is that they produce no waste. Only human systems do.

In Nature, any output from one element is an input for another element. Ecosystems have grown through a principle quite central to the systemic paradigm of which they are such an outspoken example: co-evolution. Something cannot grow if other things don’t grow alongside that will feed on its output. In other words, it is only interconnected elements that blossom, which for our Cartesian minds is quite difficult to fathom.

Elements in an ecosystem will not produce more output than their surroundings are capable of feeding on either, therefore we won’t see, in a balanced ecosystem, any accumulation of outputs that could then, to us, look like waste.

And it is so difficult in human systems!

In a way, principle #6 really highlights how much we are NOT operating from the same patterns and principles that natural ecosystems and the biosphere are, because we seem to produce waste wherever we set foot; and in whatever activities we are engaged in.

One could argue that the Earth had longer than we’ve had to get into the right patterns (3,5 billion years), whereas we’re only just getting started (‘only’ a few hundreds of thousands of years), yet it is our patterns that are worrying, with the waste we produce growing exponentially.

So it’s time to get serious and operate a U turn, led by this powerful principle #6. The added complexity, for us humans, is that, whilst we are part of Nature, we operate at both material and immaterial levels, therefore applying principle #6 will require us to address both these dimensions.

Producing no material waste

In some way that is quite simple – I mean it is quite simple to see what we’re talking about! Applying it has eluded us so far, since, as mentioned earlier, we are producing material waste at an exponential rate.

How can we tackle this and operate a U turn? Well, just like in Nature, we can:

1. Produce outputs that our surroundings are capable of using as inputs
2. Produce no more outputs than our surroundings are capable of absorbing

In a way, n°2 is what we are trying to do when we launch ‘waste-reduction’ programmes. These programmes are centred around improving the efficiency of our production processes, so that we use as little inputs as possible for a given production target, but we make sure that we use as much of the elements of these inputs as possible, so that hardly anything comes out of the production process that is not a component of the desired product. Clothes-making companies for example will try to use as much of the sheet of fabric as possible; car-making companies will do the same with the sheets of iron out of which they cut their car body-parts; industrial ovens will try to increase the efficiency of the fuel they use so that most of it is turned into heat; etc.

Now these efforts must be praised, for they are reducing waste. But sadly they are not enough, primarily for 2 reasons:

1. The economic paradigm within which our activities are taking place structurally encourages us to produce evermore of the stuff that we started producing. So even if we reduce waste in our production process, we will, most likely, end up producing more waste altogether
2. What most of our production processes release as outputs do not end up as inputs for other components of our human systems

So that brings us back to solution #1: let’s produce outputs that our surroundings are capable of using as inputs. There are examples of that already, with industrial sites set up ‘ecologically’, meaning that the heat produces by one factory from company A will heat up another factory, belonging to company B; where material waste from company B will be used a raw material for company C, etc. Another example comes from San Francisco, where the city, through its waste-management scheme, is turning garbage into rich compost, and selling it to the wine-growers of the Napa Valley.

These are wonderful pioneering examples. So let’s scale them up, so that they become the norm and not the exception! And let’s apply our creative, human minds to other areas of our economies, mapping out all the outputs that are not becoming inputs and solving those equations one at a time.

Let’s take plastic for example: much of the food sold in supermarkets comes in plastic boxes (eg. ice-cream) that then get thrown away, when much of the take-away we order via various apps also arrive in plastic container that then become waste. How could we link them so that the output from one value chain becomes an input in the other? What reward system could urge us to engage freely and enthusiastically in that virtuous pattern?

Immaterial waste in human systems

How can we define immaterial waste in human systems in a non-derogatory way? My suggestion is to seek inspiration from natural ecosystems: waste is energy that is left accumulating without the possibility of feeding a new cycle.

So when we have ideas for new products, markets or ways of functioning as an organisation, which we feel would be life-giving and/or better aligned with our purpose, and the structure/culture of the organisation stops us from testing them – then the organisation creates waste.

When the way we operate creates anger and resentment, and there is no way for us to turn that energy into something productive and life-giving – thus leaving us to take it out on ourselves or on others – then the organisation creates toxic waste similar to what we find in some of our landfills.

When an organisation downsizes or stops some of its operations and fires staff without finding an appropriate alternative for them to take up, it produces outputs that cannot become inputs elsewhere.

The ways to address these issues are the same as described above for material waste:

1. Produce outputs that our surroundings are capable of using as inputs
2. Produce no more outputs than our surroundings are capable of absorbing

The difference here will be more about focussing on developing other elements capable of using the produced outputs as inputs for themselves: creating, for example, pathways that truly enable people to rapidly test innovative ideas; revisiting outplacement models so that there is always something staff feel they can engage in if/when they are made redundant (a universal basic income, coupled with training for new careers, or/and with NGOs/charity work, etc.); or build into the functioning of teams some regular debrief sessions that enable staff to vent their anger and use it creatively in order to find other ways of dealing with a similar situation next time.