Thank you for your comment so my ESD Idea submission. Below my reactions to your comments.

COMMENT: “the ideas presented here are not original, the paper is largely a shorter version of a paper the author published only in July of this year in Environmental Sociology (a paper he cites in this manuscript). Given this, I don't see a rationale for re-publishing the ideas in this venue”

RESPONSE: There are two dimensions that are worth noting relating the criticism on the lack of originality of this paper, which I disagree for the following reasons:

CONCEPTUAL ORIGINALITY:

• The paper introduces for the first time the distinction between relative and absolute tipping points. This distinction was not mentioned either in the paper published in Environmental Sociology (Tàbara 2023). The paper argues that the former refer to those tipping points which are sectorial and/or limited in scope -but may eventually create rebound effects or increase resource scarcities and inequalities in a given system of reference- whilst the later refer to those that contribute to improving both social and biophysical conditions in a self-propelling synergistic way in a give system of reference. I would like to know if anyone working on positive tipping points research has ever made such distinction before the time I submitted this paper -otherwise, I would say that such distinction is an original contribution.
• The paper also introduces the idea of global regenerative systems, which is also a novel concept that was not mentioned either in the paper published in Environmental Sociology. Based on the research and on Global Systems Science (see Jaeger et al., 2013), this idea is based that global systems can be interlinked and constituted in regenerative ways. Again, I would appreciate if anyone working in global systems science knows of anybody who that has ever introduced this concept before, and if not, I would argue that this is also an original conceptual innovation of this ESD idea.

ORIGINALITY REGARDING COMMUNICATIVE AND SYNTHESIS POWER OF FIGURE 1:

• Figure 1 is original not only because it constitutes a conceptual synthesis of a large number of theoretical and empirical arguments (sociologically-grounded ones; and yes, expressed in the paper already published in Env. Soc.) but also because it is also intended to provide one-single communication tool that can be used in stakeholder dialogues, engagement and consultations. It is therefore original because it merges in only one image the ideas of regenerative development pathways, relative/absolute tipping points, and the implications of these in achieving or failing to realise a safe and just corridor for humanity following the related Earth Commission arguments. The originality of this image lies onto the extent that it constitutes a step further in applying the Occum’s razon principle of scientific (and communicative) parsimony of explaining the largest complexity of social-ecological phenomena relevant for achieving global sustainability with the smallest number possible of explanatory elements. And such synthesis, bringing both social and natural scientists’ arguments has not been depicted before.
• Furthermore, and similar to the idea that ‘all models are wrong but some are more useful than others’ such a synthetic image is not – and cannot be, as it is not intended to be- a truthful depiction of reality (nor it is either the MLP one on transitions or any other on safe and just corridor for humanity; we must avoid the naturalist fallacy of confusing models from reality or deriving normative precepts from them, only reflexive ones). In making critical visualisations aimed to help reflexivity and prompt urgent actions to avoid the worse outcomes of current existential risks, we can only hope that such images -and intend to express in plain language the very complex ideas behind them- which are will be useful ones.
• But last and not least the crucial aspect regarding the originality of that figure has to do with underlying the critical role to equity and justice in achieving positive tipping points across different levels of action, and ultimately at global systems levels. In my view, no synthetic single figure has been provided thus far underlying such critical role of equity and justice in yielding positive tipping points in global systems dynamics (or negative one in the case of inequalities and justice; even in a recent report on ‘super leverage points’ the issues of equity and justice were not addressed either).
• Thus, and for those researchers or anyone interested to further learn about its conceptual background - and perhaps use it for their own stakeholder engagement and dialogues on safe and just corridors for humanity or also at local level with thinking about tipping points-, people can freely use it and download it here:

Tàbara, J. D., Kovacs, E., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S.,  and Ryan, S. (2023). Conceptual Framework: Transformative pathways for synergising just biodiversity and climate actions. Deliverable D.1.1. EU Horizon Europe TRANSPATH Project. (October 31st 2023). Available here : https://transpath.eu/library?type=1&sort=title+asc&search=# 

(This report is mostly based on transformations research, but that it also contains an introductory discussion of both leverage and tipping points, with a focus on net-positive biodiversity-climate tipping points)

COMMENT ON POPULATION in Figure1: “This figure is also the least convincing contribution of this manuscript, as I find it very confusing. In particular, one could interpret it in the way that it suggest increasing world population is part of the solution as the green arrow goes in the same direction as the world population arrow and I guess this interpretation was not intended by the author. On the other hand the figure seems to suggest that a world population of 6 billion is intrinsically bad? I don’t think the dimension of world population is necessary or helpful in the graphic, but without it the figure is basically identical to the figure 2 in the original paper”.

RESPONSE:

• According to the UN World Population prospects 2022 (UN 2023) world population will possibly reach 10 billion people by 2050, could still continue to grow for few decades and then could level off or start to decline by the end of the century (and it could actually reach 6 billion by 2200). Among other reasons, including the populations numbers in the figure is to underline that things will inevitably change and that current strategies thinking about global systems and sustainability need to take into account such structural factors, as positive / negative tipping dynamics are also dependent on social-ecological systems’ scale.
• However, the number of people that there will be in the world is not an indication at all about how much Ecospace (Gupta et al. 2023) there will be available to secure dignified life conditions for the generations living then. The only thing that we can know is that the available Ecospace in the future will be dependent onto the extent we are able to create the fair and synergistic necessary institutional arrangements and policies to share and expand such Ecospace in a fair way, e.g., following principles of transformative and Earth Systems’ justice. In my view, regenerative sustainability strategies and pathways can contribute to this (aspirational) global positive tipping point represented in the figure.
• In this sense, in the figure provided,the population numbers do not say anything about whether they increase or reduction will be good or bad. The paper explicitly rejects Malthusian arguments of any variety as population change is not considered a direct driver that can lead to either a positive or negative trajectory towards positive tipping point; but only a structural parameter that needs to be taken into account when thinking about the future. Because inevitably, and following systems’ thinking perspective, always in complex systems ‘more is different’.
• Therefore, this figure only intends to trigger discussions on how different we want the future the world to be then (e.g., how positive or negative) in contrast to the present conditions. In other words, the figure only wants to underline that: (1) equity issues cannot be omitted in the discussion on tipping points (2) population trends cannot be omitted either when thinking about global tipping points (as the future will be inevitably be different by the time the world reaches 10 billion people, and also later) and (3) that moving towards and safe a just development corridor for humanity depends on transforming social-ecological interactions currently leading to negative tipping points and relative positive tipping points in absolute, net-positive tipping points.

COMMENT: “Another more substantive criticism is that this framework is maybe too ambitious, trying to solve all world problems at once. While I think the framework is good as an aspirational guide, it can also risk to overwhelm people and hence lead to disengagement, hence i think it is important to communicate the aspirational nature of this framework, but also to provide some guidelines for how to set priorities when goals conflict.”

RESPONSE: Thanks for letting me aware of this possible interpretation of the figure. However, this figure does not aim to solve any problem. It is only intended to be a reflexive tool that, in a single snapshot, can help people to trigger a discussion and be aware of some of the basic changing conditions and the requirements that need to be considered if we wish to contribute to net-positive sustainable development trajectories across personal, local and global levels. How these net-positive outcomes will be achieved, e.g., by implementing win-win solutions at local levels, will always be different and unique in different places (Tàbara et al. 2019), although the challenge for transdisciplinary research is to map out how positive synergies across social-ecological scales can be enacted.

Regarding the second comment, it is true that this image has an inspirational motive and its aspirational nature could indeed be further emphasised -so this can be easily done. It is also true that it could be possible to provide further guidelines for how to set priorities when goals conflict. Regarding the later, this is implicit in the figure and overall argumentation on regenerative sustainability and Earth System Justice: when goals conflict, those that can most contribute to long-term regenerative and just outcomes should be chosen. However, as argued in the paper, further research is needed to further operationalise all this in particular contexts of action to just begin to provide such guidelines.

COMMENT: while I agree that identifying "who is part of the solution" is important, I would caution that it could lead to exclusionary practices. How should we engage with those who are not/don't want to be part of the solution? At least acknowledging the conflict potential here is important. 

RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. Indeed, one of the origins of the positive tipping points narrative as originally presented in Tàbara et al. (2018) was already developed in a series of previous research efforts over a decade ago that led, among other things, to recognise the need to turn the dominant climate policy discourses then dominated win-lose game or burden-sharing narrative into win-win ones. We acknowledged that ‘those who not/don’t want to be part of the solution’, however may be interested in being part of the benefits of strategies capable to synergise environmental and economic gains. As argued in a book edited together with Nobel Prize and Climate scientist Klaus Hasselman (Jaeger et al., 2012;), as positive tipping point can also be understood as the moment in which, within a game, a needed defective win-lose strategy turns into a collaborative, win-win one, so the system can then be move to a better-off system attractor (Tàbara et al., 2013). So one way to engage ‘those who not/don’t want to be part of the solution’ can be by trying to develop engaging transformative narratives (Hinkel et al. 2018) in which these non-collaborative agent can find opportunities to be part of short-term, individual gains; all that which is also implicit in the framing on regenerative sustainability.

COMMENT: I wonder whether the author should maybe try and develop the ideas presented in this manuscript and originally in the paper in Environmental Sociology further, maybe as a proposed framework for what should follow after the SDGs in 2030? 

RESPONSE: Thanks for the suggestion. Indeed, this framework is intended to be further elaborated at least on two fronts in the https://transpath.eu/ project. First, by providing specific quantitative indicators showing both actual and potential synergies between social and biophysical improvements in particular social-ecological systems and across levels of action, e.g., to support net-positive biodiversity-climate tipping points (Tàbara et al. 2023); and second, by exploring the possibilities to translate such figure into a participatory tool or role game to support stakeholders’ engagement and deliberative processes. As always, I’ll be happy to engage enthusiastic and transformation-oriented researchers on this endeavour and can easily contact me to further explore potential collaborations. Because this is only the beginning of an (in my view, original) idea.

QUERY TO JOURNAL EDITORS:

As a personal query, I wonder if final decisions to publish on this journal can depend or are final depending on one single opinion, or else additional reviewers are needed; and in particular, with regard to contributions coming from the social sciences, whether additional assessments from social scientists are needed to take final decisions on publishing in Earth System Dynamics.

POSTSCRIPT:

Thank you for letting further reflect on the significance of the submitted paper. This discussion reinforces even more my life-long standing view that are all in a common journey to find not only scientific facts about how the compound effects of global environmental risks will lead to the demise of our civilisations; but most critically, in a race find and create simple, engaging and deliberative tools and methods to support transformative narratives of hope able to enact fast sustainability learning and action. Scientists -neither natural or social- cannot do that alone, so collaborative, win-win visions and images are urgently needed. Time will say if this original image can be useful and eventually be used for these transformative purposes in particular contexts of action and decision-making.

REFERENCES:

Gupta J., Prodani K., Bai X.,  Gifford L., Lenton T.,  Otto I., Pereira L. Rammelt C., Scholtens J., Tàbara J.D., 2023. Earth system boundaries and Earth system justice: Sharing our ecospace. Environmental Politics. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2023.2234794

Hinkel, J., Mangalagiu, D., Bisaro, A. and Tàbara J. D. 2020. Transformative narratives for climate action. Climatic Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02761-y

Jaeger, C. C., Hasselmann, K., Leipold, G., Mangalagiu, D., and Tàbara, J. D. 2012. Reframing the Problem of Climate Change: From Zero Sum Game to Win-Win Solutions. Oxon, UK, New York, USA & Canada: Earthscan and Taylor and Francis.

Jaeger, C., Jansson, P., Van der Leeuw, S., Resch, M., Tàbara, J. D. and R. Dum (Eds.). 2013. Global Systems Science Orientation paper. Background Material and Synthesis. http://global-systems-science.org/gss-research-programe/

Tàbara, J.D., Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Pedde, S. Lamperti, F.  Kok, K., Christensen, J.H., Jäger, J., and Berry, P. 2018. Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Special Issue on Sustainability Governance and Transformation, 31: 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.012

Tàbara, J.D., Takama T., Mishra, M., Hermanus L., Andrew S.K., Diaz P., Ziervogel G. and Lemkow L. 2019. Micro-solutions to global problems. Understanding social processes to eradicate energy poverty and build climate resilient livelihoods. Climatic Change, 1-15 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02448-z

Tàbara, J. D., Mangalagiu, D., Kupers, R., Jaeger, C. C., Mandel, A., Paroussos, L. 2013. Transformative targets in sustainability policy-making: the case of the 30% EU mitigation goal. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(8): 1180 - 1191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.716365

United Nations World Population prospects 2022.  https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/900 ; visited 06 November 2023.

Thank very much for your comment and orthographic corrections that I will include if the paper if finally accepted.

COMMENT: Nice summary of the need for more than doing more than just “less harm” (line 60) and that movement toward positive synergisms is critical.  The explanation is tight and clear.  The discussion of what constitutes “positive” is important and I agree with the author that we have to first get right the whole-life support systems.  The short piece is timely, provocative, and worth publishing. 

RESPONSE: Thank you for this positive reaction, as the reviewer is absolutely correct in underlying two of the key messages that this ESD idea was intended convey.  

COMMENT: A self-organized, self-regenerative system inherently has a lot of indirect benefits (mutualism, see Fath 2007 EcoMod).  While, yes, we must repair the cases where links that provide those synergies are lost, perhaps more expediently we should stop removing the remaining links critical to the existing synergies.  Perhaps overall it is too late to just focus on do no harm and active restoration is needed to move back into safe regimes, but let’s start by not making things worse

RESPONSE:

Thanks again for this reference, which I found very relevant and inspiring for any attempt aimed at modelling positive tipping points using such whole-life systems perspective. I particularly enjoyed the systematisation and further formal treatment of the nine possible binary network relations and its application to the various examples provided in the paper. I particular endorse the statement provided in its summary which seems to further reinforce the points that I tried to make in my contribution, in that ‘all objects in an ecological network are related … and … interact with and influence the others in the web: there are no null community-level relations’. But furthermore, what I found especially relevant in this context is the insight on what we could call ‘positive emergence’ and that the author refers to as network mutualism: ‘community-level relations usually have a greater occurrence of mutualism than competition making them more positive than the direct relations that produced them’. Hence a challenge for research is unveil both theoretically and empirically how to build the transformative conditions and how to unleash the forces that make such systems’ mutualism possible, because after all this is what is meant by net-positive tipping points at large systems level (A paper that will be cited in the next version of this draft indeed).

And it is also absolutely true that we should stop removing and destroying the remaining links that are critical to maintaining the biosphere functional integrity. In this regard, I also believe we have to do both: not making thing worse as you put it (like stopping deforestation and reducing GHG emissions) but also take also urgent action to restore the already degraded ecological systems that make human life possible on earth. Hence, it includes both strategies and pathways. In this sense, the regenerative narrative goes beyond ecological restoration because it is mostly a relational social-ecological approach that could inspire transformative actions across individuals, organisations and large systems and includes many cultural, political and lifestyle dimensions and ecological interactions not limited to those biophysical relationships traditionally studied by natural scientists.

COMMENT: Another comment is on Figure 1.  It is hard, if not impossible, to show so many dimensions in 2D, but I really don’t get how the green arrow continues upward, even in Q1, if human population is increasing to 10B and beyond.  This seems at odds with the discussion on lines 56-58.   More detail on the conditions of the quartiles would be helpful (although I understand it is a perspectives paper). One other comment regards the sudden interest in regeneration, when I think understanding generation is still an interesting and useful question. 

RESPONSE: Thanks, the figure 1 has been modified and the arrow at the end of two-valley shape line has been eliminated, because as you and also another reviewer rightly pointed out, this was misleading. This line was not intended to have a direction and it was a design mistake. This two-valley shape only represents two possible system’s attractors: one towards degenerative development pathways (with greater inequalities, less governance capacities as well as reduced ecospace and worsening environmental conditions), and the other towards a regenerative one (in which self-regenerative cycles both in social and biophysical conditions are made possible, among other reasons by supporting those mutualistic relationships that are mentioned in your recommended paper).

Also, in the new figure the word ‘circles’ have been modified by ‘cycles’. Given that this is only a very short communication (an ‘ESD idea’) it is not possible to elaborate much on the conditions of the different quartiles -although some of these reasonings can be found in Tàbara (2023) and also  the literature on resilience focusing on the synergies between improvements in social systems and biophysical systems in the area of regeneration is relevant in this regard, and in fact, growing very fast, see, for instance: Smithwick, E. A. H., et al. 2023. Regenerative landscape design: an integrative framework to enhance sustainability planning. Ecology and Society 28(4):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14483-280405 )

And definitively, understanding generation is also an interesting and useful question that would need to be addressed when trying to understand and gain insights on regeneration! Similar to the previous comment both tasks are needed.

COMMENT: This paper advances an idea of tipping towards global regenerative systems departing from an earlier paper by the author. The author distinguishes between absolute and relative tipping dynamics based on the boundary conditions of the system in concern and highlights the importance of fair, just and regenerative tipping. Generally, I agree with the premise if this paper and I regard this as a significant contribution to the tipping points discourse.

RESPONSE:

Thanks for this first overall assessment and for considering this a significant contribution to the tipping point discourse.

COMMENT: (Major concern): As well founded in the scientific scholarships by now, tipping dynamics refer to abrupt and rapid self-perpetuating changes triggered by small nudges and enabling conditions, which distinguishes itself from gradual changes and transformation (Milkoreit, 2023). While the idea establishes the ambition of long-term changes, the dynamics of tipping are absent. How would the transformation to regenerative systems manifest in an abrupt and self-perpetuating manner? What are the reinforcing feedbacks and what could be the enabling factors and agency? Most importantly, how would these dynamics avoid falling into the degenerative, unfair and unjust potholes? I would suggest that the author revise this manuscript by including those dynamics to justify this as a tipping and not gradual transformation.

RESPONSE:

Thanks very much for this reaction. You raise a series of very fair points and elaborating on the dynamics of tipping in social-ecological systems in this very short contribution was omission from my side. I can mend this omission in a revised version of the paper with an added text along these lines:

1. The overall idea behind the idea of a positive tipping point toward global regenerative development pathway is that, if it ever comes to happen, it must be built on the conditions generated by endless numbers of positive tipping points a lower system’ levels (as argued in Tàbara et al. 2018, and Tàbara et al. 2019, see refs. in first review response) and the quadrants at the basis of the 3D figure intend to represents these complex system dynamics at lower levels.
2. More problematic in social systems is to find indicators and assess the level of abruptness (and speed), which is related to how time scales are considered (e.g., by the actual agents of a system and researchers, which entails thinking about positionality) and how qualitative changes occur in a particular system of reference. In my view, fundamental changes in social-ecological systems (‘fundamental’ is what distinguishes transformations from other kind of changes) may not necessarily emerge from single or disconnected rapid events; but may be result of relatively slow, non-linear dynamics and multiple converging processes that create (in policy, deliberately) the previous transformative conditions for tipping. It is then, when that at one point a relatively small additional force of change (or policy intervention) may induce the system to tip towards a new system’s attractor and dynamic conditions. In other words, without the building of the previous transformative conditions and despite the occurrence of an abrupt event that may create a window of opportunity for systemic transformation, such transformation eventually may not occur. An example of this is the relatively recent events observed in Chile: a small increase in the public transport fees triggered a major (and abrupt) uprise and protest that led to a process to change the national Constitution with the intention to expand many new rights to larger and more diverse populations, including indigenous groups (see Heiss 2021; Arias-Loyola 2021). However, it can be argued that the country eventually failed to approve such new Constitution, which had a much transformative character, because the previous conditions for change, that often take many decades to build, were not in place in the first instance.
3. Regarding the self-perpetuating manner of fundamental changes, it is important to note that in social systems, transformations must eventually entail tangible outcomes in the form of institutional innovations and reconfigurations and governance capacities (e.g., ‘changing the rules of the game’, e.g., a Constitution, but also institutional capacities to implement them). Securing access to education to women, eradicating child labour or slavery or the implementation of workers’ rights are to me fundamental beneficial changes which are ‘perpetuated’ only to the extent that the agents involved in these institutions are able to create the endogenous conditions for continuously institutional learning, accountability and innovation. These fundamental institutional changes are also related to fundamental changes in worldviews and values, like tolerance to gender diversity, which at one (tipping) point become institutionalised and guaranteed as human / fundamental/ collective rights.
4. With respect to the reinforcing feedbacks that would lead to the building of new enabling factors and transformative agency, these definitely have to do with social learning, or in the case of social-ecological systems, with sustainability learning (Tàbara & Pahl-Wostl 2007, Tàbara 2014). In this regard, this requires not only learning to do more or less the same but faster and more efficiently; but to learn how to collectively act differently and in more attuned ways with the dynamics of biophysical systems by interpreting the world through a different paradigm (second and third order learning, see also Palh-Woslt, 2009). Hence my suggestion simply is that the regenerative sustainability paradigm could serve to unleash such transformative potential for positive tipping at global level -because at the end, those factors have to do with worldviews that extend and provide new cognitive and moral ways to perceive, evaluate and prescribe the world around us -e.g., using a whole-life systems perspective as argued in this short ESD idea.
5. Last but not least, your question on how these dynamics would avoid falling into a degenerative, unfair and unjust potholes is also very relevant. I don’t think anybody has the ultimate answer for this -nor the opposite. We know, however -and only as example from ecosystems research- how certain complex systems collapse after certain thresholds (see https://www.regimeshifts.org/) and these processes can be irreversible, so answers to these questions need to be context-specific. Only by linking theoretical and empirical research we may eventually get a clearer picture of how both positive and negative dynamics in complex socio-ecological system operate in the real world, and how those dynamics occurring a lower-system levels may eventually support the possible emergence of a regenerative tipping point at global level. My contribution is only a call for further research -including open, transdisciplinary, co-production knowledge processes and debates- to try to gain robust insights about these critical questions. And also, to argue that transformative and engaging narratives such as those related to regenerative sustainability could help in this regard.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments. 

COMMENT: (Major concern): Many of what this paper outlines align well with the frameworks developed for achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), e.g. The SDG Wedding Cake (SRC, 2016), Triple Bottom Line of sustainable development (Elkington, 1997) and SDG Theme Indicator (Labuschagne et al., 2005). However, there is no reference to any of these frameworks in the paper nor there is an indication how this paper advances on those already developed framework and include them in the tipping points discourse. I reckon that this paper has the opportunity to build on those frameworks and advance them for a more rigorous tipping points discourse.

RESPONSE:

Given that this contribution is clearly about sustainability, I could have indeed mentioned these frameworks -and many others- which over time have tried to operationalised sustainable development in ways that can be used and be acceptable for policy makers, businesses and other practitioners. Among those you mention, the SDG Wedding cake which situates the biosphere and the SDG6, SDG13, SDG14 and SDG15 at the basis of the other SDG is of particular relevance, because it underlines the fundamental dependence between these ones with the rest of SDGs - and can be mentioned in a revised version.   

However, my reading of many of these frameworks (which have had very important engaging functions) is that they have so far mostly focused on processes; and also, in achieving relative sustainability improvements, e.g., doing less harm of a given product, service or organisation rather than on achieving net-positive outcomes at large-systems level -e.g., ensuring global systems restoration and biosphere integral functionality (e.g., look for instance, at the ‘things to do in the UN SGD website on climate: https://www.globalgoals.org/goals/13-climate-action/; or on life on land: https://www.globalgoals.org/take-action/; which in many case also lead to rebound effects and are not able to overcome the Jevons paradox). This is precisely in this sense how the perspective offered in this short piece advances these approaches that you mention: not only by acknowledging the need for relative improvements in each of these SDGs -and I know the SDGs come as an indivisible package- but also by providing a (meta-)synthesis that emphasises the need for net-positive gains in terms of contributing in absolute terms to global social-ecological systems long-term regeneration and viability. Hence the conceptual advance here is twofold, in terms of a major synthesis and in its emphasis on net-positive outcomes (after all, biosphere does not care about relative GHG emissions, only about absolute global ones).

I can mention and further elaborate on these suggested frameworks in the next version of the paper, but given that this is only a short ESD idea and not a full research or review paper, I would prefer just to limit my text to briefly add the aforementioned points.  

COMMENT: (Minor concern): The figure represents two types of changes, i.e. inevitable changes in the population axis and desirable changes in the two other axes. It's important to distinguish between these types of changes in the figure and illustrating text. The tipping doesn't drive the global population rise rather transforms the global systems into regeneration adjusting to the inevitable global population increase.

RESPONSE:

Indeed, on the one hand, the figure shows the existing trends in population growth, which follows a global system inertia and that according to existing projections will possibly reach 10 billion around 2050 (the exact date is irrelevant for the sake of the main argument, but not the total amount for the already mentioned reason that ‘more’ will be inevitably be ‘different’). On the other hand, the figure was not intended to depict -at least explicitly- ‘desirable’ changes but only plausible ones. Of course, one attractor or scenario is more desirable than the other, but the main message was only to underline that both degenerative and regenerative futures are plausible. But as mentioned, the ultimate forces for positive change towards a regenerative future will not come from population growth per se but from the capacity of actors to endogenously learn how to create positive synergies among social-ecological system across individual, organisational and large scale levels towards a (necessary, in my view) regenerative vision of the world.

Such (mis)interpretation of desirability may have come from my design mistake of having put an arrow at the end in the two-valley line (and the fact that in my mind of course I wish this to be the case!...) which I will mend and I can further clarify this in the text.

Cited references:

Arias-Loyola, M. 2021. Evade neoliberalism’s turnstiles! Lessons from the Chilean Estallido Social. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(4), 599-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X21997832

Heiss, C. 2021. Latin America Erupts: Re-founding Chile. Journal of Democracy, 32(3):33-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2021.0032

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change. 19:354–365; doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

Tàbara, J. D. and C. Pahl-Wostl, 2007. Sustainability Learning in Natural Resource Use and Management. Ecology and Society, 12 (2): 3. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/viewissue.php?sf=28 ; http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-02063-120203

Tàbara, J. D. 2014. Social learning to cope with global environmental change and unsustainability. In: Stewart Lockie, David A. Sonnenfeld, and Dana R. Fisher (eds). The Routledge International Handbook of Social and Environmental Change. London and New York: Routledge, pages 253-265. http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415782791/