The bridge between diversity and adaptivity: Answering McIntosh and Jeffrey

In their article entitled ‘Transferring theories of biological (co) evolution to socio-natural science: a reply to Rammel and Staudinger’, Brian McIntosh and Paul Jeffrey (2004) provide a critical focus on our attempt to use an evolutionary perspective in order to clarify the crucial role of diversity for sustainable development. This attempt was presented in the InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology Volume 9(4) in 2002. In particular, they argued that we did not convincingly demonstrate the utility and benefit of using an evolutionary perspective (based on biological theory) in providing better grounds for practical strategies and policies towards sustainable development. Moreover, besides claiming that (co) evolutionary ideas concerned with the study and management of socio-natural systems are still premature, they emphasised that we did not make clear what we mean when we say ‘evolutionary system’ or on which socio-economic entities evolution is actually operating. After their precise criticism on the use and application of our evolutionary perspective, McIntosh and Jeffrey paid special attention to the notion of stability, which we had stressed as core element of sustainable development. Herein, they argued for the need to clarify the definition of stability and pointed at possible meanings of stability which might fundamentally oppose the notion of sustainability in terms of blocking innovations and new adaptations. At the core of this criticism, McIntosh and Jeffrey questioned the relationship between stability and ‘pre-adapted’ diversity in ecological communities, as well as in socio-economic systems which was presented in our article as one of our key arguments. In particular, they rejected what they have assumed as being one of our main hypotheses, namely ‘that “only” in the absence of competition-driven selection are the “basic conditions” for sustainability likely to be found’ (ibd.). Referring to our focus on selection, diversity and sustainability, McIntosh and Jeffrey oppose our understanding that specialisation (particularly those forced by strong marketdriven economic competition) tends to reduce future opportunities as it decreases redundant diversity. Furthermore, they stress that even in evolutionary biology, specialisation is no longer seen as an evolutionary deadend and a risk-prone mode of existence. Subsequently, they posit that, due to strong economic competition, dramatic innovations might even occur and produce more variety and future opportunities than is removed by