Re-defining Sustainability: Living in Harmony with Life on Earth

Abstract

The increasing frequency of extreme weather events, urban air pollution, and contamination of oceans by plastic waste have dramatically increased awareness that human civilization faces an existential environmental crisis. Here, we argue that the way humankind views its place on planet Earth is the cause of this crisis and of the reluctance to take meaningful and urgent action. This view gives humans the right to exploit everything on Earth for their own benefit and a belief that sustainability can be delivered through exploiting nature in a smarter way and controlling it better. We propose that humankind rejects this view and instead learns to live in harmony with life on Earth by respecting the land, the oceans, and the atmosphere from which everything derives. We show how knowledge, creativity, and innovation can drive transformation in all sectors of society to enable this new relationship to develop, re-defining sustainability in terms of all life on Earth. The increasing frequency of extreme weather events, urban air pollution, and contamination of oceans by plastic waste have dramatically increased awareness that human civilization faces an existential environmental crisis. Here, we argue that the way humankind views its place on planet Earth is the cause of this crisis and of the reluctance to take meaningful and urgent action. This view gives humans the right to exploit everything on Earth for their own benefit and a belief that sustainability can be delivered through exploiting nature in a smarter way and controlling it better. We propose that humankind rejects this view and instead learns to live in harmony with life on Earth by respecting the land, the oceans, and the atmosphere from which everything derives. We show how knowledge, creativity, and innovation can drive transformation in all sectors of society to enable this new relationship to develop, re-defining sustainability in terms of all life on Earth. For over a billion years, life on Earth existed in harmony with the physical and chemical properties of the planet—the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land (Figure 1A). Major shifts due to volcanic eruptions, climate and sea-level change, and upheavals from asteroid collisions resulted in consequential biological shifts as life on Earth adapted through genetic evolution to new circumstances. Many species disappeared, and new ones appeared. In turn, biology exerted influence on these physical and chemical properties, changing the composition of the atmosphere and the structure of the land’s surface. Over time, the forces of natural selection resulted in a vast array of species of microbes, plants, and animals existing together in dynamic but stable ecosystems: the biosphere. Even the evolution of large animals, which are potentially destructive and dominant, was kept in check by predator-prey interactions and the availability of food. Thus, the forces of nature keep everything in balance. Indeed, the idea of planet Earth as an organism-like self-regulating entity (Gaia hypothesis), though perhaps not factually correct, is nevertheless a fair description.5Lovelock J.E. Margulis L. Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia hypothesis. Tellus. Series A. Stockholm.Int. Meteorol. Inst. 1974; 26: 2-10Google Scholar But around 200,000 years ago, the emergence of Homo sapiens changed everything. The mental capabilities of these hunter gatherers to communicate within family and social groups enabled task sharing and collective action that brought success way beyond individual capability. Language and the use of tools led eventually to the harnessing of plants and animals, giving rise to agriculture and settlement and, around 10,000 years ago, the birth of human civilization (Figure 1B). Increasingly complex communities were built upon controlling the impact of the environment—food supply without worrying about natural spatial variation of plants and animals or seasonal availability, shelter from adverse weather, clothing to keep warm in winter, and so on. Humankind was hence engaged in a relentless battle to control the forces of nature. At the same time, increasingly ingenious ways to exploit the environment were found—the control of fire, quarrying of stone, digging of wells, felling of trees, mining of metal ores, and clearing of land for agriculture, buildings, and transportation. All of this was enabled by a remarkably stable and warm climate for the past 10,000 years, unlike previous interglacial periods.6Day Jr., J.W. Gunn J. Folan W.J. Yanez-Arancibia A. Horton B.P. The influence of enhanced post-glacial coastal margin productivity on the emergence of complex societies.J. Island Coast. Archaeol. 2012; 7: 23-52Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar For many centuries, this level of human activity was in practical terms sustainable. As described in the classic article “The Tragedy of the Commons,” this was only because the human population was small.7Hardin G. The tragedy of the commons.Science. 1968; 162: 1243-1248Crossref PubMed Scopus (16502) Google Scholar Estimates place the human population at 150–200 million at 0 CE and 300 million at 1,000 CE. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s, it had grown to 700 million. The embryonic exploitative society in pre-industrial times had little impact on the environment because of scale. Population was limited by the availability of food, water, and energy and a lack of knowledge and was kept in check mainly by high rates of infant mortality through illness and disease. Civilizations were destroyed when these counterforces got the upper hand—the Black Death reduced the European population by about 50 million in the mid-1300s. In time, social and cultural evolution occurred—a series of transitions (European expansion and the Industrial Revolution), each associated with more people, more resource use, more energy, and more environmental impact, eventually leading to manifestations of capitalism (Figure 1B). The step change occurred after the 1700s and had its seeds in three changes. First, the discovery of fossil fuels (initially coal but later oil and gas) removed the reliance on wind, water, and wood (used primarily for the manufacture of textiles and iron making) and provided a denser and more transportable energy source. Second, enabled by the new energy sources, rapid advances in science and technology drove new inventions that transformed agriculture, buildings, transportation, and the way of life. Third, the increased understanding of microbiology and human physiology together with technological innovations in sanitation and water supply led to the development of practices that prevented and cured diseases. These technological inventions and innovations gave many benefits to humankind—eradicating previously incurable disease, reducing infant mortality, providing security from invasion, reducing poverty, and securing resources such as water, energy, and minerals. The Green Revolution, the transformation in plant breeding coupled with the development of agrochemicals and the mechanization of agronomic practice, brought about massive increases in the yield of the major cereal crops, saving millions of lives. Life became healthier, happier, and more secure. The human population grew rapidly to 1.6 billion by 1900 and to 6 billion by the end of the 20th century (Figure 1C). Large cities grew as the population increased, and people moved away from agriculture into industry, commerce, and the institutions that supported an increasingly complicated society. By any measure, whether it is lifespan, infant mortality, death rates, or wealth, human progress was astounding and continuous.8Pinker S. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Viking, 2018Google Scholar Until the latter part of the 20th century, technology-based progress and economic growth were rapid and unabated, but they were largely confined to a small number of nations, often at the expense of the rest of the world. However, the 21st century has seen accelerated development in India, Brazil, and China as a result of the globalization of markets, finance, and labor, and development in Africa has also resurged. The world population grew at an accelerated rate in association with a relentless increase in gross domestic product (GDP) and is projected to reach 10 billion by the middle of the 21st century (Figure 1C). The period of growth since around 1950 is known as the Great Acceleration (Figure 1C) by virtue of the sharp increase in the rate of change in almost every metric of socio-economic activity and the resulting environmental impact.1Steffen W. Broadgate W. Deutsch L. Gaffney O. Ludwig C. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration.Anthropocene Rev. 2015; 2: 81-98Crossref Scopus (1191) Google Scholar It has coincided with the realization that the burning of fossil fuel, the linchpin of all of this development, was increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, which had the potential to dramatically change the world’s climate. In the short term, it was predicted that this would cause disruption to food supplies and severe environmental damage, affecting millions of people, and in the long term, it could destroy human civilization itself. We are already seeing many of these predictions, for example, the disappearance of glaciers, sea-level rise, the melting of Artic sea ice, and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, such as record summer temperatures in both northern and southern hemispheres, unprecedented wild fires in the Arctic circle, and catastrophic floods in South East Asia. At the same time, limits to the production of food and the availability of water have sometimes been approached, causing economic, political, and social upheavals throughout the world. Hence, in the latter part of the 20th century, concerns over the sustainability of human activity grew, and questions were raised as to whether and when the planet’s finite capacity to support human civilization would be reached—there is a limit to how much resource the planet can provide, how quickly it can renew itself, and how much human impact it can absorb before it starts to fail. Rachel Carson described the cause and effect of human outgrowth from the Industrial Revolution in her acclaimed 1962 book Silent Spring.9Carson R. Silent Spring. 2012 Anniversary Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962Google Scholar The Club of Rome’s 1972 report, Limits to Growth, concluded that “given business as usual, the limits to growth on earth would become evident by 2072, leading to sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”10Meadows D. Randers J. Meadows D. Limits to growth. The 30-Year Update.2005 edition. Chelsea Green Publishing, 1972Google Scholar These precipitated the emergence of various environmental movements, national and international government bodies, agencies, and non-governmental organizations, but it was a further 50 years until the idea of “planetary boundaries” was introduced, a landmark change in the definition of human impact on planet Earth.11Steffen W. Richardson K. Rockström J. Cornell S.E. Fetzer I. Bennett E.M. Biggs R. Carpenter S.R. de Vries W. de Wit C.A. et al.Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet.Science. 2015; 347: 1259855Crossref PubMed Scopus (4221) Google Scholar These boundaries, which include not only land area but also water availability and quality, air quality, biodiversity, deforestation, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling, and climate change, have been estimated, and the results are alarming—three of these boundaries (climate change, nitrogen, and biodiversity loss) have already been exceeded, and others are predicted to follow. A recent analysis indicates that universal achievement of the lifestyle of high-income countries (HICs) would exceed these boundaries by two to six times.12O’Neill D.W. Fanning A.L. Lamb W.F. Steinberger J.K. A good life for all within planetary boundaries.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 88-95Crossref Scopus (476) Google Scholar Sustainability means staying within the planetary boundaries. It was initially defined by the Brundtland Commission as meeting the needs of the present without compromising those of the future generations and was later extended to include the ideas of economic sustainability and social equity;13Ehrlich P.R. Kareiva P.M. Daily G.C. Securing natural capital and expanding equity to rescale civilization.Nature. 2012; 486: 68-73Crossref PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar in addition to planetary boundaries, social boundaries should also not be crossed.14Raworth K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think like a 21st Century Economist. Penguin Random House, 2018Google Scholar The idea of sustainable development was formalized by the United Nations with their Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).15United NationsTransforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworldDate: 2015Google Scholar The 17 goals set out 169 targets and objectives covering all aspects of human life—people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership. Most importantly, the SDGs apply to all countries, from the low- and middle-income countries (LICs and LMICs, respectively) of Africa and Asia to the HICs of Europe and North America. The targets in effect can be used for constructing road maps to deliver human health, prosperity, and well-being for all the people of the world within the planetary boundaries that define the quality of the land, oceans, and air and the finite resources they provide. There are many synergies between these targets, but there are sometimes trade-offs and conflicts between them. There is no doubt that the SDGs represent a laudable aspiration. But are they deliverable? Will humankind make the changes necessary for them to be realized? Generally two routes to sustainability are discussed (Figure 2). In the first, the idea is one of reduction and/or restriction in the form of “degrowth” or “green growth,” embedded in SDG12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). But, a key question is who is responsible for bringing about change? A recent trend is to put the onus on individuals to change their behavior. Individual action coalescing into larger movements clearly indicates the desire for change, but there are restrictions on what action can be taken, as imposed by the surrounding infrastructure or by socio-economic circumstances. It is difficult to make sacrifices, change habits, reduce consumption, and make do with less. As a result, rather superficial changes often take place; these seemingly satisfy the consumer’s desire to act but in a way that does not drastically change his or her lifestyle and/or does not have a significant effect on the major sustainability issues. Furthermore, from a global perspective, it is clearly unfair to ask individuals in LICs and LMICs to share the burden of problems created by HICs. Only governments co-operating at the international level can deliver the SDGs equitably. Only the large international corporations whose practices are exceeding planetary boundaries can make the changes necessary to implement the SDGs. Citizen pressure is essential but on its own insufficient—leadership is required.16Amel E. Manning C. Scott B. Koger S. Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation.Science. 2017; 356: 275-279Crossref PubMed Scopus (116) Google Scholar But what form will such leadership take? Will governments be able to break the “iron law” and convince voters that sacrificing economic growth (and therefore income growth) is necessary to preserve the environment?17Pielke Jr., R.A. A positive path for meeting the global climate challenge.https://e360.yale.edu/features/a_positive_path_for_meeting_the_global_climate_challengeDate: 2010Google Scholar Will the implied (taxation-induced) reduction in consumption happen given the likely exaggeration of societal divisions that would result? Will corporations sacrifice shareholder profits for environmental reasons? At present, the answer to these questions is no, which offers a bleak future scenario if this route is followed. Despite overwhelming evidence of ecological crisis, the pursuit of technological development and economic growth continues largely unabated and is now spread more widely across the world with the expansion of urban infrastructure and ever-increasing consumption in the Western model. The massive infrastructural development in the Belt and Road project and the recent multinational discussions about exploiting the “opportunities” arising from the Arctic ice melt are graphic examples of where we are.18Chan M.H.T. The Belt and Road Initiative – the New Silk Road: a research agenda.J. Contemp. East Asia Stud. 2018; 7: 104-123Crossref Scopus (16) Google Scholar, 19Bekkers E. Francois J.F. Rojas-Romagosa H. Melting ice caps and the economic impact of opening the northern sea route.Econ. J. (Lond.). 2018; 128: 1095-1127Crossref Scopus (45) Google Scholar The second route to sustainability assumes that technological advancement will bring solutions through, for example, limitless renewable energy, geoengineering fixes to the greenhouse gas (GHG) problem, new clean materials, zero resource consumption through recycling and reuse, improvement in agritechnology that delivers food sustainably to all, different more fulfilling community- and social-based activities rather than consumption, and so on. This optimistic technological view imagines sustainable prosperity and well-being throughout the world. Again, one has to ask whether this is achievable. An analysis of the progress made by humankind over the last century concludes that the answer is yes.8Pinker S. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Viking, 2018Google Scholar But there are risks: will there be sufficient resources (e.g., rare-earth elements, sand, or water); will these new technologies emerge given the apparent fantastical nature of some, such as reflecting sunlight away from the Earth with mirrors or refreezing the Antarctic; will they emerge in time given the estimates of just 11 years to prevent runaway climate change; what will drive (and who will pay for) their development; and will they be sustainable or just lead to another unforeseen environmental crisis? What these two routes to sustainable development have in common is the continued exploitation of the Earth’s resources. In the former, we try to reduce the level of resource use just enough to allow a maximum level of human civilization and economic development to continue. In the latter, it is imagined that technology and innovation will produce various fixes, which will allow unabated growth in human activity. Both invoke a relentless domination of the natural world, which is viewed only as a resource to be exploited, as “natural capital” and a source of “ecosystem services” to meet our needs. To solve the sustainability problem, the biosphere continues to be changed for our benefit, perhaps even allowing non-critical planetary boundaries to be exceeded and managed. In both models, “non-essential” biodiversity is sacrificed—new knowledge could allow ecosystem services to be maintained and nature reserves to be conserved so we can still view and marvel at the beauty of a (partly decimated) natural world. In this way, the SDGs would be delivered. But is that really true—what do we mean by the word “life” in SDG14 (Life on Land) and SDG15 (Life beneath Water)? Perhaps herein lies the fatal flaw—the reason both routes to sustainability may fail. Does this expose a moral bankruptcy in the SDGs themselves? The SDGs are for humans only, and sustainability as currently defined does not include conserving any aspect of the natural world unless it is for our benefit. Clearly, “no change” will lead to environmental catastrophe and the collapse of human civilization and much of the biosphere (Figure 2). So, is there an alternative to “degrowth” and a “technological fix”? In a recent essay, this human-centric worldview was incisively analyzed, introducing the term “human supremacy.”20Crist E. Reimagining the human.Science. 2018; 362: 1242-1244Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar It is explained how the pervasive attitude of human supremacy leads to an extractivist mentality and the consequent environmental degradation and decline in biodiversity. It shows how modern society has hijacked, manipulated, and exploited intrinsic human drivers for survival, leading to excessive consumption and development without limits. Aspects of cultural development and religion have fostered and cemented the idea that everything on Earth is a resource for humans to use. These ideas could also suggest that it is impossible for such human activity to lead to its own annihilation or even that annihilation could be pre-ordained and therefore not be resisted. Thus, human supremacy is not only the cause of the environmental crises we face but also a significant barrier to the changes needed to overcome them. If human supremacy is the inevitable cause of the sustainability crisis, how can this change? Can we imagine a society in which actions are responsible in a planetary context and not only in a human social context? Can we build a society that is on an equal footing with nature and in which Homo sapiens is just one species among many? Can we take actions not only “for our children and grandchildren” but also because of an awareness of our position in the biosphere? Our intelligence has given us huge power but also the knowledge of the consequences of our actions. Thus, we should not drive another species to extinction just to satisfy our own needs because, unlike any other species, we are aware of our actions and now have the knowledge of the consequences. This moral responsibility has to be the reason for conservation of the environment and protection of biodiversity. Of course, there are other factors—appreciation of the beauty of nature and the idea that the natural environment and human well-being are intertwined. But these human-centric emotions are not sufficient. That is not to say that there cannot be a spiritual dimension to this issue: knowing our place in the context of the biosphere and feeling a responsibility to it could become fundamental aspects of human morality. Indeed, in some societies that are alien to the predominant world cultures, these form the basis of cultural practice and religious beliefs (see below). Fundamental changes in perception and definition flow from the rejection of human supremacy.21Crist E. Abundant Earth: Toward an Ecological Civilization. University of Chicago Press, 2018Google Scholar The question that the SDGs should pose is, can we promote global development that is in harmony with the natural world of which human beings are just a part? Sustainability has to be redefined—meeting the needs of humanity both now and in the future while respecting the existence of the other species inhabiting planet Earth. Moreover, a profound change in the way we live is required, and this change has to happen within a couple of decades. Although this change will combine aspects of “degrowth” and a “technological fix,” it is a new direction, a transformation that leads to prosperity not only for humans but also the whole biosphere (Figure 2). Two hypotheses can be put forward for how such a profound change in human society could be precipitated. In the first, one imagines a global catastrophe or series of catastrophes so massive that all societies and governments unite and push forward the required changes. This might well also involve revolution—uprising from the millions of people directly affected by such events. A second scenario imagines a new “age of enlightenment,” when evidence is assimilated, human failings are recognized, and democratic change ensues. Is this “pie in the sky”? Will all the vested and selfish interests outlined above somehow subside and allow transformative transition to take place? Will cultural belief and practice transform in line with such enlightenment? Below, we set out seven prerequisites for this to happen (Figure 3). An age of enlightenment is based upon knowledge. Knowledge creates awareness that underpins changes in attitude and lifestyle and provides the evidence for new policies. Academia has a key role to play. Just as it was mainly academia that predicted and documented the emerging environmental crisis, so it can similarly provide the road map for the way forward. This effort will be interdisciplinary and integrate areas not often considered together. A unified view of the natural world combines sociology and engineering, economics and ecology, and philosophy and architecture to create a new societal model that incorporates human beings and other species in equality and in harmony. This new scenario requires radical change not only in the priorities for academic research but also in the way in which it is carried out. A change in outlook, motivation, and philosophy—a renewed community of researchers striving toward the common goals of prosperity and security for all of humankind—is needed. Although there is still a place for competition between individuals and institutions to help drive the pursuit of excellence, its worst excesses based on ego and greed will be replaced by humility and altruism. Along with this reform is a rejection of exclusiveness and elitism; new knowledge needs to be uncovered through collaboration where non-academics of diverse backgrounds engage with business and civil society. Academic institutions need to develop new mechanisms to establish interdisciplinary research to meet this new challenge and new training programs for all graduate students and early-career researchers, whatever their specialty, to give the required level of global perspective.22Horton P. Universities require root-and-branch overhaul to deliver SDGs.https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/universities-require-root-and-branch-overhaul-deliver-sdgsDate: 2019Google Scholar Hand in hand with such institutional changes must go radical change within the research funding bodies. There are already encouraging signs. Universities across the globe are setting up multidisciplinary institutes dedicated to sustainability research. New funding schemes are appearing, for instance, in the UK through its Global Challenges Research Fund and in Singapore through its Research Centres of Excellence, such as the Earth Observatory of Singapore. At the global level, Future Earth is integrating a range of research activities relating to climate change, agriculture, and sustainability.23Future EarthOur work.https://futureearth.org/about/our-work/Google Scholar Philanthropic funding is also increasing in these areas, for example, from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, and many others. At the 2018 Climate Action Summit, nine of the world’s largest foundations pledged $4 billion to fund efforts to limit GHG emissions and to transition to clean energy.24Nisbet M.C. Sciences, publics, politics: climate philanthropy and the four billion (dollars, that is).Issues Sci. Technol. 2019; 35: 34-36Google Scholar Philanthropy could give the long-term funding necessary to unite engineers, natural scientists, and social scientists and enable the required knowledge transformation. However, whether this activity is truly transformative remains to be seen. For instance, the narrative for philanthropic funding is usually set in the context that climate change is primarily an environmental pollution problem solvable, for example, by setting a price on carbon and by deploying other market forces.24Nisbet M.C. Sciences, publics, politics: climate philanthropy and the four billion (dollars, that is).Issues Sci. Technol. 2019; 35: 34-36Google Scholar Although some see technology as part of the problem, it is essential that it be part of the solution. Reducing the impact of 10 billion people on the natural world requires new technology—improved transportation, carbon-neutral energy supply, more efficient resource use, and so on. But, we also need to re-think how we can use technology to help enable a new relationship with the biosphere: in harmony with it but still fulfilling the ambitions and advancements that are the essence of humanity and its achievements. This is not going back to the past but to a new and better future. Again, the prerequisite is that the development of new technologies be a partnership with producers and consumers. But action is needed urgently—imperative is the requirement for reducing GHG emissions through eliminating fossil fuels from our energy supply and sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere, both of which are needed if the target temperature of less than 2°C warming above pre-industrial levels is to be met.25Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGlobal Warming of 1.5°C.https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/Date: 2018Google Scholar Can this be done without further harm to the natural world given the required scale of solar installations, wind farms, carbon capture and storage, and tree planting? Undoubtedly, new approaches to the production, distribution, and use of energy will be needed (e.g., see Service26Service R.F. Liquid sunshine.Science. 2018; 361: 120-123PubMed Google Scholar). Another crisis point is how to feed a growing population without further destroying natural habitats while reducing the 30% contribution to global GHG emissions.27Willett W. Rockström J. Loken B. Springmann M. Lang T. Vermeulen S. Garnett T. Tilman D. DeClerck F. Wood A. et al.Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Co