Sustainability Science: Ethical Foundations and Emerging Challenges

Sustainability has become a critical goal for contemporary humanity, and sustainability science (reviewed by Kajikawa 2008) is widely viewed as the primary means for achieving sustainability. But it remains unclear how exactly science serves these goals. For example, for many ecologists, achieving sustainability means documenting and protecting the health of ecosystems, while for many environmental engineers, achieving sustainability means finding ways to satisfy human needs more efficiently. The confusion may be the product of a failure to appreciate the ethical dimensions of sustainability. For example, if sustainability is motivated primarily by a non-anthropocentric ethic, documenting and protecting the health of ecosystems might be the appropriate role for science, but if sustainability is motivated primarily by an anthropocentric ethic, finding ways to satisfy human needs more efficiently might be the appropriate role for science — and focusing on ecosystem health might be a waste of time and effort.

Sustainability science has a complicated relationship with ethics. Originally, the ethical dimension of sustainability received broad attention. An early development in the history of sustainability thought — marked by the term "sustainable development" — was the appreciation that sustainability involved concern for both ecosystem health and economic development. From this, a distinction developed between what is known as weak sustainability and strong sustainability (Beckerman 1994, Daly et al. 1995). Weak sustainability is generally concerned with sustaining human welfare and thought to be more commensurable with economic principles. Strong sustainability is generally concerned with sustaining natural capital and thought to be more aligned with traditional conservation values. More recently, the place of ethics within sustainability science has been more contested.

On the one hand, sustainability has largely been reduced to a scientific endeavor, making "sustainability science" a somewhat redundant term. In fact, the rise of sustainability science has led some to conclude that the ethical dimensions of sustainability have become obsolete (Thompson 2007; see also Jamieson 1998, Davison 2001). This perspective considers the ethical aspects of sustainability too general and vague for useful application to any specific problem, while the scientific aspects seem effective at precisely defining problems and developing solutions, regardless of the varied details characterizing sustainability problems. One objection to this perspective is that sustainability ought to entail understanding the "end goals of sustainability" (or sustainability's ethical dimension) and the "means by which to achieve sustainability" (sustainability's scientific dimension) (Vucetich & Nelson 2010). The ethical dimension of sustainability is inescapable though under-treated. Moreover, claiming sustainability's ethical dimension should be ignored for being too vague for effective application to specific cases in sustainability is like claiming that ethics, in general, should be ignored for being too vague.

This elimination of ethics from sustainability discourse — particularly in the mode of sustainability science — can also be glimpsed in recent university hiring practices and sustainability funding. For example, between 2008 and 2010, universities in the U.S. hired at least 59 academics in the field of sustainability-none had expertise in the ethical dimensions of sustainability (Figure 1). In 2010, the U. S. National Science Foundation had an interdisciplinary funding program devoted to environmental sustainability. That program's 570 word synopsis makes no reference to the ethical dimension of sustainability, but concluded "All proposed research should be driven by engineering principles, and be presented explicitly in an environmental sustainability context." Moreover, the word "ethic" appeared in the title, keywords, or abstract of just one of the 119 projects funded since this program's inception (Vucetich & Nelson 2010).

Figure 1: Recent university cluster hires in sustainability.

The percentage of faculty associated with each dimension [(a) through (e), which correspond to the letters in Figure 3] of sustainability hired by several universities in recent initiatives to hire clusters of faculty related to sustainability. These data represent 59 positions from nine U.S. universities. See Vucetich & Nelson (2010), from which this image is adapted, for details.

© 2012 Nature Education Adapted from Vucetich & Nelson 2010. All rights reserved.

On the other hand, some sustainability science scholars, such as William Clark, seem comfortable with sustainability science as inclusive of ethics and philosophy. In a recent lecture, Clark (2007a) laid out the main "core questions" of sustainability science. Three of these four categories, "analytic" and "strategic," evoke profound philosophical sentiments. One of these categories, "normative," is purely philosophical or ethical. In fact, in a recent interview, when asked what is the most important question in conservation and sustainability science, Clark (2006) responded, "What is, and ought to be, the human use of the Earth? In other words, sustainability is primarily — and perhaps most importantly — about our moral relationships with the world — i.e., about ethics. And Clark (2003) has elsewhere recognized the science — humanities link in sustainability by pointing out "sustainability science focuses on the dynamic interactions between nature and society."

If there is no escaping the ethical and philosophical dimensions and foundations of sustainability, this in turn implies that science alone cannot help us become sustainable. Consider the very definition of sustainability. Refocusing attention on the ethical dimension of sustainability can be accomplished by defining sustainability as "meeting human needs in a socially — just manner without depriving ecosystems of their health." Such a definition is closely related to other widely appreciated definitions of sustainability (e.g., World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Callicott & Mumford 1997, National Research Council 1999). From this definition rise five critical dimensions of sustainability, each related to sustainability's ethical dimension (Figure 2). Giving careful attention to this definition also provides useful guidance for how we can tend the ethical dimension of sustainability. For example, consider the concepts 'human needs' and 'ecosystem health.' Depending on how societies understand these concepts, sustainability could mean anything from "exploit as much as desired without infringing on future ability to exploit as much as desired" to "exploit as little as necessary to maintain a meaningful life." These plainly represent different motivations, and they would clearly result in different worlds. Nevertheless, either could be considered sustainable depending on the meaning of normative concepts that define sustainability. Ultimately, seven of the eleven words (excluding articles) in our definition of sustainability are tied to fundamentally normative concepts. Hence, failure to include ethics within sustainability discourse will perpetuate our confusions about the role of science in sustainability.

Figure 2: Sustainability is essentially the relationship between the environment and society.

That relationship involves a physical aspect (exploitation) and an ethical attitude. That relationship is affected by our technologies (a), understanding of the environment (b), understanding how exploitation affects society (c), understanding how exploitation affects the environment (d), and how we understand our ethical attitudes about ourselves and nature (e). More precisely, sustainability involves five dimensions: (a) Development of efficient technologies and markets for meeting human needs — generally the purview of engineering, physical science, biotechnology, economics, and business; (b) Understanding the state and nature of ecosystems — generally the purview of ecology and environmental science; (c) Understanding how exploitation affects ecosystems — generally the purview of applied ecology and environmental science; (d) Understanding how exploitation affects human cultures — generally the purview of sociology, political science, policy, law, anthropology, and the arts and humanities; and (e) Understanding the meaning of normative concepts such as human needs, socially-just, depriving, ecosystem health — generally the purview of ethics and philosophy. History provides plenty of evidence that dimensions (a) through (d) are inadequate for achieving sustainability. Ethical attitudes are a critical aspect of any relationship involving humans (e), and the neglected dimension of sustainability. This model emphasizes how technology is conceptually secondary to exploitation — determining only our ability to, and efficiency at, exploitation. Ethics determine how we use technologies.

© 2012 Nature Education Adapted from Vucetich & Nelson 2010. All rights reserved.

With the above principles in mind, consider a very general concern of sustainability. In recent years humanity produced and used something on the order of 12 terawatts (TW) of energy annually. From the perspective of sustainability we might ask, are the Earth's ecosystems healthy so long as they continue to produce 12 TW of electricity, or are they healthy if they possess an undiminished variety of flourishing habitats and species, but perhaps cannot produce 12 TW of energy? That is, do human needs define ecosystem health, or does ecosystem health define the limits of human needs?

Related questions arise for every specific interest of sustainability science. Consider the development of biofuels. Knowing whether the creation of biofuels deprive ecosystems of their health requires science's ability to describe — in objective terms — the effect of biofuels on ecosystems. However, knowing the affect of biofuels on ecosystem health also requires answering questions like: Is concern for ecosystem health motivated only by concern for human welfare, and therefore ecosystem health defined primarily by a landscape's ability to perpetually produce biofuels? Or is concern for ecosystem health motivated by the intrinsic value of ecosystems? — in which case, some other standard is required for judging ecosystem health. What should that standard be? An obvious answer is that ecosystem health could be judged by the amount of human impact. This answer contains critical wisdom, but it is also associated with problems well recognized by environmental philosophers. For example, such an answer presupposes that humans and nature are metaphysically distinct. So, while the on-going debate between biofuel critics — such as David Pimental — and supporters of biofuels seems to be primarily a scientific or empirical matter (are biofuels cost-effective?), this debate should also force us to ask more philosophical and ethical questions. As currently structured, the debate presupposes — without reflection or defense — that our problem is simply finding a new source of energy to replace the coming loss of inexpensive fossil fuels. Upon closer examination, however, it may turn out that our problem, and therefore the "solution" to our problem, may in fact be more nuanced than we at first thought — that it might be fundamentally about our (inappropriate) relationship with nature, a relationship where we see nature as distinct from humans, and merely a means to human ends.

Similar questions arise with the consideration of genetically-modified organisms, eco-tourism, wind power, and the sustainable harvest of plant or animal populations, to name just a few. The critical point is that we cannot understand the role of sustainability science, and hence achieve sustainability, unless we understand the meaning of sustainability, and we cannot understand the meaning of sustainability unless we answer questions like those described above. But we cannot answer such questions without a committed collaboration between sustainability science and environmental philosophy — something that currently does not exist.

These examples focused on the relationship between sustainability science and ecosystem health. Similar fundamental issues of an ethical nature arise when considering how sustainability science relates to social justice and human needs (i.e., the other key components of sustainability). The history of sustainability provides an example. In the 1970s, technology and economic incentives led to more efficient home heating and insulation in the United States. What did we do with that ability? Instead of using less energy we built larger houses, because we could now heat larger houses more affordably. This is an example of a phenomenon known as Jevon's paradox. Technology increases our ability to exploit the environment and the efficiency of exploitation, but it does not determine how we ought to exercise that ability and efficiency. Does sustainability science— either individual practitioners or entire agencies — have a moral obligation to develop sustainable technologies and knowledge that explicitly accounts for the human tendency to manifest Jevon's paradox? This question is related to the "human need" component of sustainability's definition.

Sustainability science is sometimes characterized as being "problem focused." Again, William Clark (2007b) characterizes sustainability science as "use inspired research," likened to "health and agricultural science," and primarily motivated by, and focused on, solving "problems." In fact, Clark goes so far as to suggest sustainability science is "defined by the problems it addresses rather than by the disciplines it employs." Now consider the loss of Earth's biodiversity. Such loss is only a problem if it infringes in some significant way upon that which matters morally. Given that we readily agree human well-being matters, and given the loss of biological diversity can negatively impact the well-being of humans, the loss of biological diversity is clearly a problem. But is it a problem if it does not directly affect humans? The answer to this will depend almost entirely upon what we decide matters morally. If some part of the non-human world counts, and if the loss of biological diversity negatively affects it, then the loss of biological diversity is a problem even greater than we had previously thought. And what about the relationship between biodiversity and biofuels, above? One criticism of biofuels is that their use will negatively impact biodiversity. While scientists can uncover the truth of falsity of this and related claims, neither ecological nor social science alone can tell us whether or not this is a justified trade-off, or examine the ethical questions such a dilemma presents. That is the work of ethicists — ideally working alongside scientists. Including ethics in the discourse on sustainability science, then, is valuable for exposing and helping to navigate through these questions, and for avoiding goals that can end up being irrational and indefensible.

While the implementation of sustainability requires vast scientific and technical knowledge, coupled with enormous political will, a commitment to sustainability is a commitment to a certain vision of how it is that we ought to live within the world — how it is that humans ought to interact with one another and the non-human world. Certainly, sustainability, without the scientific-technological and political ability to implement it, is meaningless. But so too is sustainability without ethics-without philosophical and conceptual clarity and defense. Sustainability science sometimes prides itself on its transdisciplinary (rather than merely inter- or multi-disciplinary) nature. To fulfill its promise, however, sustainability science faces serious challenges both within and outside of the academy. These challenges include — at a minimum — finding ways to be disciplinarily inclusive in a climate that is not familiar with, and does not reward, such inclusivity, and thinking seriously about how a trans-disciplinary commitment would manifest itself in the development of research agendas and programs in sustainability science that would provide something genuinely unique, something that directly engaged societal challenges, including their ethical aspects, beyond traditional disciplinary frameworks.