View - ResearchGate

Article 35293what they should be, is seriously deficient. Moreover, no societies are sufficiently far advancedin sustainable practices to serve as role models for either ecological literacy or sustainableuse of the planet. Environmental literacy must be developed to the point that itenables both sustainable development and protection of self-regulating ecosystems and providesadequate ecological subsidies when restoration to a self-regulating condition is notpossible.ReverenceScientific results will always contain some uncertainty since they are probabilistic estimatesbased on evidence that is rarely perfect. If humankind revered (held in great regard) natural systems,it would be inclined to do everything possible to protect their health and integrity andrestore them if evidence indicated this was desirable. Using good judgment, living responsibly,and feeling compassion for other life forms and living members of the human species and theirdescendants are the sine qua non of sustainable use of the planet. Humankind must have a reverencefor these attributes because they are essential to the sound value judgments needed tocomplement scientific evidence. In short, humankind needs to stop managing the planet as if itwere a multinational corporation and manage societal practices to protect something societyreveres (i.e. natural systems). Humankind needs natural systems more than they need humans,although those who believe in no limits to growth, no such concept as carrying capacity, and noresource limits, think otherwise. The problem has been that replacing the failed systems with economicgrowth as the primary goal, rather than sustainable use of the planet, may not be veryeffective long term.Part of the problem is confusion about sustainability. In 1948, my mentor Ruth Patrickdescribed the ideal relationship of humankind with natural systems as ‘use without abuse.’ Thesethree words say it all. Humans are part of the interdependent web of life, so it is inherent to interact,or ‘use’ it. Abusing the web will tear its fabric and harm humankind. Brown et al. (1990)described a sustainable society as one that satisfies its needs without jeopardizing the prospectsof future generations. Although the authors clearly intend the protection and reverence for naturalsystems, this intent should have been explicitly stated in the primary definition. The quest for sustainabilityrequires that humankind revere natural systems if only because it is dependent uponthem. The widely cited Brundtland report (World Commission on Environment and Development1987) states that development is sustainable if it meets the needs of the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their own needs. However, the report does notadequately stress humankind’s dependence on the planet’s ecological life-support system, norsuch important ecological concepts as carrying capacity or a nonlinear response after an importantecological threshold has been crossed. Revering the needs of natural systems is a prerequisitefor meeting the needs of future generations of the human species. As Orr (1992) remarked,the World Commission hedged its bets between two versions of sustainability: (1) technologicalsustainability (can human society achieve sustainability through better technologies and moreaccurate prices?) and (2) ecological sustainability (finding alternatives to the practices thatharmed ecosystem integrity). The second, ecological sustainability, requires that humans revere(hold in great regard) both the structure and function of natural systems. There is no reason why amutualistic relationship between the two systems cannot be developed, but the needs of the ecologicalsystems must be given at least as much attention as the needs of the technological/economicsystem.