Universality of sustainability and non-equilibrium

The universality of the concepts of sustainability and non-equilibrium

All life concern about sustainability, their own long term survival and reproduction. All life need to extract external resources to sustain themselves. Resources are predominantly substances that are in non-equilibrium states with the environment. The concepts of sustainability and non-equilibrium states are in the genes of all life, including human beings. We all understand sustainability and non-equilibrium states in spirit, if not in exact letters.

Any researchers who do not focus on climbing academic ladder, which are next to none, understand sustainability and non-equilibrium states. Even people working on equilibrium theory, such as Arrow and Debreu, by proving the existence of equilibrium only under “clearly unrealistic” conditions, support non-equilibrium theory indirectly.

Thermodynamics does not “progress” from equilibrium theory to non-equilibrium theory. The very first major idea in thermodynamics, Carnot’s efficiency, is about non-equilibrium systems. This is because the typical thermodynamic problems in real life are non-equilibrium problems.

Since a thermodynamic equation is of first order in temporal dimension, social and biological systems as thermodynamic systems are intrinsically evolutionary and dynamic, which is very different from the static view of general equilibrium theory. Given the dynamic nature of our economic activities, one may wonder why an equilibrium theory becomes the dominant paradigm in economics. Schumpeter apparently anticipated such a question when he discussed the concept of equilibrium:

Now, an observer fresh from Mars might excusably think that the human mind, inspired by experience, would start analysis with the relatively concrete and then, as more subtle relations reveal themselves, proceed to the relatively abstract, that is to say, to start from dynamic relations and then proceed to working out the static ones. But this has not been so in any field of scientific endeavor whatsoever: always static theory has historically preceded dynamic theory and the reasons for this seem to be as obvious as they are sound --- static theory is much simpler to work out; its propositions are easier to prove; and it seems closer to (logical) essentials. The history of economic analysis is no exception. (Schumpeter, 1954, p. 964)

Neoclassical economics was founded around 1870 by Jevons, Walras and others, who believed that economics should be built on a sound physical foundation. When neoclassical economics germinated in the 1870s, work on statistical mechanics by Boltzmann happened to appear in the same decade. However it was more than thirty years later that Boltzmann’s theory was generally accepted by the physicist community. Since the dominant platform of physics in Jevons and Walras’ time was Newtonian mechanics, it was natural for them to adopt this platform. However, Jevons clearly pointed out that "I believe that dynamical branches of the Science of Economy may remain to be developed, on the consideration of which I have not at all entered." (Jevons, 1957, p. vii)

It is under the continuous intimidation by the ruling class that the equilibrium theory becomes the ruling idea.