With a solid background in Philosophy, Abraham Philocrat is a Consultant and Researcher on Sustainability at the Philocrat Sustainability Research Institute. He has researched and developed unprecedented new generation of theories on all aspects of sustainability, covering such issues as environment, economy, education, design, culture, Law, governance etc, just to mention a few.
He is currently working on and developing a completely new mathematics he labelled "Sustainability Calculus" which measures and reconciles Equity in Value Creation, Maximisation, Distribution and Retention over time. He is also buidling online calculators to demonstrate some aspects of this calculus. http://philocrat.com/sworldtv
Monday, 29 March 2010
Abrahan Philocrat
Monday, 29 June 2009
Monday, 9 March 2009
Sustainable Value (SV)
By definition, Sustainable value (SV) is the intrinsic qualitative value of a thing, design or an event from the point of view of its functionality.
However, due to the fact that human beings are also sometimes influenced in their decision process by the physical appearance of things, you may take this into account as well.
The physical appearance of a thing is its extrinsic value. So in your account you may say that the sustainable value of a thing or a design, or a system or an event is a combination of its intrinsic qualitative value and its extrinsic outward value. Strangely as this may sound, in our value allocation and decision processes, we tend to add value to both the physical appearance and the functionality of things. For example, a car manufacturer may continue to improve one of his car models both in terms of the functionality of it to increase performance and in terms of the physical appearance of it to make it prettier. So, the sustainable value of this car is measured by:
(1) Improved functionality which results in increased performance and safety of the car.
(2) The number of beneficiaries from the point of view of usage. The theory of sustainability says that 100% qualitative intrinsic value of a thing should in principle and in practice yield 100% beneficiaries.
(3) Improved appearance helping to encourage and attract greater number of beneficiaries.
However, parameter (3) is controversial in that it poses a huge metaphysical and epistemological problem in philosophy.
Although we generously included it here and tried to justify it to a point, controversy still exists as to whether it should play any genuine role in the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the sustainable value of things. The strongest argument put forward by philosophy against its inclusion is the fact that its removal does not affect the intrinsic qualitative value of the thing in question. For example, in the car example, if you make a car functionally 100% safe and 100% pretty in outward appearance, when the car is involved in a fatal accident, the appearance will play no part or role whatsoever in the overall safety of the passengers, however physically beautiful that car may be.
However, due to the fact that human beings are also sometimes influenced in their decision process by the physical appearance of things, you may take this into account as well.
The physical appearance of a thing is its extrinsic value. So in your account you may say that the sustainable value of a thing or a design, or a system or an event is a combination of its intrinsic qualitative value and its extrinsic outward value. Strangely as this may sound, in our value allocation and decision processes, we tend to add value to both the physical appearance and the functionality of things. For example, a car manufacturer may continue to improve one of his car models both in terms of the functionality of it to increase performance and in terms of the physical appearance of it to make it prettier. So, the sustainable value of this car is measured by:
(1) Improved functionality which results in increased performance and safety of the car.
(2) The number of beneficiaries from the point of view of usage. The theory of sustainability says that 100% qualitative intrinsic value of a thing should in principle and in practice yield 100% beneficiaries.
(3) Improved appearance helping to encourage and attract greater number of beneficiaries.
However, parameter (3) is controversial in that it poses a huge metaphysical and epistemological problem in philosophy.
Although we generously included it here and tried to justify it to a point, controversy still exists as to whether it should play any genuine role in the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the sustainable value of things. The strongest argument put forward by philosophy against its inclusion is the fact that its removal does not affect the intrinsic qualitative value of the thing in question. For example, in the car example, if you make a car functionally 100% safe and 100% pretty in outward appearance, when the car is involved in a fatal accident, the appearance will play no part or role whatsoever in the overall safety of the passengers, however physically beautiful that car may be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
