I’m already looking forward to studying Module 3, titled “External Relations – Resources, Ecology, Performance.” The module promises a deep dive into how organisations relate to their surroundings, posing essential questions about the real impact our activities, strategies, and mindsets have on the world around us. This perspective is crucial for information service design, as the way we connect technological systems with the environment and external factors can significantly influence not only the efficiency of our solutions but also their sustainability and ethical dimension.
As someone about to begin studying this module, I expect it will offer important theoretical tools for a deeper understanding of the relationships between economic activities and their ecological or social contexts. From an information service designer’s point of view, I anticipate that exploring these approaches will enrich my perspective, providing insights that can be applied to designing services that are not only responsible towards users but also towards the broader context in which we operate.
The Infinite Environment: The Ideology of Unlimited Resources and Its Impact on Our Relationship with Nature
The concept of an infinite environment represents one of the core pillars of modern capitalism and industrial thinking. It is an ideology that views nature as an inexhaustible source of materials and energy, capable of endlessly satisfying human needs. This idea is not merely a result of historical developments in science and technology but is deeply rooted in the cultural, philosophical, and religious beliefs of the Western world. The following subchapters focus on key aspects of this ideology, which have influenced not only our society but also the global approach to the environment.
Objectification and Instrumentalisation
One of the fundamental assumptions of the infinite environment concept lies in the objectification and instrumentalisation of nature, viewing it as a means to achieve human goals. This notion dates back to the Enlightenment period when the world was increasingly perceived through scientific knowledge, which dehumanised nature and transformed it into a resource for energy and materials. The renowned philosopher René Descartes articulated this view in his Discourse on the Method, where he noted that scientific knowledge enables humanity to “master and possess nature” [1]. This approach led to a separation between nature and humanity, with the world seen as a collection of insignificant objects intended for human use. Such a perception of nature as a tool for humanity has profoundly influenced modern economics and industry, where everything around us is seen as a potential source of profit.
Homogenisation and Quantification
This process of objectification is also linked to the phenomenon of homogenisation and quantification. The mechanical clock, invented in the late Middle Ages and spread throughout Europe, significantly changed the perception of time and space. Time, once associated with natural cycles and mythical narratives, became a universal, abstract, and quantifiable concept that allowed for the planning and prediction of human activities. According to historian and philosopher Lewis Mumford, mechanical clocks brought “a new regularity to the lives of workers and merchants” [1]. This process led to time becoming a commodity that could be measured, divided, and rationalised for the needs of the market and industrial production. Thus, time transformed from a spiritual and numinous phenomenon into a purely numerical concept subject to economic imperatives.
Expansion Beyond the Subsistence Horizon
The notion of an infinite environment was also bolstered by European colonial ventures, which introduced the idea of unlimited access to natural resources far beyond Europe’s own borders. Colonial enterprises generated capital through the extraction of precious metals, plantation agriculture, the slave trade, and other economic activities, enabling European nations to amass wealth at the expense of other continents. Historian James M. Blaut notes that the accumulation of capital from colonial resources was so substantial that it catalysed a major transformation in Europe, particularly the rise of bourgeois power and the development of capitalism prior to the Industrial Revolution [1]. Thus, colonial expansion was not merely an economic endeavour but played a key role in shaping the idea of an endless and accessible world.
Scientific and Mechanical “Eternalisation” of the Environment
Another crucial aspect of this ideology is the scientific and mechanical “eternalisation,” the creation of an illusion that natural resources are inexhaustible. This process began in the 19th century with the development of industrial technologies and the extraction of fossil fuels, such as coal. Coal, as a fossil fuel from a long-gone world, provided capitalists with the ability to store energy and use it as needed, allowing production to be controlled independently of natural conditions like river flows or wind strength. Geologist and theologian William Buckland saw the wealth of coal seams as the “providential hand of God,” a symbol of limitless natural resources stored for humanity’s future use [1]. Fossil fuels transformed Earth into a reservoir of resources that appeared inexhaustible, further reinforcing the idea of an infinite environment.
The Globe: The World as a Homogeneous and Infinite Flat Plane
In Introduction to Comparative Planetology, philosopher Lukáš Likavčan describes this concept of the world as a globe – a geometric, universally measurable, rational environment that is infinite, homogeneous, and fully knowable. This worldview perceives Earth as an infinitely expansive plane where all resources can be endlessly exploited to meet human needs, aligning with capitalism’s notion of limitless growth. Thus, the globe represents a conceptually unified and continuously available space that is fully subordinate to human activities [1].
Conclusion
The ideology of the infinite environment has profoundly influenced our relationship with nature and economic resources. The objectification and instrumentalisation of nature, the homogenisation of time and space, colonial expansion, and the scientific “eternalisation” of natural resources – all these factors have led to a perception of nature as an endless reservoir of materials, disregarding its true boundaries. However, this view has serious ecological and social consequences that are increasingly evident today. Understanding these historical roots and cultural constructs can help us recognise the need to shift our approach to natural resources, fostering sustainable models that respect our planet’s actual limits.
The Finite Environment: Limits to Growth and the Path to Sustainable Development
The concept of a finite environment and limits to growth plays a crucial role in contemporary discussions on sustainability and the future of economic systems. This idea has evolved in various forms, becoming increasingly sophisticated as our understanding of natural systems has expanded. The approach to growth limitations has progressed from Malthusian theories to scientific models and holistic concepts in ecological economics and planetary boundaries. The following chapters present the development and significance of this idea for economic and ecological thought.
Malthus and Neo-Malthusianism
Thomas Malthus first popularised the idea of ecological limits in his Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. Malthus argued that population growth would eventually outstrip food production, leading to famine and poverty. This notion was based on classical economic thinking, which emphasised the limited availability of resources for a growing population. Although Malthus’s views were later challenged – particularly for his sceptical stance towards the poor and his lack of consideration for technological advancement – his work significantly influenced thinking on ecological limits [1].
Modern neo-Malthusian theories have expanded Malthus’s concept to include new factors. For example, Paul R. Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb (1968), and his colleague John Holdren introduced the IPAT equation, which examines three key factors influencing environmental impact: population (P), affluence (A), and technology (T). The equation expresses environmental impact (I) as the product of these three variables: I = P × A × T. This model offers a more comprehensive understanding of the influence of not only population but also consumption and technology on the environment, providing a nuanced view of the factors affecting ecological limits [1].
Limits to Growth
Nearly two centuries after Malthus, the Club of Rome rekindled the global discussion on growth limits through its 1972 report, The Limits to Growth. Led by scientists Donella and Dennis Meadows, the research team used computer models to project the effects of continued economic and population growth on resource depletion and environmental degradation. The report included various scenarios (referred to as “runs”) illustrating potential outcomes of different social and technological interventions, including the “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario, which assumed no significant changes [1].
A central aspect of the report was the distinction between “resources” and “sinks,” where resources represent raw material reserves like fossil fuels and clean water, while sinks denote the Earth’s capacity to absorb waste and pollution. The authors warned that unchecked population and industrial growth could exceed these limits, potentially leading to systemic collapse if left unaddressed. The Limits to Growth became a significant impetus for re-evaluating human values and goals beyond material growth, urging a shift in focus toward quality of life and long-term planning over mere consumption [1].
Ecological Economics
Emerging in the 1980s, ecological economics reframes the concept of a finite environment within a new perspective. This transdisciplinary field, which bridges ecological and economic thinking, challenges the core assumption of limitless growth and explores ways to adapt economic systems to the Earth’s ecological boundaries. Herman Daly, a leading figure in ecological economics, proposed the concept of a steady-state economy that operates within the regenerative and absorptive capacities of ecosystems. Daly distinguishes between growth as quantitative increase and development as qualitative improvement, providing a fundamental framework for sustainable development [1].
Another significant contribution to this field is Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s work, introducing the concept of entropy into economic thought. In his book The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, he applied the second law of thermodynamics to economic processes, arguing that economic activity inevitably increases entropy, leading to the degradation of natural resources. This concept reinforced the idea that natural resources are finite and that their use has irreversible consequences, posing profound challenges to the long-term sustainability of current economic systems. Georgescu-Roegen also introduced the term “bioeconomics,” emphasising the biological foundations of all economic processes and the finite nature of resources. His work significantly advanced ecological economics, inspiring new perspectives on sustainability that stress the limitations of natural systems and critique the notion of unlimited growth [1].
Planetary Boundaries
The concept of “planetary boundaries” represents a further step in developing the idea of a finite environment. In 2009, a group of scientists led by Johan Rockström introduced the planetary boundaries framework, identifying nine key processes that regulate the stability and resilience of the Earth system. These processes include climate change, biodiversity loss, and ocean acidification, among others. The scientists proposed quantitative thresholds for each of these processes, warning that exceeding these boundaries poses a risk of sudden and potentially irreversible environmental changes.
Planetary boundaries provide one of the most comprehensive measures for observing the interconnected biophysical systems of Earth and their ecological limits. This framework allows us to understand how close we are to crossing individual boundaries and highlights areas where immediate action is necessary to prevent disruption to these fundamental processes. Unlike earlier predictions by Malthus or the simulations of the Club of Rome, planetary boundaries involve measurable phenomena unfolding in real-time, showing concrete impacts of human activity [1].
In 2023, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research released an updated report, Earth System Health Check. This research found that six of the nine planetary boundaries have already been exceeded, indicating that human activities are pushing the Earth system beyond its safe operating space. The report emphasises the urgent need to transform how we manage resources and govern planetary ecosystems. The Earth System Health Check project aims to release an annual assessment of Earth’s status, enhancing transparency and awareness of the limits affecting our planet’s health [1].
The concept of planetary boundaries has become a significant approach, helping us understand ecological limits on a global scale and calling for concrete actions to protect the critical functions of the Earth system.
Constructed Environment: How Our Ideas Shape the World Around Us
The concept of a “constructed environment” invites us to reflect on what we consider the “natural environment” and how our actions, technologies, and social structures contribute to its perception. Although the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the planet determine conditions for life, what we humans define as the “natural environment” is, in reality, a human construct, shaped by our historical experiences, technologies, and political struggles. The following chapters explore how we have imagined the natural environment and how our perceptions influence it.
Shaping the “Natural Environment”
The idea of the “natural environment” is not merely an objective description of the world but rather a human construct. Our perception of the environment is influenced by historical and social experiences, as well as the technological possibilities that allow us not only to study nature but also to modify it to align with our visions. For instance, without advancements in sensor technology and data processing, climate change would neither be readable nor visible to us, and without communication networks, we would not be able to discuss it on a global scale. Efforts to protect the environment also stem from campaigns, counter-campaigns, and political struggles – social processes that shape how we view and wish to preserve nature.
Constructs such as “planetary boundaries” or “doughnut economics” exemplify approaches that could not exist without public lectures, academic studies, and media appearances. These frameworks demonstrate how the environment becomes constructed, shaped according to our ideas. Any concept of the “environment” is thus significantly influenced by the processes that create it – by the development, advocacy, and communication of that concept.
Capitalism and the Organisation of Nature
According to historian and ecologist Jason Moore, capitalism has not destroyed nature in terms of outright devastation but has instead reshaped it to meet its exploitative needs. This process required a crucial step: separating the concept of “Nature” from society so that nature could be viewed as an object, something to be controlled and exploited. Moore states, “Capitalism has survived not by destroying nature (whatever that may mean), but through projects that force nature as oikeios to work harder and harder – for free or at a very low cost” [1].
This perspective on capitalism reminds us that capitalism is not merely an economic or social system but a way of organising nature. Capitalism views nature as an external resource that can be quantified and rationally arranged to serve growth, development, or another “higher” good. While capital, science, and empire shape “Nature” as an external, controllable, and reducible entity, the environment continuously transforms, adapts, and resists this process. Moore describes this dynamic system as the “web of life” – nature with a lowercase “n,” which surrounds us and in which we are inseparably embedded [1].
The Production of the Environment: Concepts and Their Consequences
The current state of “Nature” (the capitalist concept) and nature (the true planetary foundation of life) can be understood as a result of our shaping – the materialisation of ideas about nature through societal actions and structures. In other words, we create our environment not only in a conceptual realm but also in the tangible consequences these concepts bring. Constructs like the “infinite environment” or, conversely, the “finite environment” are not mere abstractions; they are fundamental pillars that influence the real world and shape society’s collective approach to nature.
Critique Is Not Enough: The Need for Practical Alternatives
Merely critically examining or analysing these concepts is insufficient for replacing harmful ideas and institutions. If we view today’s environmental state as a result of capitalism’s exploitative vision of nature, then it is essential not only to develop alternative ideas but also to create practical structures and infrastructures that embody these new visions and put them into practice.
Organisational theory and real-world examples show that this is not only theoretically possible but is a basic modus operandi for all organisations. Every organisation considers its environment during its formation. However, this act of “reading” the environment is always an interpretation that highlights certain characteristics while overlooking others. Furthermore, the very existence of a particular characteristic depends on whether the organisation conceptually recognises it. For instance, one cannot consider phenomenon X if there is no ability to conceptually identify and name it.
When an organisation, shaped by its interpretation of the environment, begins to operate in practice, it not only realises itself but also brings into existence the vision it originally created about its environment. The use of traditional models and logics ensures the continued existence of these concepts, whereas the application of new models helps to form new environments in the real world.
Conclusion
The constructed environment reminds us that we do not observe nature objectively but rather through our historical, social, and political perspectives. This process is dynamic and ever-changing. Our concepts of the environment are not just ideas but the basis of specific actions and consequences that shape the world around us. Creating sustainable and respectful approaches to nature therefore means not only developing new ideas but also putting them into practice – establishing alternative structures capable of forming new environments and responding to the challenges of today’s world.
Conclusion: Applying Insights on Environmental Finiteness to Information Service Design
The insights into the finiteness and exhaustibility of the environment we’ve explored are crucial for information service design. Accepting the reality of limited resources and recognising the critical interconnectedness of our actions with nature opens up new pathways for designing services that respect both ecological and social boundaries.
- Respect for a Finite Environment
These insights enable information service design to be more ecologically responsible. The assumption of an infinite environment was erroneously embraced as a given in capitalist history, leading to models that disregarded impacts on nature and society [1]. Modern information services, however, can be designed to account for the finite nature of natural resources by, for instance, reducing energy demands and optimising data traffic, which can lessen their environmental impact. - Incorporating Social and Ecological Context into Design
When designing information services that function as platforms for social and economic exchange, we should also consider how these services support ecological and social stability. Rather than approaches that ignore the contexts in which they operate, it is desirable to integrate a reflection of the social and ecological habitats these services impact. Sustainable service design can help users better understand the interconnectedness of their actions with the surrounding environment. - The Influence of Design on Shaping the Environment
Unlike natural habitats, the social and technological environments we create express our own ideas and concepts, and in realising these, we reshape the world around us [1]. Every information service, once designed and implemented, not only serves its intended purpose but also shapes cultural and social environments. Information service design that respects ecological and social limits can contribute to a new, sustainable way of thinking about the environment and the interconnectedness of people and technology. - Organising Services that Respect Finite Resources
Information services can be viewed as structures that shape not only the service itself but also the ways in which users interact with their environment and resources. A design focused on long-term sustainability and social benefit can ensure that services meet current needs while contributing to a lasting balance between resource use and ecological stability. Ideally, such designs would acknowledge that our actions are always “acts of reading and interpreting the environment,” which then “reshape” the world around us [1].
These insights remind us that information service design should not ignore environmental boundaries but rather actively consider and respect them. Understanding the finiteness and interconnectedness of resources provides new perspectives and inspirations for designing services that are sustainable, efficient, and beneficial over the long term for both users and society at large.
Sources
- Mesarčík, P., & Zbiejczuk Suchá, L. (2024). DESB51 Business as Unusual [Přednášky a studijní materiály]. Masarykova univerzita.