I would go with a multidisciplinary approach and not remain "disciplinary" on this question, as many disciplines (notably economics and sociology) have contributed. Normally, one speaks of "weak" and "strong" sustainability, although the Uruguayan sociologist Edgar Gudynas has proposed and advocated "super strong" sustainability. The neoclassical economist Robert Solow has presented a position that goes with weak sustainability, in that he sees it  suficient if the activity does not compromise the total "stock" of capital (industrial, financial, technological and natural), covering the loss of capital in one dimension with the growth of another form. This argument relies on a monetarization of nature and a belief in the wisdom of markets.

  Strong sustainability adopts a dynamic view of the interaction of the ecosystem with the economic system, seeing the latter dependent on the former and human activity as part of the ecosystem. This view obviously has spatial implications in recognizing that such concepts as the carrying capacity of a given territory limits (or enhances) its possibilities.

Super strong sustainability adopts a biocentric posture in contrast to the anthropocentric one of the first two positions, rejecting the concept of "natural capital" altogether. It draws on indigenous concepts of the rights of nature and the need for solidarity and cooperation among human beings. In Latin American thought, this tendency is resumed in the concept of "Buen Vivir" or "Vivir Bien," most closely allied with Andean philosophy.

The Spanish economist José Manuel Naredo, among others, has pointed out the the concept of "sustainable development" is an ideology laden one that appears to seek to bridge the gap between those advocating continued growth (developmentalists) and those concerned with conservation and preservation (environmentalists) that began to heat up about the time of the Bruntland report, which first introduced the term.

Andrea Schuman

Center for Scientific and Social Studies. Mérida Yucatán MX

Dear Emanuel,

I do not work on environment, but , I believe, if you look through anthro-socio-historical works on environment you will find a lot of discussion on sustainability. Two authors I am reminded about from the Indian context are Madhav Gadgil and Ramachandra Guha. One book by book Ramachandra Guha is How Much Should A Person Consume?: Thinking Through The Environment. Permanent Black. New Delhi (published in 2006).

Multi-disciplinary discourse on post-development has a lot about sustainability. Its focus on decentralization, focus on local community and resources along with yearning for autonomy of local from global has a lot to of important strands that take us towards sustainability. Wolfgang Sachs, Majid Rahnema, Ashish Nandy, Ivan Illich etc. are important contributors in this field. There is a reader on post-development edited by Majid Rahnema and V. Bawtree. There are many other books/articles on post-development.

I think there is remarkable similarity in ways we understand sustainability even if it is unsaid/not-stated explicitly. Even a neo-classical economist  will not have any different view with regard to definition of sustainability from that of environment/sustainability  enthusiasts. Disagreements come to fore when we start strategizing / acting how to approach sustainability.

Hope it helps!

Best Regards

Mukul Kumar

Dear Emanuel,

regarding anthropologists who worked on the concept of sustainability, you might find the attached review of interest. The author mentions that in anthropology there isn't too much work on sustainability, (additional suggestions welcome).

Best

Frithiof

Article Groping toward Sustainability:The Logic of Sufficiency