I am persuaded that sustainability means dealing with permanent paradoxes and opposing perspectives, like greek philosophers anticipated. One of them is related to the focus in which the global sustainability challenge should be centered: should it be centered in the "human" needs or in the "nature" conservation? Perhaps, in a new complementary "human-in-nature" perspective resulting from a dialectic process?
Not unless the patriarchal mindset of "dominion" is superseded by a more egalitarian mindset of solidarity that includes the "human-in-nature" perspective.
http://pelicanweb.org
Hi Jose,
I believe you are on the right track. Humans are a part of the biosphere and are dependent on the environment for their mere survival. It would be useful to remember, we did not create the air we breathe (atmosphere), the water than constitutes 70% of the human body (hydrosphere) and the land we live on (lithosphere). These natural privileges are something every human being inherits when they are born. It is really a utopian thought to believe we can exist without the environment. Our anthropocentricism and false sense of superiority has resulted in creation of global anthropocentric systems which are detrimental to natural systems. Given this fact, I believe the argument ought to be how can we adapt ourselves to nature rather than conjuring up ways to force nature to adapt to us. At the end of the day, every system (in this case, the earth) will try to attain its lowest energy state (a basic scientific truth) and will do everything necessary to reduce the imbalance created, primarily by humans (resulting in natural calamities globally). All our anthropocentric systems as on date combined are unable to prevent such global calamities which indicates that we are not really as superior as we believe. Thus I think the way ahead is for the human race to understand this simple fact and readjust all global systems in line with this truth. Please feel free to revert with your views.
To Luis:
Thank you very much for your answer. I absolutely agree with you. We need a new paradigm of solidarity which is more about "personal conversion" than "impersonal charity". But, as you know, this change cannot be forced, it is a personal choice. How can we reconcile the time needed for that "humble transformation" with the urgency to change the behavioural patterns that are killing our planet?
To Indrajt:
Thank you very much for your answer. Again, I agree with you. The ill superiority that humankind is imposing on life is at the roots of all the problems. But, once again, I am worried about the urgency. We are on a hurry and of course we need a personal adaptation to nature, but we also need a social evolution towards a more rational pattern of consumption. Probably it is only a temporary step, but it is mandatory... The question is how can we achieve it? How can we combine a personal and a social evolution towards a new relationship between humankind and earth?
Indeed, we don't have an infinite amount of time to evolve a new cultural paradigm of solidarity and sustainability. Given that all mitigation initiatives are failing miserably, adaptation will be required; and given the human propensity to resistance to change, the adaptation may be imposed by increasingly severe ecological constraints. Let's hope that not much suffering and violence will be required to induce "humble transformation." As far as I know, there is no "magic bullet" to convince people about the urgency of the situation.
- Badges
- Science topic