|
Title
|
|
|
|
Beyond the environmentalist's paradox and the debate on weak versus strong sustainability
| |
|
Author
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
| Environmentalists generally argue that ecological damage will (eventually) lead to declines in human well-being. From this perspective, the recent introduction of the "environmentalist's paradox" in BioScience by Raudsepp-Hearne and colleagues (2010) is particularly significant. In essence, Raudsepp-Hearne and colleagues (2010) claimed that although ecosystem services have been degraded, human well-being-paradoxically-has increased. In this article, we show that this debate is in fact rooted in a broader discussion on weak sustainability versus strong sustainability (the substitutability of human-made capital for natural capital). We warn against the reductive nature of focusing only on a stock flow framework in which a natural-capital stock produces ecosystem services. Concretely, we recommend a holistic approach in which the complexity, irreversibility, uncertainty, and ethical predicaments intrinsic to the natural environment and its connections to humanity are also considered. |
| |
|
Language
|
|
|
|
English
| |
|
Source (journal)
|
|
|
|
Bioscience / American Institute of Biological Sciences. - Washington, D.C.
| |
|
Publication
|
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
:
2012
| |
|
ISSN
|
|
|
|
0006-3568
| |
|
DOI
|
|
|
|
10.1525/BIO.2012.62.3.6
| |
|
Volume/pages
|
|
|
|
62
:3
(2012)
, p. 251-259
| |
|
ISI
|
|
|
|
000301561900008
| |
|
Full text (Publisher's DOI)
|
|
|
|
| |
|