Ecological Sustainability in Human Society

The achievement of ecological sustainability by human society worldwide is the great challenge of the first part of the twenty first century. It is an issue of overwhelming importance, because if a society is not ecologically sustainable, it cannot in the long term be sustainable in any other way. Some of us believe Australia is in a favoured position to lead the world in making this transition.

We must plan for a new biosensitive society – that is, a society that is sensitive to the biological needs both of the natural environment and of all sections of the human population. This will require very big changes in our patterns of resource and energy use and in our societal arrangements.

What, then, are the chances of our society making the necessary changes before it is too late?

Unlike some of my colleagues, I am not entirely pessimistic. The fact is that humans have amazing ingenuity when motivated. I emphasize ‘when motivated’. Thermonuclear weapons and the elimination of smallpox are among countless recent manifestations of this fact.

It is surely well within the capacity of humankind to devise and implement the economic, social and technological changes necessary to achieve ecological sustainability. But at present this motivation is lacking – at least at the level of society as a whole. And without it, there will be no significant change.

Unfortunately, the necessary motivation will not come about unless and until there is dramatic change in the dominant culture of our society. It will not come about, I believe, until this culture comes to embrace, at its heart, a basic understanding of the processes of life and of the human place in nature and, as a consequence of this understanding, a profound sense of respect for the living world. I am talking here not just of an increase in environmental awareness, but rather of a radical transformation in the dominant culture’s worldview and priorities.

In my view, a sea change in the dominant culture of this kind is a precondition for the necessary societal motivation to achieve ecological sustainability. It would have important impacts on the outcome of decision-making at all levels of society – with repercussions echoing through the whole system.

I am therefore convinced that by far the most urgent need at the present time is in the realm of education – right across the community. We must aim for a society in which this kind of understanding – I call it ‘biounderstanding’ – is part of the shared knowledge of all people, reflecting the reality that we are living beings, totally dependent on the rest of the living world for our well-being and very existence.

To whom should we look for leadership in this cultural renaissance? For several reasons, it seems unlikely that the formal educational system will be capable of playing this role. Nor can we look to the mass media for leadership, because they simply mirror the dominant culture of the day, with all its blind spots and misplaced assumptions.

For this cultural change to gain the necessary momentum we need, I believe, to introduce a new element into the system, in the form of a novel kind of public institution – one that focuses on nature and the processes of life, and on the health of people and the natural environment. This institution would systematically bring together and distill information on the story of life on Earth and the major ecological and health issues facing society today, making it available in a form readily understandable by non-experts. It would provide a dynamic framework for interested members of the public to learn, discuss and debate the practical meaning of what they learn, and communicate their ideas to the wider community. It could play a vital catalytic role in the movement towards a truly sustainable, healthy and equitable society.

In fact, such an institution already exists, here in the ACT, albeit in embryonic form. It is the Nature and Society Forum (NSF).

I also venture to suggest that the medical profession has the potential to play a key role in this cultural transformation. Doctors are among the most highly respected groups in society. People really listen to what they have to say, and they usually pass this on to their families and friends (‘my doctor says …’). The medical profession could well tip the balance in the cultural transition at a crucial time.

In fact, I see here a great opportunity for active and effective collaboration between NSF and DEA. For example, NSF could produce pamphlets (packages of information) about nature and the human place in nature, as well as specific environmental and health topics. They would draw attention to the dependence of human well-being on the health of the natural environment, and would aim to stimulate thought and discussion about ways and means of achieving a truly biosensitive society. These pamphlets could be made available in doctors’ surgeries, and could be a talking point among waiting patients, and for doctors and their patients.

I would welcome any comments from members of DEA to this suggestion.