The article presents the architect's attitude towards the paradigms of sustainable development. The place and role of the architect in the implementation of the multidimensional process of sustainable design has been presented. Basic dilemmas and antinomies have been presented. The analysis of architect's attitudes towards these problems was performed in various contexts, examining the architect's awareness and his environment in view of changes under way. The article draws attention to the status of knowledge, changes in design paradigms, legislative and organizational requirements. The importance of architectural culture level, the need for training, ways to support the implementation of new design paradigms through integrated activities have been indicated. The research results regarding public awareness of architecture and sustainable development are illustrated with examples from Poland.

Software project complexity increases day by day because the software engineering products is being used in the solution of more technically difficult problem and the size of project continuous to grow. The increase complexity causes to high numbers of software project failures in term of time, cost and quality. The main question regarding to this problem is how to handle or cope with this complexity. There is no single way to handle this, software engineer uses different perspective to handle complexity without affecting the overall project performance. A management perspective recognizes that the success of complex project requires good project management. A technically perspective reveals new paradigms for software development i.e.; object oriented and formal methods etc. and software engineer also look for automation perspective in order to reduce the complexity issues. In this paper we will find out the main software project complexity factors by focusing on the management aspects of software project development and also the problems of managing complexity in software engineering products from these different perspectives. The paper is divided in three main sections; paradigms of software development, project management in term of time, cost and quality and third one is automated support that includes methods and tools used to manage the complexity.

We introduce and analyse a simple formal thought experiment designed to reflect a qualitative decision dilemma humanity might currently face in view of climate change. In it, each generation can choose between just two options, either setting humanity on a pathway to certain high wellbeing after one generation of suffering, or leaving the next generation in the same state as this one with the same options, but facing a continuous risk of permanent collapse. We analyse this abstract setup regarding the question of what the right choice would be both in a rationality-based framework including optimal control, welfare economics and game theory, and by means of other approaches based on the notions of responsibility, safe operating spaces, and sustainability paradigms. Despite the simplicity of the setup, we find a large diversity and disagreement of assessments both between and within these different approaches.

Commons and food are experiencing a revival in recent years and yet the links between both are almost absent in academic and political discourses. Commons are often portrayed as historical and yet innovative governing mechanisms that can challenge the State-Market hegemony. On the other side, food is both a relevant agent of change and a major driver of planetary destruction, being thus cause and solution to multiple crises that affect humankind. Departing from the commodification of food as one root cause of the broken global food system, this text firstly situates and discusses the different schools of thought (or epistemologies) that have addressed the private/public, commodity/commons nature of goods in general, and then explores how those schools have considered food in particular. To do so, the author has defined five epistemologies, four academic (economic, legal, historical and political) and one non-academic (grassroots activists). The analysis highlights how those epistemologies have yielded incommensurable understandings and conflicting vocabularies, hence creating confusion in the socio-political realm and even rejection around the idea of food being considered as a commons. The economic epistemic regard has reigned over the others by applying an approach to commons, public and private goods that is theoretical, reductionist and ontological instead of phenomenological, therefore preventing or obscuring other scholarly or practical understanding of commons. When applied to food, the iron law of economics dictated that food, a private good based on rivalry and excludability, shall be better allocated through market mechanisms with absolute proprietary rights and valued as a pure commodity. This reductionist view collides with the plurality of meanings of food in different societies, civilisations and historical periods, as other schools of thought indicate. The author uses diverse epistemic tools to re-construct food as a commons, based on its essentiality to human beings and societies and the customary and contemporary praxis to produce, consume and govern food collectively through non-market mechanisms for more than 2000 centuries. As commoning has instituting power to create different political and legal frameworks, if food is valued differently the entire architecture of the global food system would change, as the grassroots activist school claims. Re-commoning food defies the legal and political scaffoldings that sustain the hegemony of market and state decision-makers over eaters and food producers and informs sustainable forms of food production (agro-ecology), new collective practices of governance (food democracies) and alternative policies to regain control over the food system (food sovereignty). Food as a commons is an agent of change with transformative power, no matter what economists say.