Nine objections to Steiner and Wolff on land disputes

Philosophy

Nine Objections to Steiner and Wolff on Land Disputes Brian Weatherson In the July 2003 Analysis, Hillel Steiner and Jonathan Wolff (2003) propose a framework for "resolving disputed land claims between competing nations or ethnic groups." The idea is that we should auction off the land, with the loser of the auction getting the money. While this might mean that the richer party will normally end up with the land, and this is normally not thought to be a good thing, if the auction is conducted as they specify "it will turn out that the other party ends up with something which, in the circumstances, it prefers to the land: lots of money." Actually, it isn't so clear that this is what will result. Let's say we have a particular parcel of land that groups A and B want. They each want it quite strongly, but B has deeper pockets than A, so while A would be prepared to pay 8 for the land, B would be prepared to pay 12. For the auction process to function, there must be a minimum bid increment, I'll say it is 12 . Assume that B has just bid 4, A must now choose whether to bid 4 12 or accept B's bid. And assume for now that A is not bidding tactically, it only makes a bid if it would prefer to win the auction with that bid than accept B's bid. This assumption will be relaxed below. So for now, A must decide whether it prefers to be given 4, or to get the land for 4 12 . Since it values the land at 8, and since it will give up 8 1 2 to buy the land (the 4 1 2 it will pay, plus the 4 it would have received from B) it may well decide to just accept the bid. But now it has ended up with something it definitely does not prefer to the land, since it just accepted a bid for 4. There are two assumptions at play here. One is that A doesn't bid tactically, which I shall return to a bit. The other is that how much A will pay for the land is not affected by receiving B's 4. That is, I assume that the marginal utility of money is relatively constant for A over the ranges of money at play in the auction. This assumption might be false if we're dealing with a very large or valuable body of land, but it's not unreasonable in most circumstances. (Space prevents a complete study of what happens if we take the declining marginal utility of money completely into account. Roughly, the effect is that some of my criticisms are slightly vitiated.) Now while these assumptions might be false, Steiner and Wolff give us no reason to be certain they are false. So for all they've said we could have a situation just like this one, where the poorer party ends up with something it wants much less than the land. Hence Objection 1. There is no guarantee that the losing party will end up with something they prefer to the land. † Penultimate draft only. Please cite published version if possible. Final version published in Analysis 63 (2003): 321-8. Nine Objections to Steiner and Wolff on Land Disputes 2 While this contradicts an alleged benefit of Steiner and Wolff's plan, it might not be thought to be a deep problem. After all, A gets half as much as they wanted, and if they are only one of two equal claimants to the land, then this is a fair result. This may be true, but note that the assumption that each party has an equal claim to the land is doing a lot of work here. If A's claim is stronger, then only getting half of the value of the land is quite unfair. If the two claims are incommensurable, there may be no fact of the matter whether it is fair that A receives 4. If we cannot tell which of the moral claims is stronger, which is very often the case in land disputes, it may be impossible to tell whether A's receiving 4 is fair or not. Hence Objection 2. The proposal is only appropriate where each party has a genuinely equal moral claim to the land. This doesn't happen often, and it is quite rare that we know it happens. While Steiner and Wolff note that they are leaving questions about enforcement and compliance to another place, so it isn't fair to press them too strongly on these topics, it is worth noting how this feature of their proposal makes compliance harder to enforce. If by participating in the auction both parties are tacitly agreeing that the other party has an equal claim to the land, and I think the above suggests they are doing just this, that will reduce the legitimacy of the auction process in the eyes of members of the losing group. And that will lead to enforcement difficulties down the line. There is an administrative problem lurking around here. Since each party will end up with something from this process once the auction begins, we must have a way of determining whether the competing claims warrant an auction, or whether one party should receive the land, or whether some kind of negotiation is possible. And once we set up a process to do that, it could easily encourage relatively spurious land claims. Unless there is a serious cost to suggesting that one should be party to an auction of some block of land, there is a large incentive to get into these auctions wherever and whenever possible. Perhaps some method could be designed to offset this incentive, and perhaps even the desire groups have to be approved by the court of public opinion will offset it at times, but it seems to be a problem with the proposal as formulated. To be sure, if A accepts B's bid, then both parties do end up with something from the auction. A gets 4, and B gets some land that it values at 12 for 4, a gain of 8. Note that B does much better out of the auction than A. If the auction stops when the richer party makes a bid at or above half the price the poorer party would pay, then the richer party will always end up with a higher 'utility surplus'. Hence Objection 3. If there's no tactical bidding the utility surplus is given entirely to the richer party. Let's relax the assumption that A does not bid tactically. Indeed, let's make things as good as could be realistically expected for A. It knows that B values the land at 12 and does not bid tactically, so B will make bids up to 6, and accept any bid over 6. Hence the auction proceeds as follows: A bids 4 12 , B bids 5, A bids 5 1 2 , B bids 6, Nine Objections to Steiner and Wolff on Land Disputes 3 A accepts. Now things could go better for A, but it would require some luck and courage. A could bid 6 12 and B could reply with a bid of 7, but since this requires B acting against its own interests (it is better off accepting the bid of 6 12 after all), and hence also requires A making a risky move that will only yield dividends only if B acts against its own interests in just this way, such an outcome seems unlikely. So in practice the best case scenario for A is that B pays 6 for the land. In this case A ends up with 6, and B ends up paying 6 for land it values at 12, a gain of 6. Hence Objection 4. Among the realistic outcomes, the best case scenario for the poorer party is that it ends up with as large a utility surplus as the richer party. Best cases don't often happen, so in practice we should normally expect a result somewhere between the 'no tactical bargaining' option, where B receives a larger share of the surplus, and this 'best case scenario' where the two parties get an equal share of the surplus. Hence in almost all cases, the richer party will get a larger surplus than the poorer party. This seems like a flaw in the proposal, but worse is to come. Most of the ways in which B can realistically increase its share of the surplus involve behaviour that we should not want to encourage. Consider again A's decision to reject the bid of 5 and bid 5 12 . Assume, for simplicity, that A plans to accept a bid of 6, but drop the assumption that A knows that B will reject a bid of 5 12 , if it is made. So before A makes its decision, there are three possible outcomes it faces: Accept the bid In this case it receives 5. Bid 5 12 and have it accepted In this case it gets the land (value 8) for 5 1 2 , net gain 2 1 2 . Bid 5 12 and have it rejected In this case B bids 6, and A accepts, so it gets 6. A's expected utility is higher if it bids 5 12 rather than accepts B's bid iff its degree of belief that B will bid 6 is over 57 . If it is less confident than that that B will bid 6, it should accept the bid of 5. As it happens, B is going to reject a bid of 5 12 and bid 6, so it is better off if A accepts the bid of 5. If A knows B's plans, this will not happen. But if A is ignorant of B's intentions, it is possible it will accept the bid of 5. Indeed, since A's confidence that B will decline must be as high as 57 before it makes the bid of 5 12 , it might be quite likely in this case that A will just accept the bid. Not surprisingly, we get the result that B is better off if its bargaining plans are kept secret than if they are revealed to A. That in itself may not be objectionable. But remember that the agents here are not individuals, they are states. And the decisions about how to bid involve policy questions that will often be the most important issue the state in question faces for many a year. Ideally, decisions about how to approach the auction should be decided as democratically as possible. But democratic decision making requires openness, and it is impossible that all the stakeholders in B, including one imagines the citizens, can participate in the decision about how to approach the auction without B tipping its hand. In the modern world it's impossible to involve Nine Objections to Steiner and Wolff on Land Disputes 4 everyone in B without opening the debate to agents of A. And this, as we've seen, probably has costs. Since B is better off if it does not make decisions about how to approach the auction in the open, we have Objection 5. The proposal favours secretive governments over open democratic governments. Assume that B has been somewhat secretive, but A is still fairly confident that B will not accept a bid of 5 12 . Its degree of belief that such a bid will be rejected is 3 4 , let's say, so it is disposed to gamble and make that bid. But now B starts making some noises about what it will do with any money it gets from A. The primary beneficiary of this windfall will be B's military. And the primary use of this military is to engage in military conflicts with A. While some of these engagements will be defensive, if A gets the land under dispute many will be offensive. (I don't think these assumptions are particularly fanciful in many of the land disputes we see in the modern world.) A must take this into account when making its decisions. It seems reasonable to say that every 1 that A gives B has a disutility of 1.2 for A, 1 for the cost of the money it gives up, and 0.2 for the extra damage it may suffer when that money is turned into weaponry turned back against A. Now the utility calculations are quite different. If B accepts A's bid of 5 12 , A's balance sheet will look like this: Gain The land, value 8. Cost 5 12 paid to B, value 5 1 2 Cost B's extra military capability, value (a little over) 1. Net gain Roughly 1 12 . So now the expected utility of bidding 5 12 is: Prob(Bid Accepted) × Utility(Bid Accepted) + Prob(Bid Rejected) × Utility(Bid Rejected) ≈ 14 × 1 1 2 + 3 4 × 6 = 4 78 Hence A's expected utility for accepting B's bid of 5, i.e. 5, is higher than its expected utility of bidding 5 12 , so it will accept the bid, just as B wanted it to do. So if B indicates that it will use any payments from A to attack A, it may well be able to get the land for less. Hence Objection 6. The proposal favours belligerent governments over peaceful governments. One qualification to this objection is that what matters here is what A thinks B will do, not what B actually does. So the objection is not that the proposal rewards offensive behaviour, but that it rewards belligerence, or indications of offensive behaviour. This isn't as bad as rewarding military action, but it is still objectionable. Nine Objections to Steiner and Wolff on Land Disputes 5 Throughout I have used a particular example to make the points clearer, none of the arguments turns on the details of this example. What matters is that in any case where one party is able to spend more for the land in question simply because they are richer, the richer party will almost inevitably have a higher utility surplus, and this party can increase their expected utility surplus by being more secretive about their plans, and by being adopting a more belligerent tone towards their rivals before and during the auction. So it seems the proposal systematically rewards behaviour we should be discouraging. The remaining objections concern the implementation of Steiner and Wolff's proposal. While I don't have a demonstrative proof that any of these concerns present insurmountable difficulties, they all suggest ways in which the proposal must be qualified if it is to be just. The proposal seems to assume that the parties to the dispute agree over whether the land in question can be divided. As Steiner and Wolff put it, "The auction can thus be viewed as a device for achieving a fair settlement for the disposition of a good when neither division nor joint ownership is acceptable to the parties." In some conflicts at least part of what is at issue is whether the land can be divided. For instance, if we were applying this proposal as a way of settling the war between Britain and Ireland in 1921, would we say that all of Ireland should be auctioned off, or just that the six counties that became Northern Ireland should be auctioned? Assuming the British had decided that governing southern Ireland had become too much trouble and were only interested in retaining the north, they may not have wanted to pay for the whole country just to protect their interests in the north. But at least some of the Irish would have been unwilling to accept a process that may have led to the division of the country, as would have obtained had the south been granted Home Rule, but the north left subject to an auction. (The historical facts are, obviously, somewhat more complicated than I've sketched here, but even when those complications are considered the difficulties that must be overcome before we know how to apply the proposal to a real situation are formidable.) Hence Objection 7. The proposal assumes a mechanism for determining which land is indivisible, and in some cases developing such a process is no easier than settling the dispute. Steiner and Wolff assume that the groups, A and B, are easily identifiable. In practice, this may not be so easy. For example, at least some people in Scotland would prefer that Scotland was independent. For now most people prefer devolution to independence (and some would prefer rule from Westminster) but we can easily imagine circumstances in which the nationalist support would rise to a level where it became almost a majority. If a majority in Scotland wants to secede, and the British government is willing to do this, then presumably they will just secede. But what are we to do if a narrow majority in Scotland wants to secede, and the British government (or people) do not want them to go? Presumably Steiner and Wolff's proposal is that some sort of auction should be held to determine who should be in charge of the land. But who exactly are meant to be the parties? On the Westminster side, is Nine Objections to Steiner and Wolff on Land Disputes 6 the party Britain as a whole, or Britain except for Scotland? On the Scottish side, is it the Scottish people? The Scottish government, which for now is a creature that exists at the pleasure of the British Parliament? Those people who support Scottish independence? If the last, how shall we determine just who these people are? Perhaps some one or other of these answers can be defended, but the proposal is seriously incomplete, hence Objection 8. There is no mechanism for determining who shall count as a member of the groups in question. Finally, the proposal simply assumes that we can agree upon the currency in which the auction shall be conducted, but it is not ever so clear that this can be done. Usually, the two parties to a dispute will use different currencies, so to avoid conflicts it would be best if the auction were conducted in a neutral currency. But finding such a currency may be non-trivial. There are only a handful of currencies in the world whose supply is sufficiently abundant to conduct an auction of this size, and most of the time those currencies will be backed by governments who favour one side in the dispute. If they use this favouritism to provide access to credit denominated in their currency at a discounted rate, that threatens the fairness of the auction. Hence Objection 9. The proposal assumes a given currency in which to conduct the auction, but in practice any choice of currency may favour one side. The last three objections are, as mentioned, somewhat administrative. It is possible that in a particular situation they could be overcome, though I think that it is more likely that they would pose serious difficulties to a would-be auction-wielding pacifier. But that's not the serious problem with the proposal. The real problem, as the first six objections show, is that it favours rich, secretive, belligerent states that are disposed to make spurious land claims over poor, democratic, pacifist states that only make genuine land claims. References Steiner, Hillel and Wolff, Jonathan. 2003. "A general framework for resolving disputed land claims." Analysis 63:188–189.


Philosophy

ARTICLES The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity: Philosophical Reflections on the Demand for a Bio-Based Economy Jochem Zwier • Vincent Blok • Pieter Lemmens • Robert-Jan Geerts Accepted: 22 February 2015  The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract In this paperwe inquire into the fundamental assumptions that underpin the ideal of the Bio-Based Economy (BBE) as it is currently developed. By interpreting the BBE from the philosophical perspective on economy developed by Georges Bataille, we demonstrate how theBBE is fully premised on a thinking of scarcity. As a result, the BBE exclusively frames economic problems in terms of efficient production, endeavoring to exclude a thinking of abundance and wastefulness. Our hypothesis is that this not only entails a number of internal tensions and inconsistencies with regard to the ideal of BBE, but ultimately undermines the ideal itself, by pushing purported regenerativity into a cataclysmic and terminal discharge. We here point to the strategies that the BBE employs in this exclusion, the fundamental assumptions regarding the relation between energy and economy that underpin this endeavor, as well as to the resulting inconsistencies and their catastrophic consequences. We finally argue for the introduction of the presently excluded question of abundance and wastefulness and explore the implications of such a question for the ideal of a zero-waste humanity. J. Zwier (&)  P. Lemmens Department of Philosophy and Science Studies, Faculty of Science, Institute for Science, Innovation, and Society, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands e-mail: email@example.com P. Lemmens e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com V. Blok Management Studies, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com R.-J. Geerts Philosophy Chairgroup, Sub-department Communication, Philosophy, and Technology, Social Sciences Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com 123 J Agric Environ Ethics DOI 10.1007/s10806-015-9538-y Keywords Bio-based economy  Georges bataille  Restricted economy  General economy  Abundance  Scarcity And sun, Oh, sun enough! Ezra Pound Introduction ''In a world with growing pressures on resources and the environment, the EU has no choice but to go for the transition to a resource-efficient and ultimately regenerative circular economy'' (European Commission 2012b, 1). With these resounding words the European Commission's Manifesto for a Resource-Efficient Europe places the demand for a Bio-Based Economy (BBE)1 center stage. The BBE is defined as ''the production of renewable biological resources and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value added products, such as food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy'' (European Commission 2012a, 3). The demand for a BBE has in fact been developing for some time; while spuriously mentioned in the 1990s, the BBE was officially launched in 2005 (European Commission 2005) and has received increasing attention since (see McCormick and Kautto 2013). In this paper we inquire into the fundamental assumptions that underpin the ideal of the BBE as it is currently developed. By interpreting the BBE from the philosophical perspective on economy developed by Georges Bataille, we show how the BBE is fully premised on a thinking of scarcity. As a result, the BBE exclusively frames economic problems in terms of efficient production, endeavoring to exclude a thinking of abundance and wastefulness. Our hypothesis is that this not only entails a number of internal tensions and inconsistencies with regard to the ideal of the BBE, but ultimately undermines the ideal itself, as it pushes the purported 'regenerativity' into a cataclysmic and terminal discharge. We here point to the strategies that the BBE employs in this exclusion, the fundamental assumptions regarding the economy that underpin it, as well as to the resulting inconsistencies and their catastrophic consequences. We thereby argue for the introduction of the question of abundance and wastefulness which presently remains excluded in conceptualizations of the BBE. In the first part of this paper we provide an overview of central constituents of the BBE and situate our questioning alongside existing discussions. In the second part we introduce the concepts of restricted economy and general economy as developed by Georges Bataille in order to raise the presently overlooked philosophical question pertaining to the fundamental relation between energy and economy. In part three, we examine the BBE in terms of this question. The themes of solar energy and waste are analyzed from the perspective of the BBE on the one hand and 1 What we here call BBE is sometimes referred to as 'Knowledge Based Bio-Economy (KBBE)', or simply 'Bio-Economy'. Although subtle differences between the various definitions exist, we maintain that our arguments here concern general aspects that can be found in all of these definitions. J. Zwier et al. 123 Bataille's thought on the other. This contrasting analysis reveals how current BBE approaches understand both of these concepts exclusively in terms of scarcity, thereby rendering the BBE the ultimate restricted economy sensu Bataille. This results in several inconsistencies with respect to the ideal of BBE, which will be shown to ultimately prove fatal. Accordingly, in part four, we argue that a perspective in which the relation between energy and economy is oriented towards abundance and dissipation remains wrongfully absent in current discussions of the BBE. We indicate several ways in which such a (Bataillean) perspective can be developed, and how this encompasses a vital dimension of questioning that, at the present, is absent. What is the Bio-Based Economy? Context and Central Ideals of the BBE In order to situate the subject, it is first of all necessary to ask what the BBE is and how the demand for a BBE acquired its footing. If the BBE is defined as ''the production of renewable biological resources and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value added products (...)'' (European Commission 2012a, 3), we must ask what problem this is supposed to resolve, and what the central ideas for resolving these issues are. The opening citation serves as the starting point for answering both of these questions2: 'Growing pressures on resources and the environment' constitute the backdrop of the BBE-ideal. Natural resource scarcity, climate change, and environmental pollution are three of the fundamental obstacles that the BBE is designed to overcome (cf. Asveld et al. 2011b, 18–21; McCormick and Kautto 2013, 2589). As for the second question, it becomes clear that the problem we are currently facing is to be surmounted by moving 'to a resource-efficient and ultimately regenerative circular economy'. One may recognize three central themes to the envisioned solution: circularity, cascade, and zero-waste. As for the first theme of circularity, the problem of natural resource depletion is said to necessitate a new and different economic approach, i.e., a shift from non-renewable towards renewable resources. The traditional approach, sometimes referred to as petrol-based, may be thought of as linear: depletable fuel as input and products and polluting substances as output. The bio-based approach, on the contrary, is envisaged to be circular: renewable bio-fuels as input and recyclable products as output.3 The transition from a linear chain towards a closed loop is both a fundamental ideal and a challenge for the realization of the BBE (see Koppejan and Asveld 2011, 73). Figure 1 shows the schematics of how circularity is envisioned to operate. 2 A somewhat simplified answer to both questions suffices for the present purposes. For a more detailed overview, see McCormick and Kautto (2013). 3 True circularity would, of course, render terms like input and output redundant. The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity 123 The circularity is established as follows: Solar energy (center) is transformed into crops (bottom center), which in turn are transformed into biomass (center-left). This biomass can be refined into products (top). The residual waste resulting from this production process is fed back into the loop (clockwise) and is either used as compost to help grow crops, turned into food or animal feed, or used to supply the energy required by other steps in the entire process.4 This last mentioned 'feedback' points to the second of the three themes envisioned within the BBE. To guarantee circularity, the production process must operate according to what is referred to as a cascading model (cf. Asveld et al. 2011b, 22). This means that all of the production processes within the BBE are connected in a cascade. The original biomass is initially turned into high value products (e.g. pharmaceutical materials). The waste stream of this production process is subsequently utilized as the supply stream for a lower-level production process that produces products of lesser value. This process of feeding wastestreams back into the cascade is repeated until the waste-stream can no longer be refined into products. In the final stage of the cascade, the waste is incinerated, providing additional power to energize various operations (e.g. transport, heat etc.) within the closed loop.5 Fig. 1 Schematic overview of the BBE. Image source Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (2007) 4 See Wubben et al. 2012 for the complexity of biomass valorization in supply chains. 5 ''Most bio-derived products are now produced in facilities dedicated to a single primary product... Ultimately the industry is expected to move toward large integrated biorefineries cost-effectively J. Zwier et al. 123 The third theme concerns the ideal of zero-waste. It follows the logic of the circularity and the cascade: waste streams of production processes are to be redeployed to serve other processes internal to the system, thereby ideally eliminating waste entirely.6 ''The sun is the main source of energy, and some clever logistical planning prevents even a cell of biomass from being lost. The chain hence becomes a closed loop'' (Asveld et al. 2011b, 24). In light of this short exposé, we can understand what the European Commision's definition of the BBE amounts to: ''the production of renewable biological resources'' is thematized as circularity and ''the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value added products'' (European Commission 2012a, 3) bears upon the theme of cascade. The resulting closed loop ideally produces zero-waste: ''Ideally, the bio-economy should be an efficient economic system that produces no waste...'' (Asveld et al. 2011a, 11). Situating Our Inquiry Alongside Existing Criticisms The ideal of the BBE as presented in terms of its circularity, cascade, and zerowaste, has not been received without resistance. Critiques have been developed from various directions: First of all, there are those who doubt whether this ideal can be realized at all. Examples include Latham and Wilson, who wonder whether the BBE ''is not so much a real and substantial prospect but more a fantasy future'' (2007). They criticize the EU's conception of BBE for lacking proper proof concerning economic and technological prospects. Others wonder whether this presentation of the BBE can actually deliver on its promises with regard to sustainability, particularly in light of the vast amounts of biomass that will need to be produced (Koppejan and Asveld 2011; Cf. Pfau et al. 2014, 1233). Additionally, questions have been raised from ethical and political perspectives. One of the critiques here is that BBE is primarily framed in terms of economic gains, whereas risks and ethical issues are seen as less important (Hilgartner 2007). Further, Parry challenges the uniqueness and novelty of the biotechnologies by means of which the BBE is supposed to be realized, arguing that the emphasis on biotechnological solutions contributes to a political agenda that favors certain specialists' positions (Parry 2007, 387). A somewhat similar charge is made by Birch, Levidow, and Papaioannou, who argue that BBE frames the problem of sustainability exclusively as a problem of inefficiency (Birch et al. 2010; McCormick and Kautto 2013, 2597). As a result, solutions are considered solely through the lens of (bio) technological progress, which serves the drafting of a unilateral 'master narrative' that excludes alternative solutions. Due to this heavy emphasis on solutions derived from the life-sciences and the development of biotechnologies, the BBE is accused of blatantly disregarding other social actors Footnote 5 continued producing biofuels, high-value bioproducts and potentially cogenerating heat and/or power for onsite use'' (US Department of Energy 2011, 1–5). 6 For a more detailed and scientifically elaborate analysis of these processes, see Ragauskas et al (2006). The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity 123 like small-scale farmers, who end up in second place when it comes to distributing (bio) resources (cf. Blok and Lemmens, 2015). While siding with the abovementioned critiques insofar as we agree that these are matters that need to be discussed, we will here argue that a crucial dimension of questioning currently remains absent. This dimension concerns fundamental assumptions that underpin the ideal of the BBE. More precisely, it concerns the philosophical perspective vis-à-vis the unobserved horizon of energy and economy towards which both the ideal of BBE and many of the accompanying critiques are oriented. Even though the abovementioned critiques demonstrate that controversy exists with regard to (bio) resource production in the BBE, we observe that the relation between energy on the one hand and economy on the other remains uncontroversial and therefore unquestioned. In what follows, we argue that there is good reason for controversy on this point, and we maintain that a philosophical questioning of the relation between energy and the economy is in order. Methodologically, the philosophical approach means that we are not primarily concerned with the viability or desirability of particular solutions envisaged in the BBE. This means that we presently forego the question as to whether the themes of circularity, cascade, and zero-waste are realistic, or indeed pertain to the 'fantasy future' that one of the abovementioned critiques suggests.7 The present inquiry involves a reflection on the mode of thinking that undergirds this ideal itself. It will become clear that the mode of thinking present in the ideal of BBE implicitly assumes the relation between energy and economy to be universally marked by scarcity. In order to pursue the philosophical question regarding energy and economy in the BBE, we will interpret the ideal of BBE from the perspective of the French philosopher Georges Bataille. His work is especially relevant to the BBE for two reasons. First, because it provides a framework for analyzing the relation between energy and economy. Second, because it allows us to consider the implications of the BBE for the ideal of a 'zero-waste humanity'. Our hypothesis is that the BBE fully belongs to what Bataille calls a restricted economy: it implicitly understands the relation between energy and economy in terms of scarcity and utility alone (Sect. ''The BBE as Restricted Economy''). Our interpretation lays bare the hidden premises that steer the BBE in this direction. At the same time, we will demonstrate a number of resulting inconsistencies and tensions that ultimately undermine the ideal of BBE in a catastrophic way (Sect. ''The Bio-Based Catastrophe''). This gives rise to a consideration of the ideal of a zero-waste humanity (Sect. ''On the Necessity of a Pressure Valve''). We must begin, however, by an inquiry into the foundations of Bataille's philosophy of economy and energy, which is the topic of the next section. 7 Particularly the theme of zero-waste is questionable in this regard, since it ultimately seems to suggest a perpetual motion machine which defies the laws of thermodynamics. Whether realistic or not, it is an important part of the ideal of BBE. J. Zwier et al. 123 Georges Bataille on Economy Georges Bataille published his theoretical work on economy first in 1949 under the title The Accursed Share: An Essay on General Economy (1991).8 The first part, subtitled 'Consumption', was supposed to be the first part of a trilogy, but parts two and three were never published during his lifetime. Apart from a number of satellite texts, we will chiefly focus on this first part (usually simply referred to as The Accursed Share) where Bataille presents his reflections on economy most systematically. We first ask what Bataille means when he speaks of economy and how this differs from our ordinary understanding of economy. Next, we review how Bataille analyzes this ordinary understanding of economy as the restricted economy, which must be seen as embedded in the radically different general economy. We then analyze how Bataille detects a prevailing yet disastrous disregard of the general economy and how he conceives of an alternative. Bataille's diagnosis will prove to be of vital importance for our discussion concerning the BBE in Sect. ''The BBE from a Bataillean Perspective'', because in the BBE, the general economy remains unconsidered. What does Economy mean for Bataille? In the introduction to The Accursed Share, Bataille explains that in his reflections on economy, he ''wanted to avoid redoing the work of the economists'' (Bataille 1991, 13). What this amounts to is that unlike ordinary considerations of economy as the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods, Bataille is concerned with economy in terms of a much larger framework. This framework is indicated as the general economy and is understood in terms of the circulation of energy that is constitutive of ''living matter in general'' (Bataille 1991, 23), meaning a continuum that involves the vegetal (e.g. leaves of plants as products of the circulation of energy called photosynthesis) and animal (offspring, reproduction), up to socio-cultural phenomena (human economies and works of art). The products of this circulating energy-things in the world-are appropriated in what Bataille calls the restricted economy, where 'the economists' self-evidently consider of them as economic goods. The latter perspective of the restricted economy of goods is said to overlook the general economy which concerns the transition of energy into living matter in general. The difference between the general and restricted economy bespeaks a difference in relation between energy and economy, and it is Bataille's contention that this difference is forgotten in 'the work of the economists' who falsely universalize the restricted economy and therefore solely see energy as an economical good. They thereby fail to see how this only corresponds to a particular situation that exists within the larger framework of the general economy. In order to see Bataille's point and its consequences for the BBE, we first ask how the relation between energy and economy is understood within the restricted economy. 8 Originally published in French : La Part Maudite. Essai d'économie générale [1976b (1949)]. The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity 123 Restricted Economy The restricted economy designates a particular situation that perceives of energy as an economic good like any other; it is valued according to a system of production and consumption which is characterized by a logic of scarcity and utility. The characteristic of scarcity does not primarily point to a specific quantitative shortage of the specific good of energy (e.g. electrical energy), but designates the category in which energy appears. In the restricted economy, energy is considered within the category of scarcity, which is to say that it is considered like any good of which one does not have enough and is therefore in demand. Demand of goods requires supply of goods, which is understood in terms of utility, denoting the attempt to overcome scarcity by means of useful labor, viz. the production of the goods that are in demand. The restricted economy thus implicates a means-end relation, in which the end is the overcoming of scarcity by means of the production of goods. In this relation, energy appears as an economical good that can be deployed as a means to produce other demanded goods. We will see in Sect. ''General Economy as Ground for the Restricted Economy'' how this understanding of energy as just another economical good overlooks a more fundamental dimension regarding energy and economy, i.e. the general economy. The restricted economy corresponds both to how one commonly conceives of economy, as well as to modern economic science. The situation of scarcity and utility is commonly taken for granted, considering that one generally acknowledges the need to do useful, productive work in order to make up for what is lacking: one needs to go to work because it is necessary to produce the goods that are demanded in society. Further, one must do so in order to get a wage which can be used for what is needed. Farmers must labor in order to produce crops (utility), both because food is in demand (scarcity) and because it yields a wage which can be used to supply the needs (scarcity) of themselves and their families. Likewise, economic science corresponds to the restricted economy, because in its study of the production, distribution and consumption of goods, scarcity and utility are ubiquitous. To consider some classical definitions: Lionel Robbins defines economy as the ''science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses'' (1932, 16); and Adam Smith sees economy as ''a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator [with the objective of providing] a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people'' (1976, 428).9 In sum, the restricted economy designates an economical understanding of reality in which the world is encountered in terms of scarcity, lack, and need, all of which is to be compensated for by means of useful labor. It involves a particular mode of thinking that is present in both colloquial comprehension of economy as well as in economic science,10 and which Bataille articulates as ''the consciousness of a 9 Smith of course calls this 'political economy'. 10 It is debated whether Bataille is correct is subsuming all of modern economic science under the restricted economy. Jean-Joseph Goux denies this (cf. Goux 1990, 206–224), whereas Alan Stoekl criticizes Goux for misreading Bataille (cf. Stoekl 2007b, 271; Stoekl 2007a, 137–138). This discussion is J. Zwier et al. 123 necessity, of an indigence (...)'', where individuals come into view as ''nothing but eternally needy individuals'' (Bataille 1991, 23). Such an economy of neediness implies a specific understanding of the relation between energy and economy in which energy is approached as a good existing within an economy of supply and demand. General Economy as Ground for the Restricted Economy According to Bataille, the restricted economy corresponds only to a particular, isolated (i.e. restricted) situation, which is part of a much larger framework (Bataille 1991, 20). The latter constitutes the ground of the former, but is itself usually forgotten. Bataille's economical thought centers in on this larger framework. It concerns the general flow of energy, which he examines in terms of what he calls the general economy. This bespeaks an important difference in the relation between energy and economy: here, energy is not primarily considered as a good existing within a particular economy, but is understood ontologically as that what first constitutes and literally sets all processes and activities of life on the surface of the globe, including particular economic processes of production and consumption of goods, in operation. This means that a particular, restricted economy in which energy appears as a good is itself constituted and driven by the more general flow of energy in an ontological sense. Bataille's general economy takes account of this constitutive energy as characterized by abundance and dissipation. Regarding energy as constitutive for goods as well as its characterization in terms of abundance and dissipation, the sun exemplifies what is at stake in the general economy. For Bataille, solar energy is the origin and source of all life and wealth: ''Solar energy is the source of life's exuberant development. The origin and essence of our wealth are given in the radiation of the sun'' (Bataille 1991, 28). Life and living matter are constituted by the sun in the sense that they are transformations of solar energy. Such transformations are essentially characterized by abundance: on the one hand, the sun gives without ever receiving (cf. Bataille 1976a, 10), which is to say that solar energy is dispensed relentlessly, cannot be given back, and must go somewhere. On the other hand, the particular living systems that exist as transformations of this gift of solar energy have ''at [their] disposal greater energy resources than are necessary for the operations that sustain life'' (Bataille 1991, 27). Because particular living systems do not and cannot consume the sun's gift completely for self-maintenance, a surplus of energy accrues. Bataille speaks of ''a superabundance of energy on the surface of the globe'' (Bataille 1991, 29), and conceptualizes this in terms of rising pressure. This pressure first causes particular living systems to grow, to extend maximally (Bataille 1976a, 11). Hence, the living systems that are first constituted as transformations of solar energy are put under pressure by the sun's gift and therefore tend to extend maximally. However, given Footnote 10 continued beyond the scope of the present paper, which is not concerned with modern economic science in general, but focuses on the BBE. The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity 123 that the surface of the globe is limited, and the sun's gift is unremitting in the face of such a limited space, ''the impossibility of continuing growth makes way for squander'' (Bataille 1991, 29). At this juncture, squander is understood as ''the production of increasingly [costly] forms of life'' (Bataille, 1991, 33).11 If plant life uses most of the sun's gift for growth or extension, higher organisms waste or dissipate vast amounts of energy in eating and death: they eat plants and animals without growing to the same extend, thus making self-preservation and growth a 'costly' affair. Additionally, the extravagant, intricate, and painstakingly extensive sexual behaviors of higher organisms imply a costly way of procreation: ''the mammalian organism is a gulf that swallows vast quantities of energy'' (Bataille 1986, 60). It squanders or dissipates the sun's gift, thereby releasing the pressure. In short, living matter as constituted by energy and confined within a limited space responds to the sun's abundant and pressurizing gift by dissipation in the form of costliness and inefficiency. Humans occupy a specific position in this constellation. Although humans are conditioned by the same movement of life, their activity, by way of labor and technology, ''opens up a new possibility to life, a new space'' (Bataille 1991, 35–36). The specificity of this new possibility first designates association with an augmented supply of energy. The application of increasingly sophisticated technologies and organization of labor makes it possible to exploit living and dead matter (e.g. animal domestication and fossil fuels), thereby gaining access to gigantic energy resources. In unlocking greater parts of the sun's gift when only a small fraction of this energy is used or self-preservation, an increasing surplus of energy accumulations results, giving rise to an increasing pressure. As with other systems of life, this pressure is first incorporated in terms of increased extension or growth, where growth is now to be understood in the form of demographic expansion, conquer, and imperialism. However, expansion cannot continue indefinitely due to confinements of space, which means that the incorporation of pressure is eventually hindered by limits to growth. Catastrophically or Gloriously The question of what happens when limits to growth have been reached and expansion or conquer can no longer absorb the excess of energy goes to the core of Bataille's project. His answer is that the accumulating energy ''must be spent, willingly or not, gloriously or catastrophically'' (Bataille 1991, 21). The latter option is said to occur when a particular system can no longer grow, yet continues to be put under increasing pressure by the sun's relentless giving: ultimately something has to give, causing the system to burst in a feat of cataclysmic explosion. This in fact constitutes the ominous backdrop of Bataille's considerations of economy. He writes his studies in the aftermath of what he views as two massive occurrences of catastrophic energy spending: the two world wars as ''the greatest orgies of wealth (...) that history has recorded'' (Bataille 1991, 37). Although these wars are not 11 Hurley translates 'onéreuses' as 'burdensome', but we maintain that 'costly' is a more accurate translation. (Cf. Bataille 1976b, 40). J. Zwier et al. 123 claimed to be singularly caused by the colossal amounts of surplus generated through rapid industrialization, Bataille does take them to be calamitous and violent exudation of the resultant accumulations of energy that had to be spent. Such disastrous and destructive expenditure constitutes the outlet for a system that can no longer incorporate the sun's gift by means of expansion. The alternative to the catastrophic and unwilling expenditure of energy in war consists in spending energy willingly and gloriously. This alternative implies radically acknowledging one's position within the general economy, which comes down to considering the relation between energy and economy in its corresponding terms. Energy is then not to be taken as a (scarce) good that must be produced, accumulated, and deployed, but instead it comes into view as the constitutive ground which sets all particular economies, organic and human alike in operation. This entails understanding energy as the sun's constitutive and abundant gift, which evokes a response to this gift in terms of abundance and dissipation. Bataille is the first to admit that such a response remains difficult to fathom, since it ''is to go against judgments that form the basis of a rational economy'' (Bataille 1991, 22). It calls for a radical changeover of perspective that ''actually accomplishes a Copernican transformation: a reversal of thinking'' (Bataille 1991, 25). The reference to Copernicus makes clear that although such a reversal may be strange, it is not inconceivable. In an attempt to articulate the conceivability of reversal, Bataille traces several occurrences of the logic of abundance throughout cultural history, with the analysis of the potlatch as the most famous and important.12 As a ritual performed by indigenous people in the American northwest, the potlatch concerns the obliteration of accumulated resources for the purpose of humiliating, challenging and obligating rivals, thereby gaining rank over them. Examples of such destruction include the killing of one's own slaves, the wrecking of canoes, up to setting one's own village on fire (Bataille 1991, 67–68). Although the ritual displays a certain purposefulness and thus utility in the gaining of rank over a rival, Bataille is adamant in pointing out that ''the principle of [such utility] is nevertheless determined by a resolute squandering of resources that in theory could have been acquired'' (Bataille 1991, 72). Compared to straightforward rapine, the potlatch designates an extremely costly way of gaining profit. In short: ''There would be no potlatch if... the ultimate problem concerned the acquisition and not the dissipation of useful wealth'' (Bataille 1991, 68). Bataille interprets the potlatch as exemplifying a transgression of the restrictions of utility and scarcity, thereby manifesting the conceivability of encountering the sun's gift in terms of abundance and dissipation. The potlatch is only one of many cases that Bataille investigates along these lines. Other examples include the construction of pyramids which, to the eyes of rational economists who operate in terms of profit and efficiency, must appear ''a monumental mistake; one might just as well dig an enormous hole, then refill it and pack the ground'' (Bataille 1991, 119), and Lamaist monks who parasitize upon the 12 The Potlatch was first described by Marcel Mauss in his ethnographical studies of Native American cultures in the American northwest (cf. Mauss 2011); Bataille emphasizes its importance in a note: ''reflection on potlatch led me to formulate the laws of general economy'' (Bataille 1991, 193, note 25). The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity 123 surplus produced by Tibetan workers, dissipating it ''in contemplative life ... [which] avoids activity'' (Bataille 1991, 109). Bataille provides such examples as articulations of dissipation or expenditure of accumulated energy, which implies acknowledgement of the general economy. Without doubt, thinking in terms of abundance is peculiar: by contemporary judgment, setting one's own village on fire is nothing short of demented. Yet for Bataille, instances like the wasteful potlatch are revealing precisely because of this peculiarity. Because ''the movement it structures differs from ours, it appears stranger to us, and so it is more capable of revealing what usually escapes our perception'' (Bataille 1991, 72). This points to both the necessity and glorious conceivability of thinking the question of energy and economy in terms of abundance and dissipation. To take its necessity first, the very fact that the potlatch appears so peculiar shows that our customary mode of understanding is sturdily anchored in the restricted economy, which ''excludes in principle non-productive expenditure'' (Bataille 1985, 117). Bataille views the generalization of this customary mode of understanding as ultimately ending up in a catastrophic explosion akin to the world wars. In principally excluding the wastefulness or nonproductive expenditure such as exemplified in the potlatch, the situation in which energy appears as a good within the categories of scarcity and utility becomes generalized. Bataille observes such a generalization of the restricted economy in both colloquial understanding of economy as well as in economic science: ''The human mind reduces operations [...] to an entity based on typical particular systems [...] Economic science merely generalizes the isolated situation'' (Bataille 1991, 23). Such universalization of a specific relation between energy and economy neglects that the situation to which it corresponds is itself a particular, isolated, and restricted product of the flow of energy in the sense of the general economy. Since the restricted economy is itself literally set in operation by energy in the constitutive sense of the general economy, it is itself subject to the sun's abundant and pressurizing gift. This pressure remains unconsidered, because generalization of the restricted economy entails solely encountering energy within the categories of scarcity and utility. As a result of forgetting energy in this ontological sense, that is, of forgetting the general economy, the universalized restricted economy can only incorporate pressure by extending and must ultimately explode once extension is no longer possible. The peculiar wastefulness encountered in the potlatch teaches us something about our customary mode of understanding the relation between energy and economy, which in its generalized form leads to catastrophe. It indicates that if catastrophe is to be avoided, it is necessary to refrain from universalizing the restricted economy and instead seriously consider the peculiarity of wasteful expenditure, which is to say, to precisely transgress the restrictions of the restricted economy. As Bataille puts it: ''the extension of economic growth itself requires the overturning of economic principles'' (Bataille 1991, 25). Bataille sees a glorious alternative to catastrophe in such transgression or overturning of economic principles. It is the transgressive that constitutes an alternative: one must precisely transgress or move beyond the principles of the restricted economy that exclude wasteful expenditure in order to keep the restricted economy from its catastrophic terminus. Approaching the question of why such an J. Zwier et al. 123 alternative is thought to be glorious is best illuminated with the case of the BBE in mind. We therefore first turn to the BBE and the implications of Bataille's thought for this ideal. Afterwards, we will return to the question of the glorious alternative to catastrophe, which also turns out to be central to the BBE. The BBE from a Bataillean Perspective Bataille's thought has important implications for the BBE. We explore these implications in the present section. First, we will review the BBE in light of Bataille's conceptualization of the restricted economy and general economy. We argue that the BBE turns out to be the apex of the restricted economy. Secondly, we show how this makes the BBE vulnerable to the problems that Bataille diagnoses with regard to the restricted economy: it implicitly and wrongfully universalizes the relation between energy and economy that belongs to the restricted economy. We will see how such universalization not only leads to internal inconsistencies with respect to the ideal of the BBE but ultimately causes this ideal to undermine itself in a catastrophic way. Thirdly, we plot a trajectory in which the BBE can avoid such catastrophe. In line with Bataille, this points to a peculiarity that is necessary and glorious. We conceptualize this trajectory by claiming that the BBE is in need of a pressure valve. The BBE as Restricted Economy Bataille's thought on the relation between energy and economy is of interest for the discussion of the BBE, because the latter fully adheres to the restricted economy. This can be shown by investigating the relation to the sun on the one hand, and the themes of circularity, cascade, and zero-waste on the other. As is the case in Bataille's thought, the sun occupies a central position in the ideal of the BBE. Figure 1 depicts the BBE as a perfectly heliocentric operation where the sun constitutes the main source of energy. The relation between this source of energy and economy corresponds to the restricted economy, which is to say that the sun appears in terms of scarcity and utility. This may seem an odd claim at first, since the sun is obviously the BBE's energy source of choice precisely because it is not scarce but virtually inexhaustible. This inexhaustibility is, after all, what is to facilitate a transition from a petrol-based towards a bio-based economy. However, scarcity must presently not be taken to refer to a specific quantity of solar energy, but instead designates the category or mode in which solar energy appears. It appears as a good of which we do not have enough (scarcity) and which must therefore be produced (utility). This can be observed in the BBE's endeavor to maximize the utility-potential of solar energy. In the design of the BBE, one finds a strong demand for increase of predictability, efficiency, and control with regard to solar power and its products.13 As seen in the first section of this paper, this is 13 Cf. Birch et al. who analyze this point in terms of an intensification of the productivity of natural resources (2010, 2907), and Boyd et al. (2001) who analyze this idea of productivity in terms of the Marxian concepts of formal and real subsumption of nature. The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity 123 tantamount to optimally capturing solar energy, while at the same time rendering this energy maximally useful through circularity, cascade, and zero-waste: ''Ideally, the bio-economy should be an efficient economic system that produces no waste'' (Asveld et al. 2011a, 11). This means that even though solar energy may be abundant, one is nonetheless required to render this energy maximally useful by capturing and controlling it without any, i.e. 'zero' waste. The ideal of the BBE thus relates to the sun in terms of a need for maximum utility. In light of a Bataillean perspective, this relation appears as the relation of 'needy individuals,' and involves the understanding of the relation between energy and economy that belongs to the restricted economy. In short, if the restricted economy designates the relation between energy and economy according to which energy appears like any other good that is in demand and must therefore be produced, i.e. where reality is encountered in terms of scarcity on the one hand and utility as the compensation for scarcity on the other (Sect. ''Restricted Economy''); and if the BBE relates to energy in terms of a need for maximum (zero-waste) utility in reference to the good of energy (Sect. ''The BBE as Restricted Economy''); then it follows that this ideal of the BBE is completely oriented towards the restricted economy. The Bio-Based Catastrophe The BBE thus belongs to the restricted economy. Further, in demanding maximum utility and zero-waste, it generalizes the corresponding relation between energy and economy. It solely encounters energy as a good that must be harnessed, produced, and not wasted. This disregards energy in the ontological, constitutive sense: the ideal of the BBE forgets the general economy in favor of a universalized restricted economy. It accordingly mistakes an abundant gift for a scarce one; by exclusively focusing on utilizing the sun's gift, the BBE fails to take notice of the question where this energy is supposed to go. The consequences of this forgetfulness first of all point to an internal inconsistency within the ideal of the BBE itself, since it must deny its own demand for circularity and grow. If the BBE is prompted to maximally capture solar energy, and if nothing, i.e. zero of this energy goes to waste, then the result can only consist in ever increasing energy accumulations: a rising pressure in Bataillean terms. This increasing pressure forces the BBE to grow, but such growth is at odds with the ideal of the BBE itself. Although portrayed as a 'regenerative circular economy' (European Commission 2012b), the BBE must, by virtue of its own logic, deny this demand of circularity and increase. The mode in which solar energy is encountered leads to an increasing pressure that breaks open the closed-loop or circular system, turning it into an ever expanding spiral. Whereas one may of course argue that such economic growth is part of what the BBE is designed to achieve,14 this would mean that it is not at all envisioned to be a circular economy, but rather to 14 E.g. ''The Bioeconomy offers Europe a unique opportunity to address complex inter-connected challenges, while achieving economic growth'' (''Bioeconomy ensuring smart green growth for Europe Research European Commission'' n.d.). Retrieved January 3, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/ bioeconomy/''. J. Zwier et al. 123 incorporate particular circular production processes as constituents of an overall spiral or growth economy. Next to it being inconsistent with regard to the ideal of the BBE, the second, more problematic consequence of forgetting the general economy is that incorporation of the sun's energizing gift by means of extension cannot go on indefinitely, since the available space is limited. As became clear from the previous section, a Bataillean perspective shows how with regard to living systems ''the impossibility of continuing growth makes way for squander (Bataille 1991, 29)'' in forms of costly procreation. But the BBE cannot allow for the latter, given its adherence to zero-waste.15 The BBE must grow, and upon reaching its own limits to growth, it must let pressure build up within its restrictions. Pressure cannot be piled up interminably within a limited space: ultimately something has to give in a feat of cataclysmic explosion. The current ideal of the BBE can thus be observed to undermine its own ambition in a catastrophic way. Its ambition is to guarantee a sustainable future by becoming regenerative and circular, but regenerativity understood as zero-waste or absolute utility can only spiral out of control towards a catastrophic discharge. Based on this diagnosis, we argue that the BBE overlooks a vital and essential element: a pressure valve. In the following section, we will elaborate the meaning of this concept, as well as its implications for the BBE and the ideal of a zero-waste humanity. On the Necessity of a Pressure Valve The catastrophic self-undermining that marks the present conceptualizations of the BBE roots in a disregard of the general economy, which implies a mistaken universalization of the specific relation between energy and economy that belongs only to the restricted economy. In Bataille's words, such a mistake ''causes us to undergowhat we could bring about in our own way'' (Bataille 1991, 23). We learned from Sect. ''Georges Bataille on Economy'' how Bataille thinks that accumulating energy eventually must be spent, either catastrophically or gloriously. Against the present conceptualization of the BBE that must undergo the catastrophic variant of expenditure, we here opt for bringing about the glorious. This amounts to claiming that what is missing from the BBE as depicted in Fig. 1 is a pressure valve. Conceptually speaking, the pressure valve points to a way in which a closed, circular system that is put under pressure by the sun's giving can exhaust accumulating pressure. If the system portrayed in Fig. 1 must by virtue of its own logic (zero-waste) grow and eventually burst, a pressure valve indicates a way to deal with accumulating pressure. 15 The previously mentioned criticism regarding the scientific invalidity of zero-waste (see Sect ''Situating our Inquiry Alongside Existing Criticisms'', particularly note 7) is of no avail here: even if zero-waste is physically impossible due to the laws of thermodynamics, solar energy remains abundant. This abundance is not dispelled by the necessary loss present in every energy conversion which thermodynamics discusses. If this were the case, the economy of energy would be in equilibrium, which is not the case, as evidenced by the phenomena of growth and squander. The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity 123 Implications of the Pressure Valve for the BBE The pressure valve has four important implications for the ideal of the BBE. First of all, it signifies the acknowledgement, rather than the forgetting of the general economy. It takes seriously the idea that the relation between energy and economy as depicted in the restricted economy is not universal, but particular. That is, the situation in which energy appears as a good that is characterized by scarcity and utility is itself set in operation by energy in the constitutive sense of the general economy. The pressure valve acknowledges this and takes account of the fact that the general economy pressurizes the restricted economy and hence pressurizes the BBE. This means that if the BBE is to fulfill its ambition of working towards a sustainable future, it must incorporate the pressure valve as designating the explicit consideration of the relation between energy and economy instead of the presently manifest disregard for the question concerning this relation and its implicit restriction to the logic of the restricted economy (see Sect. ''Situating our Inquiry Alongside Existing Criticisms''). Secondly, the pressure valve signifies the necessity and conceivability of spending of the sun's accumulating gift in a non-catastrophic way. This implies allowing for wasteful expenditure of energy. It may be clear that the current ideal of the BBE cannot allow for expenditure such as witnessed in the potlatch, since the wastefulness portrayed there is antipodal to zero-waste. Yet if catastrophe is to be avoided, the BBE must find a way to include considerations that transgress the restrictions of its habitual mode of thinking that is solely based on a thinking of scarcity: it must consider energy in terms of abundance, which means that zerowaste has to be replaced with wastefulness and dissipation. For the BBE, in addition to considering the relation between energy and economy, the pressure valve further implies the overturning of zero-waste and instead admits questions of abundance, dissipation, and wastefulness. Thirdly and more concretely, the pressure valve points to a different order of the transformation of solar energy. The BBE as presently developed ultimately restricts its considerations of such transformations to scarcity and utility. The qualitative transformations of solar energy that occur in the BBE (e.g. crops and derived products, see Sect. ''What is the Bio-Based Economy?'') are considered as products or goods that are valued in the terms of scarcity (zero-waste, maximal efficiency) and utility (assurance of circularity). The pressure valve, conversely, suggests a qualitative shift regarding the transformation of solar energy, which implies moving production beyond the restricted economy. We can recognize several domains toward which the BBE can look to incorporate pressure valves as qualitatively different transformations of energy. A possible domain to which Bataille points is art. We have encountered the example of the pyramid (Sect. ''Catastrophically or Gloriously'') and can expand this to involve the arts more generally. Art and artworks can of course be considered to be transformations of energy that are understood according to a logic of scarcity and utility, i.e. as economic goods. However, they cannot, by definition, be fully comprehended as such. Artworks are never solely valuable because of their usefulness or scarcity; their signification and significance goes beyond such criteria. J. Zwier et al. 123 They are prime instances of wasteful expenditure, as exemplified by the case of the pyramid as possibly the least efficient way to bury someone. So although works of art can be seen as economic goods from the perspective of the restricted economy, they do not primarily accumulate energy in a quantitative way: they are instead the result of a glorious spending of energy. From this perspective, art can be seen as a pressure valve that prevents the catastrophic expenditure of the accumulated surpluses of energy in the BBE. This means that contrary to viewing art as cultural adornment of the economy or taking it into consideration as an aberrant fringe phenomenon, a BBE that aims to be sustainable should recognize pressure valves like art, i.e. instances of qualitative transformation and spending of accumulated energy, as an integral part of a sustainable economy.16 Another domain toward which the BBE can look for incorporation of pressure valves concerns what could be called an ethic of passivity, where the latter term does not necessarily mean the lack of any activity whatsoever, but rather the lack of an activity that reinvests its products. We have seen how Bataille gave the example of Lamaist monks (Sect. ''Catastrophically or Gloriously'') who consume a surplus without reinvesting it to the economy from which this surplus stemmed. The artist from our previous example fits this role as well. One could further think of science, although it would need to be understood as involvingmore than providing fundaments for application. Scientific knowledge and the vast expenditure of resources needed to acquire such knowledgewould thenmove beyond a valorization simply in terms of the eventual production of useful products or goods, and would rather be considered as transformations of a qualitatively different order, more akin to the arts than to instruments. On this point, philosophy and theology are suitable candidates as well. The excessiveness encountered in such an ethic of passivity constitutes a possible pressure valve for the BBE, which means that it should not simply be condemned and debarred as unproductive wastefulness, but rather be hailed as the pressure valve that a circular, regenerative economy needs. Fidelity to such an ethic of passivity quite obviously requires the Copernican transformation mentioned in Sect. ''Catastrophically or Gloriously'', and is further complicated by entailing political questions regarding which (groups or classes of) people are included in, or excluded from such an ethic. None of these issues is easily dispelled, but if the BBE needs pressure valves, and if an ethic of passivity is a good candidate for such a valve, the principle of such wastefulness (contrary to zero-waste) deserves serious consideration. While our analysis is far from exhaustive, we have given several suggestions as to how the BBE might incorporate pressure valves. Such suggestions cannot, in any simple way, be expanded to provide a full-fledged recipe for avoiding the catastrophe that the BBE faces, for the practical reason that the BBE is a project that is still in development. This means that deliberations such as the ones above should be developed alongside future discussions regarding the development of the BBE. We maintain that the concept of the pressure valve helps illustrate what is at stake and should thus be accorded a place in such discussions. However, next to this practical reason, a more fundamental reason exists. This reason points to the fourth 16 The further exploration of the role of art in our society in general and in the BBE in particular is beyond the scope of this article. The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity 123 implication of the pressure valve, which gives rise to the ethical question of a zerowaste humanity, the topic of the next and final section of this paper. The Pressure Valve as a Glorious Possibility: Beyond a zero-waste Humanity We have argued that the BBE needs a pressure valve and have indicated both what this implies and how the BBE can incorporate it. Yet the nature of this pressure valve calls for further reflection. If Bataille argues that economic growth requires the overturning of its own principles (Sect. ''Catastrophically or Gloriously''), and if we argue that the BBE needs a pressure valve (Sect. ''On the Necessity of a Pressure Valve''), we are in fact implying that what is needed is an instrument for avoiding catastrophe: the pressure valve is then considered as a safety measure. And indeed, we maintain that the BBE needs such a measure, i.e. an overturning of zero-waste in order to avoid a catastrophic terminus. Such a pressure valve is necessary, conceivable, and possibly successful in the context of the BBE. Abovementioned expenditures (arts, passivity), can be integrated into the BBE in order to deny zerowaste and occasionally release pressure, thereby guaranteeing circularity. What must be recognized is that the pressure valve thereby points to a paradox with regard to utility: the valve is useful as a safety measure precisely because it involves something wasteful, i.e. useless. Our argument for the necessity of the pressure valve involves a similar paradox, since it calls for moving beyond the restricted economy and its accompanying consciousness of necessity, but is at the same time itself framed in terms of an economy of necessity, i.e. the need to avoid catastrophe. This returns us to a question left open at the end of Sect. ''Catastrophically or Gloriously'', as it demonstrates what is at stake when Bataille speaks of the glorious, i.e. the expenditure of energy as an alternative to the catastrophic. This notion of the glorious is of particular interest for the BBE, because it gives rise to the ethical question concerning the character of humanity associated with the BBE. For Bataille, the glorious indicates the venture beyond an economy of need, as it derives its legitimacy from this transgression itself, rather than from the ultimate utility of this venture. We can return to our example of art as a pressure valve to clarify this. We have argued for the incorporation of art as a qualitatively different transformation of energy, i.e. as a pressure valve that is needed to secure the sustainability of the BBE. This means that one can recognize the useless, wasteful expenditure of energy occurring in art to ultimately have a use insofar as it helps to avoid catastrophe: the uselessness is rendered useful. Importantly, in order to see this usefulness of the useless, one must make two steps with regard to the relation between energy and economy: first, suspending the demand for zero-waste or absolute utility and acknowledging the general economy and its corresponding abundance of energy as pressure; second, recognizing that useless expenditure has its use as a pressure valve. Via these two steps, the legitimacy of art can be derived from its utility. Conversely, the glorious for Bataille derives its legitimacy and value not from an ultimate goal or use, but rather from the transgressive venture itself. It takes the first step but not the second. J. Zwier et al. 123 Bataille analyzes the glorious in terms of an experiential domain that is opened in instances of expenditure, in which utility and scarcity are of no concern. This domain specifically concerns humans, since they are involved in the transformation of vast amounts of energy (Sect. ''General Economy as Ground for the Restricted Economy'') and can be conscious of this involvement (Sect. ''Catastrophically or Gloriously''). Therefore, humans can be said to take part in the glorious, insofar as the economy of neediness can be consciously transgressed. On multiple occasions, Bataille analyzes this in terms of ecstatic and rapturous experience, for example, the experiences connected to eroticism (a wasteful practice that can never be exclusively considered in terms of efficient procreation) (cf. Bataille 1986), being moved by art, or being absorbed in (religious) festivities and rituals (cf. Bataille 1988, 1989). What these have in common is that they concern instances in which one's everyday consciousness of neediness and accompanying character as functionary of an economy of need are momentarily suspended, as one moves to an experiential domain beyond restrictions of scarcity and utility. This is called glorious precisely because it is not for the sake of something else, for future results, or to acquire ends, but rather transgresses the restrictions of necessity altogether to sovereignly exist for the sake of itself. This indicates a question for the humanity that is associated with the BBE: if the BBE needs a pressure valve, and if consideration of this pressure valve involves a transgression in the sense of a suspension of zero-waste and of acknowledgement of the general economy, then the question is how humanity living in a BBE relates to this transgression. This clearly is an ethical question, although it differs from the existing ethical questions pertaining to the BBE which generally concern matters of risk and consequences for particular groups of people (see Sect. ''Situating our Inquiry Alongside Existing Criticisms''). The ethical question raised in terms of the pressure valve concerns the character of humanity that belongs to the BBE. Must humanity belonging to the BBE be considered a zero-waste humanity? The latter's character would then come down to being a functionary or worker17 that guarantees the operations of cascade, circularity, and zero waste as portrayed in Fig. 1 (see Sect. ''What is the Bio-Based Economy?''). Based on the previous deliberations, we can say that such a zero-waste humanity existing in a zero-waste BBE is anything but sustainable. A truly sustainable BBE rather implies a wasteful humanity. The ethical question then concerns how one relates to this wastefulness. One possibility is to evaluate it by the standard of utility and see how it guarantees stability and sustainability, which would render humanity a wasteful functionary in the service of the stability of a (bio-based) economy. Yet Bataille's notion of the glorious suggests a venture beyond this as well. In terms of the glorious, wastefulness does not find its legitimacy in its ultimate utility, but points to the possibility of a domain beyond utility altogether. For the BBE, the pressure valve therefore finally involves the question of allowing for contemplation that is beyond an economy of need. This points to a 17 See for the concept of humanity as worker: Jünger, E. Der Arbeiter (Klett-Cotta: Stuttgart 1982); cf. Blok, V. Rondom de Vloedlijn. Filosofie en kunst in het machinale tijdperk. Een confrontatie tussen Heidegger en Jünger (Aspekt: Soesterberg 2005). The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity 123 radical rethinking of not only a closed-loop, zero-waste economy, but also of the humanity that exists economically.18 To be sure, such a rethinking cannot consist in simply replacing utility with wastefulness, but rather resides in accepting wastefulness as the continuation of utility, as well as accepting that this raises the ethical question of what wastefulness means for humanity. This question is important for the BBE, precisely because of its focus on absolute utility and zerowaste. In light of the above, it may be clear that this ethical question is not of the order of questions that admits a finally defined answer. Indeed, demanding a defined, ready-made answer to the question pertaining to the character of humanity that belongs to a BBE means already answering the question, as it presumes the character of humanity to ultimately be a defined or definable element existing in a closed, circular economy. Bataille's notion of glorious expenditure points to the human possibility beyond well-defined restrictions. Accordingly, the challenge that the BBE offers can then be considered to reside in the possibility of shifting from an ultimately needy, zero-waste humanity towards a humanity that accepts wastefulness and is willing to face the glorious, beyond the restrictions of need. Conclusion The argumentation presented in this paper consisted of six steps. First, we have argued that the ideal of the BBE as presently developed fully corresponds to what Bataille calls the restricted economy. Secondly, the BBE was shown to implicitly generalize a specific relation between energy and economy, implying a mode of thinking fully characterized by scarcity and utility. As a result, energy appears solely as a good to be rendered optimally useful while nothing, zero, goes to waste. Thirdly, we have argued that this forgets its own ground, a ground that Bataille articulates as the general economy within which energy appears as constitutive and abundant. Fourthly, we have shown how the general economy puts the BBE under pressure, whereas this pressure remains unseen from the perspective of the BBE. This results in an internal inconsistency within the ideal of the BBE, since economic circularity must be denied in favor of growth. This growth was in turn shown to fatally undermine the BBE's ambition of being a regenerative and circular economy. The demand for zero-waste implies that pressure can only be incorporated in growth, which means that the system must ultimately explode when growth ceases to be an option. Fifthly, we have argued that the BBE is in need of a pressure valve, which designates the need to transgress its own standards of absolute utility and zero-waste by way of wasteful expenditure. We have claimed that future discussions concerning the BBE and sustainability must take seriously this idea of a pressure valve and have indicated several directions in which this can be further developed. Sixthly, by discussing the nature of the pressure valve, we have pointed to a paradox revolving around the utility of the useless. In reference to Bataille's 18 One promising line of thought can be found in Emmanuel Levinas' concept of enjoyment, which is developed against the background of abundance and economy as well (Levinas, E., Totality and Infinity. An essay on Exteriority (Duqeusne UP: Pittsburgh 2011). The further exploration of a Levinassian concept of humanity in relation to the BBE is beyond the scope of this article. J. Zwier et al. 123 notion of the glorious, we pointed out how the pressure valve gives rise to the ethical question pertaining to the character of humanity that belongs to a BBE. The BBE offers a challenge on this point. The pressure valve that the BBE needs raises the question of our willingness to take considerations regarding economical humanity beyond an economy of need. We maintain that this challenge remains overlooked if the relation between energy and economy remains unconsidered. The implications of the notion of the pressure valve as developed in this paper may serve to bring this question into view, thereby making possible an ethical dimension that deserves consideration in future discussions regarding the BBE. This, then, is both a critique of the current conceptualizations of the BBE and at the same time an exploration of the possibility for a radical reconsideration of economy and humanity in light of a bio-based future. It is a critique insofar as we argue that because of the unobserved assumptions regarding the relation between energy and economy, the BBE is inconsistent and self-undermining. It is an exploration of the possibilities for reconsidering humanity's bio-based future insofar as we argue for the need of a pressure valve, but discover in the articulation of this latter need, a possibility to consider our neediness as such. This finally concerns the question of humanity as it asks whether a bio-based future involves a humanity fully captivated by the logic of scarcity and utility-a zero-waste humanity-or perhaps a humanity that is willing to gloriously lay to waste the restrictions in which it finds itself. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. References Asveld, L., van Est, R., & Stemerding, D. (2011a). Executive summary. Getting to the core of the bioeconomy: A perspective on the sustainable promise of biomass (pp. 11–14). The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. Asveld, L., van Est, R., & Stemerding, D. (2011b). The bio-economy: Fertile soil for policy targets. Getting to the core of the bio-economy: A perspective on the sustainable promise of biomass (pp. 17–31). The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. Bataille, G. (1976a). L'economie à la mesure de l'univers. In Oeuvres Completes: v.7: Vol 7 Later printing edition. (pp. 7–16). Paris: Gallimard-Jeunesse. Bataille, G. (1976b). La Part Maudite. Essai de économie générale. In Oeuvres Completes: v.7: Vol 7 Later printing edition. (pp. 17–179). Paris: Gallimard-Jeunesse. Bataille, G. (1985). Visions of excess: Selected writings, 1927–39 (1st ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bataille, G. (1986). Erotism: Death and sensuality (New ed.). San Francisco: City Lights Books. Bataille, G. (1988). Inner Experience (Leslie Anne Boldt, Trans.). Albany: State University of New York Press. Bataille, G. (1989). The Tears of Eros (Peter Connor, Trans.). San Francisco: City Light Books. Bataille, G. (1991). The Accursed Share: Volume 1. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Zone Books. Bioeconomy-ensuring smart green growth for Europe-Research–European Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/ Birch, K., Levidow, L., & Papaioannou, T. (2010). Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European ''Knowledge-based Bio-economy''. Sustainability, 2(9), 2898–2918. doi:10.3390/su2092898. The Ideal of a Zero-Waste Humanity 123 Blok, V., & Lemmens, L. (2015). The emerging concept of responsible innovation; Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In B. J. Koop, J. van den Hoven, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & I. Oosterlaken (Eds.), Responsible innovation, Vol 2, concepts, approaches, and applications. Dordrecht: Springer. Boyd, W., Prudham, W. S., & Schurman, R. A. (2001). Industrial dynamics and the problem of nature. Society and Natural Resources, 14(7), 555–570. doi:10.1080/08941920120686. Commission, European. (2005). New perspectives on the knowledge-based bio-economy. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. European Commission. (2012a). Innovating for sutainable growth-A bioeconomy for Europe. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/bioeconomycommunicationstrategy_b5_brochure_ web.pdf European Commission. (2012b). Manifesto for a resource-efficient Europe. Retrieved from http://europa. eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-989_en.htm Goux, J.-J. (1990). General economics and postmodern capitalism. Yale French Studies, 78, 206. doi:10. 2307/2930123. Hilgartner, S. (2007). Making the bioeconomy measurable: Politics of an emerging anticipatory machinery. BioSocieties, 2(3), 382–386. doi:10.1017/S1745855207005819. Koppejan, D., & Asveld, L. (2011). The public debate: An accumulation of controversies. Getting to the core of the bio-economy: A perspective on the sustainable promise of biomass (pp. 55–85). The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. Latham, J., & Wilson, A. (2007). Does the bio-economy add up? Retrieved August 8, 2014, from http:// www.independentsciencenews.org/un-sustainable-farming/bio-economy/ Mauss, M. (2011). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in Archaic societies. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Fine Books. McCormick, K., & Kautto, N. (2013). The bioeconomy in Europe: An overview. Sustainability, 5(6), 2589–2608. doi:10.3390/su5062589. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit. (2007). Overheidsvisie op de Bio-based Economy in de energietransitie: ''de keten sluiten.'' Parry, B. (2007). Cornering the futures market in ''Bio-epistemology''. BioSocieties, 2(03), 386–389. doi:10.1017/S1745855207005820. Pfau, S., Hagens, J., Dankbaar, B., & Smits, A. (2014). Visions of sustainability in bioeconomy research. Sustainability, 6(3), 1222–1249. doi:10.3390/su6031222. Ragauskas, A. J., Williams, C. K., Davison, B. H., Britovsek, G., Cairney, J., Eckert, C. A., & Tschaplinski, T. (2006). The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science, 311(5760), 484–489. doi:10.1126/science.1114736. Robbins, L. (1932). An essay on the nature and significance of economic science (1st ed.). London: Macmillan. Smith, A. (1976). An enquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics. Stoekl, A. (2007a). Bataille's peak: Energy, religion, and postsustainability. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Stoekl, A. (2007b). Excess and depletion: Bataille's surprisingly ethical model of Expenditure. In S. Winnubst (Ed.), Reading Bataille Now (pp. 252–282). US Department of Energy. (2011). Biomass multi Year program plan. Wubben, E., Runge, N., & Blok, V. (2012). From waste to profit: An interorganisational perspective on drivers for biomass valorisation. Journal of Chain and Network Science, 12(3), 261–272. J. Zwier et al.