The myth of sustainable development
Here is a translation of my original paper written in Spanish: "El mito del desarrollo sostenible" published in Collectanea Botanica (2010, vol. 29, pp. 103-109). The essay argues that so-called sustainable development is not an option for the conservation of nature, and is unfeasible in ecological, economic, and even in physical terms. In short: it is a myth. This paper is a call for caution before the adoption of certain personal and/or professional positions that are implicitly considered to be "politically correct" (or fashionable, which is another word for the same concept), when faced with the problem of human progress and the conservation of nature. Click here to read the paper.
Labels:
biodiversity,
conservation,
ecology,
economy,
extinction,
food security,
green revolution,
humans,
my papers,
resource exhaustion
The myth of sustainable development*
by
Valentí Rull
Palynology & Paleoecology Lab
Institut Botànic de Barcelona (IBB-CSIC)
Pg. del Migdia s/n, 08038 Barcelona, Spain
E-mail: vrull@ibb.csic.es
Introduction
This essay uses the concepts and arguments developed in previous studies (Rull, 2009,
2010a, b, c) to argue that so-called sustainable development is not the best option for
the conservation of nature, and is unfeasible in ecological, economic, and even in
physical terms. In short: it is a myth. This study is a call for caution before the adoption
of certain personal and/or professional positions that are implicitly considered to be
"politically correct" (or fashionable, which is another word for the same concept), when
faced with the problem of human progress and the conservation of nature. This paper
should be considered to be a personal opinion with the objective of promoting
discussion.
An anthropocentric concept
According to the teachings of conservation organisations, conservation proposals appear
to include both humanity and nature. It is common to read expressions such as "protect
nature for ourselves and future generations" (The Nature Conservancy), "build a future
where people live in harmony with nature" (World Wildlife Foundation), or "balance
the needs of people with the needs of the planet who cares for us" (International Union
for Conservation of Nature). Thus, the arguments of the conservationists seem to be
both philanthropic (love of mankind) and “philoteluric” (love for the Earth). However,
in reality, they are not; the real goal is to preserve the biosphere of the Earth so that
humanity can continue living within it. Thus, the love for the Earth is a function of
human survival, making these arguments essentially philanthropic.
Philanthropy is often considered a greater good for humanity and a necessary quality for
a better world (Stewart, 2000). The concept of sustainability or sustainable development
is inherently anthropocentric because its objective is the use of natural resources (also
called ecosystem services) in a rational way such that these resources are not depleted
and can still be used both by us and by future generations (WCDE, 1987). Ideally,
sustainable development involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity,
environmental quality, and social equity (Elkington, 2002). From an anthropocentric
perspective, sustainable practices are considered correct because they are beneficial to
humans, whereas anything that does not work in this manner is described, pejoratively,
as unsustainable. Thus, sustainability has become a paradigm of conservation, and the
* translated from: Rull, V. 2010. El mito del desarrollo sostenible. Collectanea
Botanica, 29: 103-109.
2
use of this word is taken to be sufficient to ensure the conservation of nature.
Unfortunately, the adjective "sustainable" is becoming a meaningless, purely rhetorical
word as it is used by any member of society, regardless of their function, socio-political
orientation, or intentions.
Conservation in practice
So-called sustainable development depends heavily on the proper ecological functioning
of natural systems, which is the only way to ensure the continuity of ecosystem services
(Dasgupta, 2010). From an ecological perspective, sustainability has been associated
with the maintenance of some key properties of ecosystems, such as biodiversity.
Indeed, high biodiversity seems to be necessary to maintain many ecological functions
and services in a changing world such as ours (Duffy, 2009). Therefore, the
conservation of biodiversity is vital for sustainability, although there is little agreement
about how to address it. Although some advocate a so-called "Zero Extinction" policy
(Parr et al., 2009), others believe that the extinction of many species is inevitable and
have proposed “conservation triage” for the efficient use of scarce resources (Bottrill et
al., 2008). Regardless, from the standpoint of sustainable development, the idea of a
domesticated natural world seems to be inevitable (Kareiva et al., 2007) and entails a
good deal of what has been termed “planetary stewardship” (Bruce, 2008).
A basic idea in current conservation proposals is the possibility of harmonising the
continuity and welfare of humanity with the conservation of nature; this has also been
called the "partnership approach” (Bruce, 2008). To enable this harmonising, it is
essential to substantially change the current model of human development (Ehrlich,
2009), with an attempt to increase sustainability. However, in practice, most
conservation efforts are aimed at minimising the impacts of continued economic and
population growth on the biosphere, such as pollution, deforestation, or the
accumulation of waste. Thus, conservation has become a palliative activity (limited to
the monitoring of the non-exceedance of arbitrary thresholds that are considered
"acceptable" or "tolerable") largely dependent on the global economic system (super
capitalism), which is based on the capitalist principles of the market economy and
consumer incentives and is ultimately the source of the means for any conservation
activity. This system is what has been called the "real world", in which the primary
endpoint (i.e., the socio-economic change that is supposedly necessary for sustainable
development) seems to be diluted into a multitude of problems to address specific
conservation issues. It is true that these cases require an adequate solution, often urgent,
and the need for more locally directed conservation is widely recognised today,
especially in relation to climate change (Power & Chapin, 2009); however, the overall
context, including the socio-economic aspects, should not be forgotten.
Another problem is the way to achieve sustainable development. At present there is
much emphasis on the process of negotiation with the representatives of the so-called
“real world” (e.g., politicians and economists), without any success. It is commonly said
that this is due to problems in communication, such that it is recommended that
scientists get involved in politics and in public disclosure (Orr, 2009). Negotiation with
supporters of the current unsustainable model is a waste of time and of energy, as has
been demonstrated repeatedly (Kyoto, Copenhagen, and so on). One must be very
naive to think that the representatives of the established model would waive the model
that has led them to where they are today, in a negotiation table. On the contrary, it is
3
likely that many scientists will see themselves unexpectedly trapped in the system they
are trying to change (Rull, 2010a). A good example is in the current trend of assigning
monetary value to biodiversity and ecological services, as well as the use of marketbased
economics as the managing tool (e.g. Redford & Adams, 2009; Sukhdev, 2009),
which, in turn, can be fatal for the biosphere.
The second recommendation, direct communication between scientists and society, is
much more realistic and promising. Today, this communication is in the hands of
journalists and the mass media, which has obvious disadvantages such as the lack of an
adequate scientific background to evaluate the reality, the reputed tendency to
sensationalise, or the fact that they and their companies are part of the politicaleconomic
game that ultimately controls the flow of information and content. The
obligation of scientists is to change the mind-set of society from the beginning to
achieve the desired social change. For example, people are not aware at all of the
important role they can play in biodiversity loss and its impacts, both globally and
locally, including aspects that can affect the health and wellness of each individual
(Power & Chapin, 2009; Money, 2010). Direct communication between science and
society is an essential component of change, one that must be pursued actively and
independently by scientists (Curry, 2009; Johns, 2009). Although this change in the
mentality requires more time than other potential solutions, it holds the promise of
having the most reliable and durable results.
The future of the Earth
According to Lozano (2008), the conceptual models of sustainable development are
usually focused on contemporary human activities and rarely factor in time; thus, there
is no consideration of the continuity and interactions between processes in the short and
long term. To place the conservation of nature in its proper time perspective, an
evolutionary view is required (Willis et al., 2007). In this context, we must not forget
that the Earth has been almost devoid of humans during most of its history. Until the
appearance of Homo sapiens 200,000 years ago (Tattersall & Schwartz, 2009), no
species had been so widely distributed and had so much influence on the planet.
Previously, changes in biodiversity occurred as a result of the natural course of
evolution, and extinction patterns were more stochastic and less dependent on the needs
of a single species. Since the emergence of humans, the model for human development
was highly sustainable until the start of the industrial age, when human development
subsequently became highly unsustainable due to the consequences of industrialisation.
This change due to industrialisation is part of the so-called "ownership approach”
(Bruce, 2008), which considers the planet to be our private farm, provided for our
enjoyment and our continuity in a state where welfare is measured by economic
development (without consideration of social equity). The key question is whether
humanity will remain forever or not. Although some claim that cultural evolution has
replaced genetic evolution in humans, the evidence points to the continuity of natural
selection, especially in relation to environmental changes (Rull, 2009). Humans have
not necessarily separated themselves from evolution, and the future may be very
different from the world as we know it. Eventually, with the continuity of evolution, the
natural world will impose its laws and the planet will be devoid of humans, not
necessarily as a result of a catastrophic collapse (whether self-induced or not) but as the
logical consequence of extinction due to natural consequences (Rull, 2009). From a
4
purely anthropocentric perspective, the fate of humanity is more important than the
preservation of nature. But the fate of nature will be very different if our legacy is a
"healthy" and diverse biosphere or if we continue promoting the current biotic
impoverishment, which some have dubbed the "sixth extinction" (Thomas, 2007).
Therefore, in the long term, we are responsible for the future of the Earth.
Why should we worry about a future world without humans? From a philanthropic
standpoint, there is no reason; however, from an philoteluric perspective, this concern is
worth attention. Everything depends on the extent of our engagement in evolutionary
selfishness. We are not only responsible for future human generations but also for all
living creatures, human or otherwise, which may evolve from us (Rull, 2009). We have
no right to deny our evolutionary descendants a reasonably healthy natural world (or
even their existence) simply because they are not human. Consequently, we are
responsible for any living being and their possible evolutionary descendants, threatened
by human development today. The conservation of nature implies not only the
preservation of the biosphere and its biodiversity for humanity now and in the future but
also the proper continuation of evolution. Philanthropic and sustainability arguments,
restricted to human interests, are not enough for this purpose.
A telurocentric view
The next step in the progress towards the conservation of nature would be to abandon
anthropocentrism and think in evolutionary terms (Rull, 2010a). As a species, this might
seem to be a waiver of our so-called ecological superiority, but as intelligent beings, we
should be able to accomplish this. So far, we have used our intelligence primarily to
understand our own existence, to prolong our lives individually, or to develop
technology that allows us to dominate the world. However, from the environmental
standpoint, we have done our best to demonstrate our stupidity (Meffe, 2009). We
should honour ourselves as intelligent animals and strive to preserve our biosphere and
allow its future development (with or without humans) as naturally as possible.
From the standpoint of the "real world", this may seem unrealistic; however, it should
not be forgotten that the authentic real world is not the ephemeral socioeconomic theatre
in which we participated as recently as a century and a half ago but is a world of
constantly changing rhythms that are of a magnitude beyond our human capacity to
regulate. The instrument we possess with which to adapt to that dynamism (the only
remedy left to us) is intelligence. In this context, the need for a socioeconomic
revolution must cease to be a rhetorical or political slogan and become
a serious and credible proposal. However, we must not forget that sustainable
development can be sufficient only if we think in human terms, limited to a
few generations; if the goal is the conservation of nature, much more is
required. Here, the necessary change is not just political or economic, as it was for
sustainable development; it also implies a profound revolution in the relationship
between science and society, regardless of other factors and social conditions.
In short, the idea of sustainable development continues to be a slightly more clever
version of the human desire, conscious or not, to continue to maintain property rights
(be it ownership, stewardship or partnership, which are ultimately the same) on planet
earth. As scientists interested in this subject, we should decide, once and for all, to work
5
seriously for the authentic preservation of nature with all of the consequences of that
decision.
Unsustainable development
Moreover, from a global environmental perspective, the idea of sustainable
development is completely unsustainable. The capitalist model of extreme development
does not account for what is called natural capital and considers nature to be
inexhaustible, something to be exploited without restraint. This model is what is called
"weak sustainability". In contrast, "strong sustainability" does consider natural resources
as something that we should be careful not to exhaust or deteriorate (Neumayer, 2003).
The supporters of the first option, which currently dominates our world, use
development indicators as crude as the accumulation of total capital or gross domestic
product (GDP), which is the indicator used to hierarchically rank countries by the
degree of development and to make a list of countries that choose to comply with
international economic policy or are "developed" (e.g., classifications such as G8), as
opposed to those that are considered to be "developing.” Advocates of strong
sustainability, however, define sustainable development as one that ensures that each
generation leaves a productive base for the next, which includes both the reproducible
capital (e.g., infrastructure, machinery, and communications) and the natural capital;
these resources should be maintained as they were when inherited from the prior
generation (Dasgupta, 2010).
However, the impossibility of unlimited growth in a system with limited resources
means that both concepts of sustainability are unrealistic “Utopian” ideas. Indeed, the
reproducible capital and the natural capital are directly related, so that any increase in
the former will decimate the latter, whether in the short or long term, either as a loss, as
pollution, or as an accumulation of waste (Rull, 2010b). When the carrying capacity of
the Earth has been reached, the insistence on a growth model of this type can result in
collapse. The question is how close or far we are from that carrying capacity. According
to Rockström et al. (2009), humanity has already broken three of the nine boundaries
that are considered critical, including the rates of climate change and biodiversity loss
and the interference with the nitrogen cycle, as nitrogen continues its progressive
accumulation in the biosphere. The latest estimates indicate that we would need 1.2
planets like ours to continue growing at our current rates (WWF, 2008) and that this
will worsen in the coming decades.
A new green revolution?
It is estimated that by 2050, nine billion humans will exist on earth. Therefore, one of
the most important problems of today is how to feed our future generations (Ash et al,
2010; Butler, 2010). To do this, a new "green revolution” has been proposed, which will
be global in this instance, with science and technology playing a key role through the
following: improvements in crop breeding and genetic modifications that increase
photosynthetic efficiency and reduce the need for fertilisers; the development of new
methods to control pests, diseases and weed control; better farming practices that reduce
the emissions of greenhouse gases (mostly methane); innovations for improving
fisheries and aquaculture techniques; new developments in nanotechnology, genomics
and electronics to optimise the use of agricultural resources; changes in diet and reduced
6
consumption of meat and dairy products; and the development of alternative sources of
proteins (The Royal Society, 2009; Beddington, 2010, Godfray et al., 2010).
At first glance, this approach appears laudable, by virtue of its philanthropic burden.
However, a deeper analysis reveals that this is not necessarily so, even for the purposes
of humanity. First, it is well known that hunger in the world is not a problem of lack of
resources but of a socio-economic imbalance created by the model of super capitalism
that, after the recent socialist fiasco, has been strengthened as an excellent global
development. For example, in 2005, an estimated 850 million people were
undernourished in the world, a figure that increased by 75 million in just two years due
to rising prices of wheat and corn, an increase due solely to market reasons
(Beddington, 2010). Thus, hunger is not so much a problem of overpopulation as intragenerational
injustice. Bodies such as the World Trade Organisation, the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank are responsible for maintaining this situation of
inequality and domination of the rich economies; the United Nations, which was created
precisely to ensure international security and human rights among other things, cannot
change the situation because it is subservient to the dictates of capital and its market
economy (Pelletier, 2010).
Moreover, if we are dragged into the proposed new green revolution to solve the
problem of the next 40 years, there is a danger of accelerating the degradation of the
planet and, perhaps worse, creating a precedent that there is always something to
exploit, encouraging the illusion that growth is always possible; thus, a new green
revolution will permit further increases in population growth (Rull, 2010b). In the end,
the planet would become a large “farmhouse,” built exclusively for human
development, with little trace of what was once called nature. From that point on, any
further development would be almost impossible. This point may not be as far-fetched
as we think. A recent study shows that between the years 1700 and 2000, the biosphere
of the earth made a decisive transition from a primarily natural state to a primarily
anthropogenic one, reaching the critical point of 50% each in the twentieth century.
Since then, the majority of biomass is predominantly anthropogenic, a trend that will
continue to increase in the future (Ellis et al., 2010). The only areas that still remain in a
more or less natural state are the deserts and the poles, for obvious reasons; once
humanity can profit from those regions, that situation will end.
Emerging Alternatives
On Earth, unlimited population and GDP growth is somewhat utopian and at some point
will have to stop. The limit is defined by the natural capital that is ultimately the origin
of any production system (everything comes from nature), no matter what economic
paradigm is in vogue. There are already some alternative proposals like the “steady
state” or "degrowth” economies (Lawn, 2010, Schneider et al., 2010). Both are based on
the principles of "ecological economics”, which highlights the importance of
interactions between the economy and the environment and the biophysical laws that
restrict human development. The basic principle comes from the laws of
thermodynamics: the amount of energy of a closed system is constant, and in any
energy transformation, useful energy is degraded into entropy. All economic activities
produce this type of degradation, which ends in energy waste and pollution,
demonstrating that the capacity of the earth to provide materials and energy for human
development is limited (Pelletier, 2010).
7
Proponents of “degrowth” believe that human progress is possible without economic
growth and suggest that a balanced decline of both production and consumption can
promote human welfare and improve ecological conditions both locally and globally,
both in the short and long term (Schneider et al., 2010). According to these proponents,
this is not an economic recession or depression or a return to a pastoral societal
structure. Today, this movement is structured from a theoretical point of view and with
concrete practical proposals as well (Martinez-Alier et al., 2010) and will require further
evolution in the near future.
Conclusions
In short, sustainable development is a fallacy. It does not guarantee the conservation of
nature and is not a viable option for human progress in the interim or long term. The
only intent of sustainable development is the development itself, guided by the
principles of super capitalism, the market economy, and consumerism (Rull, 2010c).
Although it is difficult to accept, any conservation of biodiversity, energy conservation,
pollution and waste management, recycling, or remediation performed under this
utopian model of growth is intended to maintain it, and that is how it is designed. All of
these management practices are disaster mitigation to mask the visible damage, and
thus, it is understood that development is not something counterproductive; that is, the
idea is to "change everything so that nothing will change."
Unfortunately, many good intentions get caught in this trap. Scientists and technicians
have been called to act as leaders in this endeavour, using their profession to creatively
find appropriate solutions (Beddington, 2010). However, a characteristic that should
distinguish science from other activities is that it is independent of any social,
economic, political, ideological, or religious system (Rull, 2010a). Therefore, we should
carefully consider the attitude we adopt; not only by the underlying ideological
implications but also by the possible future consequences. In my opinion, we should not
help alleviate the consequences of the capitalist development model (now disguised as
“sustainable”, a word that turns everything in something politically correct), but to help
replace this system. It is time for economic creativity; not just for a change of lifestyle
to a more "ecological" or "green“ style, as it is fashionable to speak of, but for a
profound shift in the global economic and political order. The capitalist development
model is depleting and will finish depleting our planet if we continue maintaining,
directly or indirectly, the myth of sustainability (Speth, 2009).
8
References
Ash, C., Jasny, B. R., Malakoff, D. A., Sugden, A. M. 2010. Feeding the future. Science
329: 97.
Beddington, J. 2010. Food security. Contributions from science to a new greener
revlution. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365: 61–71.
Bottrill, M. C., Joseph, L. N., Carwardine, J., Bode, M., Cook, C., Game, E. T.,
Grantham, H., Kark, S., Linke, S., McDonaled-Madden, E., Pressley, R. L., Walker,
S., Wilson, K. A. & Possingham, H.P. 2008. Is conservation triage just smart
decision making? Trends Ecol. Evol. 23: 649-654.
Bruce, D. 2008. How sustainable are we? EMBO rep. 9: S37-S40.
Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Ciollen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W.,
Almond, R. E. A., Baillie, J. E. M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter,
K. E., Carr, G. M., Chanson, J., Chennery, A. M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N. C.,
Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J. N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R. D.,
Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.
A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Hernández, M., Oldfield, Th. E. E., Pauly, D.,
Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J. R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D.,
Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrell, T. D., Vié, J.-Ch. & Watson, R. 2010.
Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328; 1164-1168.
Butler, D. 2010. What it will take to feed the world. Nature 464: 969.
Curry, S. 2009. Widen the channels of communication with society. Nature 458: 702-
703.
Dasgupta, P. 2010. Nature’s role in sustaining economic development. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. B 365: 5-11.
Duffy, J. E. 2009. Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world
ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8: 437-444.
Ehrlich, P. E. 2009. Cultural evolution and the human predicament. Trends Ecol. Evol.
24, 409-412.
Elkington, J. 2002. Cannibals with Forks. Capstone Publ., Oxford.
Ellis, E. C., Goldewijk, K. K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. & Ramankutty, N. 2010.
Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob. Ecol. Biogeog.
19: 589-606.
Godfray, H. Ch. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.
F., Pretty, J., Robinson, Sh., Thomas, S. M. & Camilla Toulmin, C. 2010. Food
security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327: 812–818.
Johns, D. 2009. The international year of biodiversity-from talk to action. Cons. Biol.
24: 338-340.
Kareiva, P., Watts, S., McDonald, R. & Boucher, T. 2007. Domesticated nature:
shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316: 1866-1869.
Lawn, P. 2010. Facilitating the transition to a steady-state economy: some
macroeconomic fundamentals. Ecol. Econ. 69: 931–936.
Lozano, R. 2008. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Cleaner Prod. 16:
1838-1846.
Martinez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F.-D. & Zaccai, E. 2010. Sustainable de-growth:
mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigma.
Ecol. Econ. 69: 1741-1747.
Meffe, G. K. 2009. Changes. Cons. Biol. 23: 1343-1345.
Mooney, H. A. 2010. The ecosystem-service chain and the biological diversity crisis.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365: 31-39.
9
Neumayer E. 2003. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two
Opposing Paradigms. E. Elgar, Cheltenham.
Orr, D. 2009. Retrospect and prospect: the unbearable lightness of conservation. Cons.
Biol. 23: 1349-1351.
Parr, M. J., Bennun, L., Boucher, T., Brooks, T., Chutas, C. A., Dinerstein, E.,
Drummond, G. M., Eken, G., Fenwick, G., Foster, M., Martínez-Gómez, J.,
Mittermeier, R. & Molur, S. 2009. Why we should aim for zero extinction. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 24: 181.
Pelletier, N. 2010. Of laws and limits: an ecological economic perspective on redressing
the failure of contemporary global environmental governance. Glob. Environ.
Change 20: 220–228.
Power, M. E. & Chapin, F. S. 2009. Planetary stewardship. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8:
399.
Redford, K. H. & Adams, W. M. 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the
challenge of saving nature. Cons. Biol. 23: 785-787.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K, Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton,
T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. F., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A.,
Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R.,
Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J.,
Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. & Foley, J. 2010. Planetary
boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for Humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14
(http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/)
Rosales, J. 2008. Economic growth, climate change, biodiversity loss: distributive
justice for the global north and south. Cons. Biol. 22: 1409-1417.
Rull, V. 2009. Beyond us. EMBO rep. 10: 1191-1195.
Rull, V. 2010a. The candid approach. EMBO rep. 11: 14-17.
Rull, V. 2010b. Who needs a greener revolution? EMBO rep. 11: 659-663.
Rull, V. 2010c. Food security: green revolution drawbacks. Science 328: 169.
Schneider, F., Kallis, G. & Martinez-Alier, J. 2010. Crisis or opportuniy? Economic
degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. J. Clean Prod. 18: 511–
518.
Speth, J. G. 2009. The Bridge at the Edge of the World. Capitalsim, the Environment,
and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Stewart, J. 2000. Evolution’s Arrow, Chapman, Canberra.
Sukhdev, P. 2009. Costing the earth. Nature 462: 277.
Tattersall, I. & Schwartz, J. H. 2009. Evolution of the genus Homo. Annu. Rev. Earth
Planet. Sci. 37: 67-92.
The Royal Society. 2009. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable
Intensification of Global Agriculture. The Royal Society, London.
Thomas, CD. 2007. A sixth mass extinction? Nature 450: 349.
WCDE. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
Willis K. J., Araújo, M. B., Bennett, K. D., Figueroa-Rangel, B., Froyd, C. A. & Myers,
N. 2007. How can knowledge of the past help to conserve the future? Biodiversity
conservation and the relevance of long-term ecological studies. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. B 362: 175-186.
WWF. 2008. Living Planet Report. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
by
Valentí Rull
Palynology & Paleoecology Lab
Institut Botànic de Barcelona (IBB-CSIC)
Pg. del Migdia s/n, 08038 Barcelona, Spain
E-mail: vrull@ibb.csic.es
Introduction
This essay uses the concepts and arguments developed in previous studies (Rull, 2009,
2010a, b, c) to argue that so-called sustainable development is not the best option for
the conservation of nature, and is unfeasible in ecological, economic, and even in
physical terms. In short: it is a myth. This study is a call for caution before the adoption
of certain personal and/or professional positions that are implicitly considered to be
"politically correct" (or fashionable, which is another word for the same concept), when
faced with the problem of human progress and the conservation of nature. This paper
should be considered to be a personal opinion with the objective of promoting
discussion.
An anthropocentric concept
According to the teachings of conservation organisations, conservation proposals appear
to include both humanity and nature. It is common to read expressions such as "protect
nature for ourselves and future generations" (The Nature Conservancy), "build a future
where people live in harmony with nature" (World Wildlife Foundation), or "balance
the needs of people with the needs of the planet who cares for us" (International Union
for Conservation of Nature). Thus, the arguments of the conservationists seem to be
both philanthropic (love of mankind) and “philoteluric” (love for the Earth). However,
in reality, they are not; the real goal is to preserve the biosphere of the Earth so that
humanity can continue living within it. Thus, the love for the Earth is a function of
human survival, making these arguments essentially philanthropic.
Philanthropy is often considered a greater good for humanity and a necessary quality for
a better world (Stewart, 2000). The concept of sustainability or sustainable development
is inherently anthropocentric because its objective is the use of natural resources (also
called ecosystem services) in a rational way such that these resources are not depleted
and can still be used both by us and by future generations (WCDE, 1987). Ideally,
sustainable development involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity,
environmental quality, and social equity (Elkington, 2002). From an anthropocentric
perspective, sustainable practices are considered correct because they are beneficial to
humans, whereas anything that does not work in this manner is described, pejoratively,
as unsustainable. Thus, sustainability has become a paradigm of conservation, and the
* translated from: Rull, V. 2010. El mito del desarrollo sostenible. Collectanea
Botanica, 29: 103-109.
2
use of this word is taken to be sufficient to ensure the conservation of nature.
Unfortunately, the adjective "sustainable" is becoming a meaningless, purely rhetorical
word as it is used by any member of society, regardless of their function, socio-political
orientation, or intentions.
Conservation in practice
So-called sustainable development depends heavily on the proper ecological functioning
of natural systems, which is the only way to ensure the continuity of ecosystem services
(Dasgupta, 2010). From an ecological perspective, sustainability has been associated
with the maintenance of some key properties of ecosystems, such as biodiversity.
Indeed, high biodiversity seems to be necessary to maintain many ecological functions
and services in a changing world such as ours (Duffy, 2009). Therefore, the
conservation of biodiversity is vital for sustainability, although there is little agreement
about how to address it. Although some advocate a so-called "Zero Extinction" policy
(Parr et al., 2009), others believe that the extinction of many species is inevitable and
have proposed “conservation triage” for the efficient use of scarce resources (Bottrill et
al., 2008). Regardless, from the standpoint of sustainable development, the idea of a
domesticated natural world seems to be inevitable (Kareiva et al., 2007) and entails a
good deal of what has been termed “planetary stewardship” (Bruce, 2008).
A basic idea in current conservation proposals is the possibility of harmonising the
continuity and welfare of humanity with the conservation of nature; this has also been
called the "partnership approach” (Bruce, 2008). To enable this harmonising, it is
essential to substantially change the current model of human development (Ehrlich,
2009), with an attempt to increase sustainability. However, in practice, most
conservation efforts are aimed at minimising the impacts of continued economic and
population growth on the biosphere, such as pollution, deforestation, or the
accumulation of waste. Thus, conservation has become a palliative activity (limited to
the monitoring of the non-exceedance of arbitrary thresholds that are considered
"acceptable" or "tolerable") largely dependent on the global economic system (super
capitalism), which is based on the capitalist principles of the market economy and
consumer incentives and is ultimately the source of the means for any conservation
activity. This system is what has been called the "real world", in which the primary
endpoint (i.e., the socio-economic change that is supposedly necessary for sustainable
development) seems to be diluted into a multitude of problems to address specific
conservation issues. It is true that these cases require an adequate solution, often urgent,
and the need for more locally directed conservation is widely recognised today,
especially in relation to climate change (Power & Chapin, 2009); however, the overall
context, including the socio-economic aspects, should not be forgotten.
Another problem is the way to achieve sustainable development. At present there is
much emphasis on the process of negotiation with the representatives of the so-called
“real world” (e.g., politicians and economists), without any success. It is commonly said
that this is due to problems in communication, such that it is recommended that
scientists get involved in politics and in public disclosure (Orr, 2009). Negotiation with
supporters of the current unsustainable model is a waste of time and of energy, as has
been demonstrated repeatedly (Kyoto, Copenhagen, and so on). One must be very
naive to think that the representatives of the established model would waive the model
that has led them to where they are today, in a negotiation table. On the contrary, it is
3
likely that many scientists will see themselves unexpectedly trapped in the system they
are trying to change (Rull, 2010a). A good example is in the current trend of assigning
monetary value to biodiversity and ecological services, as well as the use of marketbased
economics as the managing tool (e.g. Redford & Adams, 2009; Sukhdev, 2009),
which, in turn, can be fatal for the biosphere.
The second recommendation, direct communication between scientists and society, is
much more realistic and promising. Today, this communication is in the hands of
journalists and the mass media, which has obvious disadvantages such as the lack of an
adequate scientific background to evaluate the reality, the reputed tendency to
sensationalise, or the fact that they and their companies are part of the politicaleconomic
game that ultimately controls the flow of information and content. The
obligation of scientists is to change the mind-set of society from the beginning to
achieve the desired social change. For example, people are not aware at all of the
important role they can play in biodiversity loss and its impacts, both globally and
locally, including aspects that can affect the health and wellness of each individual
(Power & Chapin, 2009; Money, 2010). Direct communication between science and
society is an essential component of change, one that must be pursued actively and
independently by scientists (Curry, 2009; Johns, 2009). Although this change in the
mentality requires more time than other potential solutions, it holds the promise of
having the most reliable and durable results.
The future of the Earth
According to Lozano (2008), the conceptual models of sustainable development are
usually focused on contemporary human activities and rarely factor in time; thus, there
is no consideration of the continuity and interactions between processes in the short and
long term. To place the conservation of nature in its proper time perspective, an
evolutionary view is required (Willis et al., 2007). In this context, we must not forget
that the Earth has been almost devoid of humans during most of its history. Until the
appearance of Homo sapiens 200,000 years ago (Tattersall & Schwartz, 2009), no
species had been so widely distributed and had so much influence on the planet.
Previously, changes in biodiversity occurred as a result of the natural course of
evolution, and extinction patterns were more stochastic and less dependent on the needs
of a single species. Since the emergence of humans, the model for human development
was highly sustainable until the start of the industrial age, when human development
subsequently became highly unsustainable due to the consequences of industrialisation.
This change due to industrialisation is part of the so-called "ownership approach”
(Bruce, 2008), which considers the planet to be our private farm, provided for our
enjoyment and our continuity in a state where welfare is measured by economic
development (without consideration of social equity). The key question is whether
humanity will remain forever or not. Although some claim that cultural evolution has
replaced genetic evolution in humans, the evidence points to the continuity of natural
selection, especially in relation to environmental changes (Rull, 2009). Humans have
not necessarily separated themselves from evolution, and the future may be very
different from the world as we know it. Eventually, with the continuity of evolution, the
natural world will impose its laws and the planet will be devoid of humans, not
necessarily as a result of a catastrophic collapse (whether self-induced or not) but as the
logical consequence of extinction due to natural consequences (Rull, 2009). From a
4
purely anthropocentric perspective, the fate of humanity is more important than the
preservation of nature. But the fate of nature will be very different if our legacy is a
"healthy" and diverse biosphere or if we continue promoting the current biotic
impoverishment, which some have dubbed the "sixth extinction" (Thomas, 2007).
Therefore, in the long term, we are responsible for the future of the Earth.
Why should we worry about a future world without humans? From a philanthropic
standpoint, there is no reason; however, from an philoteluric perspective, this concern is
worth attention. Everything depends on the extent of our engagement in evolutionary
selfishness. We are not only responsible for future human generations but also for all
living creatures, human or otherwise, which may evolve from us (Rull, 2009). We have
no right to deny our evolutionary descendants a reasonably healthy natural world (or
even their existence) simply because they are not human. Consequently, we are
responsible for any living being and their possible evolutionary descendants, threatened
by human development today. The conservation of nature implies not only the
preservation of the biosphere and its biodiversity for humanity now and in the future but
also the proper continuation of evolution. Philanthropic and sustainability arguments,
restricted to human interests, are not enough for this purpose.
A telurocentric view
The next step in the progress towards the conservation of nature would be to abandon
anthropocentrism and think in evolutionary terms (Rull, 2010a). As a species, this might
seem to be a waiver of our so-called ecological superiority, but as intelligent beings, we
should be able to accomplish this. So far, we have used our intelligence primarily to
understand our own existence, to prolong our lives individually, or to develop
technology that allows us to dominate the world. However, from the environmental
standpoint, we have done our best to demonstrate our stupidity (Meffe, 2009). We
should honour ourselves as intelligent animals and strive to preserve our biosphere and
allow its future development (with or without humans) as naturally as possible.
From the standpoint of the "real world", this may seem unrealistic; however, it should
not be forgotten that the authentic real world is not the ephemeral socioeconomic theatre
in which we participated as recently as a century and a half ago but is a world of
constantly changing rhythms that are of a magnitude beyond our human capacity to
regulate. The instrument we possess with which to adapt to that dynamism (the only
remedy left to us) is intelligence. In this context, the need for a socioeconomic
revolution must cease to be a rhetorical or political slogan and become
a serious and credible proposal. However, we must not forget that sustainable
development can be sufficient only if we think in human terms, limited to a
few generations; if the goal is the conservation of nature, much more is
required. Here, the necessary change is not just political or economic, as it was for
sustainable development; it also implies a profound revolution in the relationship
between science and society, regardless of other factors and social conditions.
In short, the idea of sustainable development continues to be a slightly more clever
version of the human desire, conscious or not, to continue to maintain property rights
(be it ownership, stewardship or partnership, which are ultimately the same) on planet
earth. As scientists interested in this subject, we should decide, once and for all, to work
5
seriously for the authentic preservation of nature with all of the consequences of that
decision.
Unsustainable development
Moreover, from a global environmental perspective, the idea of sustainable
development is completely unsustainable. The capitalist model of extreme development
does not account for what is called natural capital and considers nature to be
inexhaustible, something to be exploited without restraint. This model is what is called
"weak sustainability". In contrast, "strong sustainability" does consider natural resources
as something that we should be careful not to exhaust or deteriorate (Neumayer, 2003).
The supporters of the first option, which currently dominates our world, use
development indicators as crude as the accumulation of total capital or gross domestic
product (GDP), which is the indicator used to hierarchically rank countries by the
degree of development and to make a list of countries that choose to comply with
international economic policy or are "developed" (e.g., classifications such as G8), as
opposed to those that are considered to be "developing.” Advocates of strong
sustainability, however, define sustainable development as one that ensures that each
generation leaves a productive base for the next, which includes both the reproducible
capital (e.g., infrastructure, machinery, and communications) and the natural capital;
these resources should be maintained as they were when inherited from the prior
generation (Dasgupta, 2010).
However, the impossibility of unlimited growth in a system with limited resources
means that both concepts of sustainability are unrealistic “Utopian” ideas. Indeed, the
reproducible capital and the natural capital are directly related, so that any increase in
the former will decimate the latter, whether in the short or long term, either as a loss, as
pollution, or as an accumulation of waste (Rull, 2010b). When the carrying capacity of
the Earth has been reached, the insistence on a growth model of this type can result in
collapse. The question is how close or far we are from that carrying capacity. According
to Rockström et al. (2009), humanity has already broken three of the nine boundaries
that are considered critical, including the rates of climate change and biodiversity loss
and the interference with the nitrogen cycle, as nitrogen continues its progressive
accumulation in the biosphere. The latest estimates indicate that we would need 1.2
planets like ours to continue growing at our current rates (WWF, 2008) and that this
will worsen in the coming decades.
A new green revolution?
It is estimated that by 2050, nine billion humans will exist on earth. Therefore, one of
the most important problems of today is how to feed our future generations (Ash et al,
2010; Butler, 2010). To do this, a new "green revolution” has been proposed, which will
be global in this instance, with science and technology playing a key role through the
following: improvements in crop breeding and genetic modifications that increase
photosynthetic efficiency and reduce the need for fertilisers; the development of new
methods to control pests, diseases and weed control; better farming practices that reduce
the emissions of greenhouse gases (mostly methane); innovations for improving
fisheries and aquaculture techniques; new developments in nanotechnology, genomics
and electronics to optimise the use of agricultural resources; changes in diet and reduced
6
consumption of meat and dairy products; and the development of alternative sources of
proteins (The Royal Society, 2009; Beddington, 2010, Godfray et al., 2010).
At first glance, this approach appears laudable, by virtue of its philanthropic burden.
However, a deeper analysis reveals that this is not necessarily so, even for the purposes
of humanity. First, it is well known that hunger in the world is not a problem of lack of
resources but of a socio-economic imbalance created by the model of super capitalism
that, after the recent socialist fiasco, has been strengthened as an excellent global
development. For example, in 2005, an estimated 850 million people were
undernourished in the world, a figure that increased by 75 million in just two years due
to rising prices of wheat and corn, an increase due solely to market reasons
(Beddington, 2010). Thus, hunger is not so much a problem of overpopulation as intragenerational
injustice. Bodies such as the World Trade Organisation, the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank are responsible for maintaining this situation of
inequality and domination of the rich economies; the United Nations, which was created
precisely to ensure international security and human rights among other things, cannot
change the situation because it is subservient to the dictates of capital and its market
economy (Pelletier, 2010).
Moreover, if we are dragged into the proposed new green revolution to solve the
problem of the next 40 years, there is a danger of accelerating the degradation of the
planet and, perhaps worse, creating a precedent that there is always something to
exploit, encouraging the illusion that growth is always possible; thus, a new green
revolution will permit further increases in population growth (Rull, 2010b). In the end,
the planet would become a large “farmhouse,” built exclusively for human
development, with little trace of what was once called nature. From that point on, any
further development would be almost impossible. This point may not be as far-fetched
as we think. A recent study shows that between the years 1700 and 2000, the biosphere
of the earth made a decisive transition from a primarily natural state to a primarily
anthropogenic one, reaching the critical point of 50% each in the twentieth century.
Since then, the majority of biomass is predominantly anthropogenic, a trend that will
continue to increase in the future (Ellis et al., 2010). The only areas that still remain in a
more or less natural state are the deserts and the poles, for obvious reasons; once
humanity can profit from those regions, that situation will end.
Emerging Alternatives
On Earth, unlimited population and GDP growth is somewhat utopian and at some point
will have to stop. The limit is defined by the natural capital that is ultimately the origin
of any production system (everything comes from nature), no matter what economic
paradigm is in vogue. There are already some alternative proposals like the “steady
state” or "degrowth” economies (Lawn, 2010, Schneider et al., 2010). Both are based on
the principles of "ecological economics”, which highlights the importance of
interactions between the economy and the environment and the biophysical laws that
restrict human development. The basic principle comes from the laws of
thermodynamics: the amount of energy of a closed system is constant, and in any
energy transformation, useful energy is degraded into entropy. All economic activities
produce this type of degradation, which ends in energy waste and pollution,
demonstrating that the capacity of the earth to provide materials and energy for human
development is limited (Pelletier, 2010).
7
Proponents of “degrowth” believe that human progress is possible without economic
growth and suggest that a balanced decline of both production and consumption can
promote human welfare and improve ecological conditions both locally and globally,
both in the short and long term (Schneider et al., 2010). According to these proponents,
this is not an economic recession or depression or a return to a pastoral societal
structure. Today, this movement is structured from a theoretical point of view and with
concrete practical proposals as well (Martinez-Alier et al., 2010) and will require further
evolution in the near future.
Conclusions
In short, sustainable development is a fallacy. It does not guarantee the conservation of
nature and is not a viable option for human progress in the interim or long term. The
only intent of sustainable development is the development itself, guided by the
principles of super capitalism, the market economy, and consumerism (Rull, 2010c).
Although it is difficult to accept, any conservation of biodiversity, energy conservation,
pollution and waste management, recycling, or remediation performed under this
utopian model of growth is intended to maintain it, and that is how it is designed. All of
these management practices are disaster mitigation to mask the visible damage, and
thus, it is understood that development is not something counterproductive; that is, the
idea is to "change everything so that nothing will change."
Unfortunately, many good intentions get caught in this trap. Scientists and technicians
have been called to act as leaders in this endeavour, using their profession to creatively
find appropriate solutions (Beddington, 2010). However, a characteristic that should
distinguish science from other activities is that it is independent of any social,
economic, political, ideological, or religious system (Rull, 2010a). Therefore, we should
carefully consider the attitude we adopt; not only by the underlying ideological
implications but also by the possible future consequences. In my opinion, we should not
help alleviate the consequences of the capitalist development model (now disguised as
“sustainable”, a word that turns everything in something politically correct), but to help
replace this system. It is time for economic creativity; not just for a change of lifestyle
to a more "ecological" or "green“ style, as it is fashionable to speak of, but for a
profound shift in the global economic and political order. The capitalist development
model is depleting and will finish depleting our planet if we continue maintaining,
directly or indirectly, the myth of sustainability (Speth, 2009).
8
References
Ash, C., Jasny, B. R., Malakoff, D. A., Sugden, A. M. 2010. Feeding the future. Science
329: 97.
Beddington, J. 2010. Food security. Contributions from science to a new greener
revlution. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365: 61–71.
Bottrill, M. C., Joseph, L. N., Carwardine, J., Bode, M., Cook, C., Game, E. T.,
Grantham, H., Kark, S., Linke, S., McDonaled-Madden, E., Pressley, R. L., Walker,
S., Wilson, K. A. & Possingham, H.P. 2008. Is conservation triage just smart
decision making? Trends Ecol. Evol. 23: 649-654.
Bruce, D. 2008. How sustainable are we? EMBO rep. 9: S37-S40.
Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Ciollen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W.,
Almond, R. E. A., Baillie, J. E. M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter,
K. E., Carr, G. M., Chanson, J., Chennery, A. M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N. C.,
Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J. N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R. D.,
Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.
A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Hernández, M., Oldfield, Th. E. E., Pauly, D.,
Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J. R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D.,
Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrell, T. D., Vié, J.-Ch. & Watson, R. 2010.
Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328; 1164-1168.
Butler, D. 2010. What it will take to feed the world. Nature 464: 969.
Curry, S. 2009. Widen the channels of communication with society. Nature 458: 702-
703.
Dasgupta, P. 2010. Nature’s role in sustaining economic development. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. B 365: 5-11.
Duffy, J. E. 2009. Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world
ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8: 437-444.
Ehrlich, P. E. 2009. Cultural evolution and the human predicament. Trends Ecol. Evol.
24, 409-412.
Elkington, J. 2002. Cannibals with Forks. Capstone Publ., Oxford.
Ellis, E. C., Goldewijk, K. K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. & Ramankutty, N. 2010.
Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob. Ecol. Biogeog.
19: 589-606.
Godfray, H. Ch. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.
F., Pretty, J., Robinson, Sh., Thomas, S. M. & Camilla Toulmin, C. 2010. Food
security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327: 812–818.
Johns, D. 2009. The international year of biodiversity-from talk to action. Cons. Biol.
24: 338-340.
Kareiva, P., Watts, S., McDonald, R. & Boucher, T. 2007. Domesticated nature:
shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316: 1866-1869.
Lawn, P. 2010. Facilitating the transition to a steady-state economy: some
macroeconomic fundamentals. Ecol. Econ. 69: 931–936.
Lozano, R. 2008. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Cleaner Prod. 16:
1838-1846.
Martinez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F.-D. & Zaccai, E. 2010. Sustainable de-growth:
mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigma.
Ecol. Econ. 69: 1741-1747.
Meffe, G. K. 2009. Changes. Cons. Biol. 23: 1343-1345.
Mooney, H. A. 2010. The ecosystem-service chain and the biological diversity crisis.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365: 31-39.
9
Neumayer E. 2003. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two
Opposing Paradigms. E. Elgar, Cheltenham.
Orr, D. 2009. Retrospect and prospect: the unbearable lightness of conservation. Cons.
Biol. 23: 1349-1351.
Parr, M. J., Bennun, L., Boucher, T., Brooks, T., Chutas, C. A., Dinerstein, E.,
Drummond, G. M., Eken, G., Fenwick, G., Foster, M., Martínez-Gómez, J.,
Mittermeier, R. & Molur, S. 2009. Why we should aim for zero extinction. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 24: 181.
Pelletier, N. 2010. Of laws and limits: an ecological economic perspective on redressing
the failure of contemporary global environmental governance. Glob. Environ.
Change 20: 220–228.
Power, M. E. & Chapin, F. S. 2009. Planetary stewardship. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8:
399.
Redford, K. H. & Adams, W. M. 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the
challenge of saving nature. Cons. Biol. 23: 785-787.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K, Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton,
T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. F., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A.,
Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R.,
Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J.,
Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. & Foley, J. 2010. Planetary
boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for Humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14
(http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/)
Rosales, J. 2008. Economic growth, climate change, biodiversity loss: distributive
justice for the global north and south. Cons. Biol. 22: 1409-1417.
Rull, V. 2009. Beyond us. EMBO rep. 10: 1191-1195.
Rull, V. 2010a. The candid approach. EMBO rep. 11: 14-17.
Rull, V. 2010b. Who needs a greener revolution? EMBO rep. 11: 659-663.
Rull, V. 2010c. Food security: green revolution drawbacks. Science 328: 169.
Schneider, F., Kallis, G. & Martinez-Alier, J. 2010. Crisis or opportuniy? Economic
degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. J. Clean Prod. 18: 511–
518.
Speth, J. G. 2009. The Bridge at the Edge of the World. Capitalsim, the Environment,
and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Stewart, J. 2000. Evolution’s Arrow, Chapman, Canberra.
Sukhdev, P. 2009. Costing the earth. Nature 462: 277.
Tattersall, I. & Schwartz, J. H. 2009. Evolution of the genus Homo. Annu. Rev. Earth
Planet. Sci. 37: 67-92.
The Royal Society. 2009. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable
Intensification of Global Agriculture. The Royal Society, London.
Thomas, CD. 2007. A sixth mass extinction? Nature 450: 349.
WCDE. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
Willis K. J., Araújo, M. B., Bennett, K. D., Figueroa-Rangel, B., Froyd, C. A. & Myers,
N. 2007. How can knowledge of the past help to conserve the future? Biodiversity
conservation and the relevance of long-term ecological studies. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. B 362: 175-186.
WWF. 2008. Living Planet Report. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Importante assunto que esta na minha linha de apoio a natureza. E naturalmente so levado a protestar à grupos de criminosos.
ResponderExcluirEu digo: "Minha alma está elevada porque eu não consigo matar inseto, animal e eu estou consciente que muitos seres humanos estão fora desse assunto quando criaturas ´irracionais´de paz estão ´chorando´por ajuda dos direitos deles para serem livres de circus, atrações zoologicas, caças por esporte, toreadas, etc., e muitos ainda aplaudem os shows -- por ilusão."
Thomas Jefferson (3 pres.USA) disse: "O povo livre reivindicam seus direitos como derivado da lei da natureza, e não como o presente do magistrado chefe deles".
E John F. Kennedy citou para não esquecer-mos:
"O maior inimigo da verdade é com muita frerquência não a mentira -- deliberada, tramada e desonesta; mas o MITO -- persistente, difundido e não realístico."