Human, Nature, and Sustainability

Human beings are differentiated from other beings on Earth by the fact that they have always been seeking for transcendent objectives. The relationships between humans and nature are always acknowledged as the foundation to nourish humans through unfluctuating evolution and development (Diakopoulou 2007). Nature is directly or indirectly related to human’s lives as their societies are enveloped and governed by Mother Nature. Although the interactions between humans and nature are not constant as people always create positive and negative, this relationship are pivotal in the process of achieving sustainability (Phan 2011). Sustainability has been only conceptualised for just half a century when humans have realised that natural resources become more and more finite, in associate with environmental degradation (Bender et al. 2011). However, these relationships require a lot of concepts that involves interdisciplinary perspectives such as: ecology, cultures, science, religions, and politics. By investigating and evaluating this relationship, this essay will discuss how pivotal the relationships between humans and nature are in the purpose of achieving sustainability.


Since primitive age, human beings have striven to depict nature as opposed to human environment by distinguishing it as a remote place where humans have no influence on and ‘in its raw state, it had little or nothing to offer civilised men and women’ or just simply wilderness (Cronon 1995,p. 70-1). The very first depiction of nature that human beings have sought to define is originating from biblical connotations. The root of humans and nature dualism pairs the primitive of Judeo-Christian, where creation acts as a critical factor, with the differentiation between humans and the Creator (Trigano 2002). However, the definition of nature alters all over the time in companion with human evolution. Francis Bacon (1620) conceptualised a new perspective of nature where human beings can master it concretely by substantially utilizing a control over it by the methods of reason. In this manner, nature is just a body of investigation, exploitation, and a potential resource whose enigmas are waiting to be revealed. This concept invigorates the relationship between humans and nature but brings nature away from its flawless state. In addition, the perspectives of human beings in late eighteenth century opposed radically with those from the first decade of twentieth century as ‘Satan’s home had become God’s own temple’ (Cronon 1995, p. 71-2). In the Civil War, wealthy people tried to seek wilderness for themselves as a lot of luxurious hotels and resorts were built in the neighbour of sublime landscapes. In that way, those people considered nature or wilderness as a place of recreation, not a productive site or even permanent home where they acted as consumers not producers (Cronon 1995, p78). Later on in the 1960s, due to the rapid development of industrial activities, nature had become more and more away from its untouched state. The moment when Apollo 11 landed on the moon in 1969 was one of the biggest steps for mankind as shown their position on this Earth is ultimate. However, it also provided humans an alternative view of the Earth in which humans were more aware of destructive impacts of transformations brought to the natural environments by Man, and the exclusivity of this natural environment. These led human to the reality that our society could collapse at any stage, hence changes must be done or perish (Lovelock 1979).


As humans are able to comprehend their harmful impacts to the Earth, and understand the threat of an imminent collapse. Sustainability has emerged as a critical issue that scholars and scientists have been debating. The definitions of sustainability are numerous, but induced by people’s ethics, values, cultures, history and disciplines (such as economic, social equity, environmental). The most common confusing definition of sustainability is evolved from the conclusions of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) as it states that: ‘Meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. The main idea of this definition is about thinking of future results and learning from the past actions, hence do not systematically corroded ecological, economic, environmental and social systems. Therefore, the future generations will be capable of meeting their needs and wants. However, this definition doesn’t define sustainability. It defines sustainable development which is a resolution, not a problem to solve (Thwink, n.d.).


Bender et al. (2011) states that: ‘Sustainability is the quality a system has if it can continue to be sustained by and within its surrounding environment’. Broadening this statement, it can be understood as integrating universal values such as economic, social, cultural and obviously ecological. As an ecologist, Bender proposed that sustainability is determined by the capacity of a system to preserve a functional equilibrium amongst productivity and resilience. Her point of view focused on the vital importance of sustaining the strength of subsystems those support or incorporate with the larger one. As stated, different disciplines define sustainability differently according to their perspectives. Bender, an ecologist who is likely to endorse ecocentrism as the root of sustainability, with the ultimate objective to preserve and maintain biodiversity. While Costanza (1991) an economist defined sustainability as: ‘consumption that can continue indefinitely without degrading stocks, including natural, physical, human and intellectual capital’. It’s clearly to see that Costanza’s definition (with materialistic manner) uses notions such as “human”, “capital intellectual” which incorporates with human capitals and “physicals”, “natural” as natural capital. Furthering his definition, human capitals can be classified as infrastructure, labour, and knowledge; while natural capitals cover fossil fuels, natural resources such as petroleum, iron, gold, and uranium. This is quite an anthropocentric explanation as most notions were used to cover human needs and the idea of sustainability is constructed by consuming level.


In addition, Sustainability is also determined by the ability of humans and their societies to reconsider the needs and norms in everyday life. Humans should think twice about the relationship between nature and their action in both ecological and social scale (Bender et al. pp. 60-69). When focus on humans and nature relationship, it’s very important to re-evaluate society’s conventional criteria, needs, norms, and configurations of consumption on both global ethical and environmental scale.


Melbourne Experience (2010) stated that: ‘our planet is not a dead body wearing a life jacket (biosphere), it is more than the sum of its parts; it behaves like a super system that regulates itself through complex feedbacks to sustain life’. Therefore, humans should try their best to maintain their existence by defining their position in the evolution of nature. As there are a lot of debates on human-nature relationships, sustainable actions are sometimes referred in ways those insist the separation between human and nature. The most common case is when human actions are comprehended as abusing nature, or natural activities are labelled as threatening human’s survival. However, in some context, sustainable action is referred in ways that focus on the influences between nature and humans activities. Nevertheless, these perceptions are really significant in both on ecological and social level (Williams et al. 2012). Cronon (1995, p. 87) debated that any way of interpreting nature that reassures humans to accept that they are exclusive from wilderness is likely to advocate ecological and environmental inconsiderating actions. Therefore, the identification of wilderness or human-nature relationship conceptions is really critical to contribute the achievement of sustainability. Once humans are able to comprehend destruction to nature is a loss to themselves, they will have better awareness of achieving sustainability (Williams et al. 2012).


For many stages of history, humans have been affecting nature though denying their connection with it. Many religions and cultures believe this relationship is dualism, yet until recently, humans have understood the critical concept that their relationship formulates with the natural factor. In addition, humans also comprehended the fact that their interaction with nature is not friendly, and may result in imminent collapse. Therefore it’s a must to define what a nature-human friendly relationship is, and rethink the way we live to achieve sustainability. However, it’s impossible to perform so without a reform of ethics that is universal and interdisciplinary. Henceforth, it’s also very critical for humans to realise that they are not only the consumers of nature but should also be the re-Creators of nature.

References

Bacon, F. 1620. ‘Novum Organum’, Constitution, London. Available from: <http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm >. [24 March 2012].

Bender, H, Judith, K & Beilin, R 2011, ‘Sustainability – A Model for The Future’, in Bender H (ed), Reshaping Environments: Theory and Practive in a Complex World, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 32-49.

Costanza, R (ed) 1991, Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, Columbia University Press, New York.

Cronon, W. 1995. ‘The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature’, in W. Cronon (ed) Uncommon ground: toward reinventing nature. New York, USA: W.W. Norton and Co.: 69-90.

Diakopoulou, F 2007, The Relationship Between Human Beings and the Nature. Available from: <http://2oepal.podomatic.com/entry/2007-06-28T02_45_56-07_00>. [25 March 2012].

Melbourne Experience 2010, Nature, complexity, sustainability: towards environmental ethics, Available from: <www.melbexperience.com/nature-complexity-sustainability-towards-environmental-ethics>. [26 March 2012].

Lovelock, J 1979, Gaia. A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 154.

Phan, T 2011, ‘Relationship between people and environment in the sustainable development in Vietnam observed under sociolog’, Tạp Chí Khoa Học (Science Magazine), no. 18a, pp. 251-257.

Thwink , n.d., Finding and Resolving the root causes of the Sustainability problem, Available from: <http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Sustainability.htm>. [26 March 2012].

Williams, K, Minnegal, M, Boldero, J, Dwyer, P 2012, 2012 Seed Funding Project: Conceptions of human-nature relationships and sustainable action: Development and preliminary testing of an interdisciplinary theoretical framework, University of Melbourne, Available from: <http://www.sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/content/pages/2012-seed-funding-project-conceptions-human-nature-relationships-and-sustainable>. [22 March 2012].

World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our Common Future, United Nations, Available from: <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I>. [27 March 2012].