HARMONISE WITH NATURE Only a change of mindset can reverse cultural habits which counter nature

Full text

May 2024 To be published in Human Ecology Reviews
HARMONISE WITH NATURE
Only a change of mindset can reverse cultural habits which counter
nature.
Dr Ulrich E. Loening*
email: uel@loening.com
Retired from The Centre for Human Ecology, University of Edinburgh.
Hon. Research Fellow, School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
*corresponding author
1
Abstract
Industrial society has succeeded in overcoming the constraints of nature, so successfully that the result has become sui-
cidal. Many analyses show how we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth for humans. They describe what
went wrong; this paper discusses why and how to resolve it. For that purpose, a taxonomy was made of the differences
between our actions and the functions of nature; this suggests that our ways of living, our customary habits, underly
continued ecological damage. Nine such habits of industrial society are identified. They range in scope from the practi-
cal, like the use of fire, to the conceptual, like the lack of negative feedbacks. The analyses of habits suggest how cor-
rective changes can be made to reverse damaging trends and improve development towards planetary sustainability. The
changes demand a shift away from wielding power over nature to one of cooperating with nature. The paper indicates
how present technology can and must evolve to reverse each of the 9 identified habits in the major domains of science,
agriculture and economics and education. Civilisation could then thrive successfully along new directions.
Keywords: human ecology; activities that counter nature and can change; sustainable development;
cultural habits; science; agriculture; economics; energy, education.
Introduction
Modern industrial civilization holds within itself a basic contradiction: namely, its successes for
human society are contradicted by its degradation of the planet, becoming self-destructive and
suicidal (Hillman et al., 2007; Tickell, 1993). This contradiction was considered already in 1951 an
inevitable outcome from early human history (Fraser Darling, 1986). It intensified over the past 200
years with the "industrial revolution" and has become critical over the past 50 years. The dire
situation calls for urgent action (Bradshaw et al., 2021). There had been many early warnings in the
19th and 20th centuries. Throughout this time, two contrasting routes to development were
perceived, between the extremes of "conquering nature" and of "working with nature", (e.g.,
Carson, 1963)). In 1987 the "Brundtland Commission" diagnosed the problem in its opening
paragraphs as "our inability to fit our doings into these [nature’s] patterns" (WCED, 1987). The
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

2
lack of fit is indeed a function of civilization, to improve human life and to separate and protect
humanity from nature. That function has been so successful that roles have reversed and it is nature
that now needs protection by "re-naturing" human activities (Pelt, 1977).
This paper suggests how to reverse the ways by which we counter nature. By comparing our ways
of life with how nature operates, a taxonomy of our differences from nature, the paper indicates
steps towards solutions. This taxonomy explains how industrial society has consistently been
damaging as the result of the customary habits of life of society. Further scrutiny then suggests how
to reverse these habits. Our ways of daily life have become so ingrained over thousands of years
that many habits are now indistinguishable from "human nature". However, it is not here relevant
whether our bad habits are "natural" or not, only that they did not develop to fit with nature. They,
as cultural mindsets, are now at the root of our problems and their analysis provides a path to
solutions to make us fit to survive.
This perspective adds to and complements studies such as The Limits to Growth (Meadows,
Meadows, Randers & Behrens, 1972; Meadows, Meadows, & Randers, 1992; Meadows, Randers,
& Meadows, 2004), Footprint analyses, (Foley et al., 2011; Wackernagel, & Rees, 1996), and
tipping points (Rockström, 2009; Rockström et al., 2023a). These all show how human
development has exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth for humans and the last reference
shows how justice and equity lower these tipping points, creating greater urgency. Yet now, 50 years
after publication of Limits to Growth, and after the numerous UN and other international
conferences about global over-heating and mass extinction, it is clear that we have not changed
direction sufficiently. All the analyses quoted above are about actions that went wrong. This paper
is an analysis of why they went wrong and indicates that changes of mindset are needed to turn
society’s damaging habits into different, ecologically beneficial, paths. Much as our present habits
have been sustained over generations by the norms of our culture, so new revised habits could
become equally self-reinforcing in a beneficial direction.
Cultural habits have their roots in historical, social and psychological backgrounds. They include
the essence of what makes us human (Pasternak, 2007) and involve topics such as eco-psychology
(Doherty, 2009), biophilia (Kellert, & Wilson, 1993) and, in contrast, ecophobia (Estok, 2019). An
archetypal example of dominating destructive humanity was recalled to explain why we still fail to
solve our climate crisis (Russel-Jones, Robin., 2021). All such matters are however beyond the
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

3
scope of this paper.
Here, a more immediately pragmatic approach leads to understanding what can be changed in our
cultural habits from destructive to constructive. After the list of differences between us and nature, I
discuss how these indicate what changes are needed and draw a few implications of this approach.
Formulation of the List of Differences
Definitions: For the purposes of this paper, five terms used throughout require clarification:
a) "industrial civilization (or society)" here refers to the developments of the past two or three
centuries and especially of the last half century, first in Western Europe and then globally;
b) "we" refers to us as members of that society, noting that society is structured beyond the
individual (Giddens, 1984);
c) "habits" refers to our ways of life that are the norms of our industrial society;
d) "nature" refers primarily to the biosphere, including the non-living surface of the planet with
which life is intimately bound up;
e) "science" is used in the European sense of "Wissenschaft", the making of knowledge, which is
wider than the anglophone meaning of discovering how things work.
Differences between us and nature: Characteristic differences between us and nature were
selected as cultural and not biological distinctions. Cultural characteristics are changeable,
biological are not. The differences were appraised at numerous conferences and seminars, and
earlier versions published (Loening, 1993) and further refined (Loening, 2012); globalization and
entropy were added at a seminar. Nine differences are now listed in Table 1. This provides
pragmatic tools for thought. But flexibility remains allowing for further definition. It may be argued
that one cannot compare a single species with the whole of nature, but it is this single species that
has over-riding global impacts, justifying the comparison.
Table 1 is discussed below in correspondingly numbered paragraphs. Each indicates how a human
activity is the opposite of a function in nature and suggests how each habit could be reversed. Such
reversal is voiced by many sectors of society and implicit in the UN Sustainable Development
Goals (Bain et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2020).
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

4
The Differences between Nature and Industrial Society
Table 1: A comparison between how natural systems and how human industrial society operate.
This version of the Table remains fluid; for example, the second row could be expanded as
explained in the text.
Commentary on Tabe 1, by row number
Row 1
The harnessing of fire more than 20 thousand generations ago created a habit that is now a core part
of what makes us human (Pasternak, 2007) and, one could suggest, may have become genetically
assimilated. It gave our species the power to degrade their low entropy environments to exhaustion
and then either move on or die out (Diamond, 2006). This use of "biomass" became replaced by
fossil fuels by which the industrial revolution developed, characterized by transforming heat into
motive and electrical power (thermodynamically limited) and by the production of vast numbers of
Natural Processes
Industrial human activities
1
Powered by the Sun!
Decrease entropy
Powered by fossil fuel,
Increase entropy
2
Work in cycles and networks
Work (and think) linearly
3
No short term waste
Resources turned to waste and pollution
4
Micro Competition with macro
Co-operation
Dominance by over-riding natural sys-
tems
5
No great excesses
Large excesses
6
Increase diversity & complexity
Resilience against ‘normal’ challenges
Decrease diversity & complexity!
Lack resilience
7
Local impact
Global impacts
8
Create global stability
Drive global change
9
Functions with feed-back controls,
mostly negative
Has few feed-back controls,
mostly positive
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

5
novel substances that do not exist in nature. This resulted in global ecological changes, of which
global warming and mass extinctions are symptoms.
However, industrial science has now progressed to a technology that can supersede these
established habits. The invention of the Photo-Voltaic panel (PV) , based on fundamental physics of
Maxwell, Einstein, Planck and others, (note that this was at the time pure science without apparent
technical application) can yet take us out of the Promethean past into a nature-friendly future
(Barnham, 2015). Solar energy strikes the Earth at a rate about 8000 times that of current total
energy demand. It is "perpetual" and most of it is reflected or re-radiated into space. Solar energy
flows always, whether harvested by us or not. It contrasts with "renewable" biomass which does not
in practice renew as fast as it is utilized, thereby creating a continuing carbon emissions debt,
limiting its utility and depriving the biosphere (Smil, 2008; Smil, 2013).
However, total energy demand is currently uniquely high and is unlikely to be met by solar and
ambient energies alone. Energy is powerful by definition and excess use would inevitably
exacerbate our activities. Society could, and will have to, live well with less. Were limitless energy
available, "we would just use unlimited energy to generate unlimited waste" (Meadows, 1989a).
Solar power, (which includes ambient energy, wind and water and methods such as "passiv"
building) could provide the means to power civilization yet fitting in with nature. Of course, to
expand the use of solar power requires development of infrastructure for local manufacture and
resilience (Haegel et al., 2023). There are many technical improvements for PV close to market
(see, e.g. Barnham et al., 2016; Habisreutinger & Reese, 2022; Luther & Schelhas, 2022). A solar
based future would be more local, resilient and democratic than the global energy market (Row 7).
For the first time ever, human development can proceed without relying on the thermodynamically
inefficient heat from fire. One wonders what a future sophisticated civilization would be like
without fire, other than biomass for recreational use.
Agriculture accounts for at least a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions (EPA, USA, 2020; Lynch
et al., 2021; Smil, 2008) and food on the plate represents only half the energy used for its
production (Pimentel, 2006). There are now many regenerative methods to bring farming to fit
more closely with nature (Altieri & Nicholls, 2020b; Blakemore, 2017; Pretty et al., 2018; Salazar
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

6
et al., 2020). While there is always more research to be done, the knowledge and education on how
the food chain could be developed to feed the world well and safely exists now.
Economic theory and practice has likewise not adjusted to these realities. Economics does not
account for the increase in entropy that accompanies every economic activity. Negentropy as a
benefit is not accounted. Economics usually omits external costs of increasing entropy and pollution
(Daly, 1996; Pretty et al., 2000). Again, education in ecological economics is needed as an intrinsic
part of our normal educational institutions.
Row 2
The ways by which nature’s complexities differ from our linear economies can be divided into three
aspects:
a) Materials of life: The human species alone among heterotrophs has turned circular flow into a
linear flow from resource to "waste". This is the result of excesses (as in Row 5). In addition, novel
substances are frequently resistant to natural cycling processes and expose nature to new threats
(Row 3).
Economics is dominated by a linear approach. As above in the last para of Row 1, the linear flow
from resource extraction to waste is rarely accounted and this leads to decisions and habits that
exacerbate our problems. Circular economies that are closer to natural cycles are developing (Estim,
A. & Saleem, 2021; Figge et al., 2018; Morseletto, 2020; Quilley et al., 2016; Raworth, 2018).
Cyclical agriculture was traditional in China for 4000 years (King, 1911) but later replaced by a
large linear technology dependent on novel excesses and novel substances. Yet circular farming is
possible now as in the references above. The supposed shortage of phosphate, as example, is the
result of failing to recycle human waste, which can now be done safely. A nitrogen cycle between
farm and human waste could reduce the now doubled concentration of (fixed) nitrogen in the
biosphere (Fowler, Pyle, Raven, & Sutton, 2013). Most pesticides could be avoided (Beddington,
2010; Birch, et al., 2011; Altieri et al., 2012; Martinez et al., 2021).
b) Flows of thought: The power of cognitive linear thinking must be one of the human
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

7
characteristics that initiated the birth of civilizations. In the last two to four centuries science/
technology (sci/tech) increased that power, leading to the industrial revolution. The reductionist
thought processes that stemmed from the pioneers of modern science such as Bacon and Descartes,
developed by separating out small segments from the complexity in nature and then using that
understanding to control or bypass the complexities. Bacon famously held that "knowledge is
power". Successful interventions in nature can be made as short, linear actions with minimal regard
to context. For example, the recognition in 1843 that crops can be grown with three soluble
nutrients was immediately applied to farming and thereby launched the modern agrochemical
industry. This was achieved however in ignorance of most of the matters that we would now
consider important, namely of micro-organisms, symbioses, plant physiology, genetics and
biochemistry. Despite the subsequent discoveries of the relevant biology, such linear
"interventionist" approaches are still applied in much of agricultural science resulting in a powerful,
valuable technology but one that remains globally harmful.
Similarly molecular biology resolves the old hen-and-egg circular question with the linear answer
as DNA being "the blueprint for life". This omits the role of the organism as a part of the cycle of
inheritance (Keller, 2002; Noble, 2021; Waddington, 2014), what Sydney Brenner called
"continuity" (personal communication). Here clearly is an aspect of life about which we remain
ignorant.
This reductionist approach inevitably leads to unintended outcomes which are dismissed as "side
effects": that "you can never do merely one thing" is one of Hardin’s principles of human ecology
(Hardin, 1985).
This linearity of thought is of course only one aspect of science, but it alone suffices to explain how
unexpected and unwanted outcomes arise. It also reveals practical and ethical dilemmas of science:
how to react when by doing good, an ultimate outcome can be evil? (Hill, 1952; Stent, 1974).
Therefore science, despite the advances achieved, appears at the same time to be a cause of
planetary trouble. It has now become its own critic, realizing its own limitations such as in physics
with uncertainty, dark energy and matter, and in biology in terms of systems which become self-
synthesizing or autopoietic beyond what can be explained by the "Central Dogma" of DNA and
protein structure (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Luisi, 2003; Maturana, & Varela, 1991; Noble, 2016).
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

8
Therefore, having provided power over nature, a newer emerging science is now itself changing
direction and could instead adapt to apply that power to harmonize with nature. Sagasti suggests
that we are now in "the twilight of the Baconian age" (Sagasti, 2000).
The linear mind-set of agricultural science can similarly shift to an agro-ecology (Altieri &
Nicholls, 2020a; Blakemore & Hochkirch, 2017). Medicine is also changing, recognizing the multi-
causation of disease and as concerned with promotion of health as curing disease. In both,
agriculture and medicine, "observational" science is emerging beyond the "interventionist", based
on evidence (Jureidini & McHenry, 2022).
c) Cycles of time: Human society has disrupted natural cycles. Rhythms, circadian, monthly and
annual, have all been partly over-ridden. Even perception of linear time is increasingly short term in
society such that we typically discount the future. "Time" maybe provides an example of how Table
1 could be extended.
All of these matters of linear versus circular or network thinking could be major parts of
educational and cultural norms, reaching beyond how we work the world to how the world works.
Row 3
Waste remains a concept of industrial society, not usually relevant in nature. But over geological
time scales nature has also deposited "wastes", such as Ca, C and O. These three, which originally
sheltered invertebrates as calcium carbonate, are now "recycled" as limestone to shelter humans.
Atmospheric oxygen gas emerged as a major toxic waste at least 2 billion years ago, yet despite its
toxicity became essential for most of life. Carbon was deposited as coal 200 to 300 million years
ago and its belated re-oxidation now has disturbed the no-waste cycle between carbon dioxide and
oxygen maintained by photosynthesis and respiration. To return fossil carbon to the atmosphere
within merely two centuries is asking for trouble.
Some relatively recent natural stored wastes like guano are however truly recycled as fertilizers for
agriculture (Dubos, 1980). Other materials become harmful wastes when they are new to the
biosphere, such as many long buried metals and the large range of newly synthesized chemicals. It
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

9
can be difficult to predict impacts of the latter, such as on the upper atmosphere ozone, on the
diversity of the biosphere and on human health. Dispersed metal wastes are entropically too costly
to recover and some are highly toxic. Radioactive waste is another category for which the only
(doubtful) solution is very long term storage in geologically stable formations. There is by
definition no "away" for any such wastes.
The solutions are not only to recycle materials as completely as possible, but also to adjust
technologies such that wastes are intrinsically recycled. Agro-ecology does this, but our transport
system does not.
Row 4
The Victorian concept of Darwinian struggle, the battle to survive, only applies at a small scale in
nature (micro-competition). "Survival of the fittest" (an expression never used by Darwin), really
means "survival of the most fitting". The biosphere is maintained by every organism within an
environment created by all the others and on which each remains dependent. Even as each organism
competes for food, shelter and living space, each remains part of the system which provides food,
shelter and living space for all. Natural selection acts on the individuals within that environment
such that the "most fitting" survives. The totality is a macro cooperative system maintained by
micro competition. It is one of mutual aid as described by Kropotkin (1902). Competition in nature
therefore becomes cooperation while competition in humanity becomes conquest. Of course, each
organism is capable of out-breeding its carrying capacity, but is prevented from doing so by micro-
competition. In contrast, we have the power to continue to expand. Sci/tech and much of social
organization over-rides or short-circuits cooperative systems. This created our present high
standards of living and our human "environment" of social and economic inter-actions which are
designed to bypass natural processes. The economic system explicitly depends on macro-
competition. In economics however, Adam Smith’s "invisible hand" applies only to micro-
competition among multiple small markets, analogous to competition within the biosphere but not
to the mega-markets and macro-competition described in Row 5.
However, macro-cooperation politically, economically and with nature has been extensively
described: how the individualism of greed is declining (Collier & Kay, 2020); how global equity
can improve by contraction by the rich with growth by the poor, so they converge to low
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

10
greenhouse gas emissions (Meyer, 2004; GCI, 2024); how the global commons can turn from a
tragedy to sharing (Ostrom, 1991; Ostrom, 2008); and how sharing water, and energy can end world
hunger (Presse, 2015). Together these would improve lives globally on an equitable per capita basis.
Failure to cooperate leaves us with new versions of old colonialism, as is being seen now in the
failure of cooperation on climate change and biodiversity, despite the numerous Conferences of the
Parties. It appears that the wealthy nations care more for their immediate interests than for global
equity or ecological resilience, both of which would be to their ultimate advantage.
Agroecology, based on social and natural cooperative approaches in farming, promises
improvements and resilience for feeding the world (Altieri & Nicholls, 2020b; Leakey, 2020; Pretty
et al., 2018; Salazar et al., 2020) and would include an ecological biotechnology that explores and
applies the appropriate biochemistry and physiology for growth and control of pests.
Row 5
The astonishing success of technological civilization has led equally to great excess. The element of
judgement in making that assessment is supported, for example, by analysis of tipping points
(Rockström et al., 2021), recently extended by incorporating equity and justice between peoples
(Rockström et al., 2023a).
Excesses occur at all levels, from the over-use of antibiotics to the grotesque accumulation of
nuclear arsenals. Sci/tech made such excesses possible and economics facilitated them. Many of our
activities which are harmless on a small scale, become damaging on a large scale. The human
population itself represents an ultimate success that, in numbers and with its high consumption per
capita, has become an excess such that it is now impossible for the majority of the human world to
live like the minority rich do at present. This pandemic of humans and their large consumption
patterns creates the conditions for other pandemics (Morse et al., 2012; Quammen, 2012). Striving
for maximum speed and efficiency results in loss of resilience and ecological degradation. The scale
of our excesses impact the entire planet. In contrast the "economically inefficient" redundancies
within the biosphere has maintained resilience over millions of years.
The economic system is itself constructed to promote excesses, in that the economic "health" of a
nation depends on continued and growing high consumption. Consequently multinational
corporations, while providing employment, rule our lives at great ecological and social costs, the
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

11
fossil fuel industry being the archetype. Sci/tech and socio/economic organization allows richer
countries to consume, accumulate and waste material goods in large excess over what is possible
for the rest of humanity.
No other large animal of any species has ever existed at even a small fraction of the present
numbers of humans. The total global bio-mass of humans plus their livestock amounts to at least
95% and probably 98.5% of the biomass of all mammals on the planet (Bar-On et al., 2018; Smil,
2011).
There can be no simple technical fix to avoid the impacts of such excesses. Change will include
valuing quality of human life over quantity of acquired materials. Sci/tech could follow its own
rationality and apply moderation that works better at all levels; that implies that the pace of living
slow down and strive for a minimum that is better than the maximum. Economic competitiveness
does not permit that and it has yet to develop a system that is compatible with the biosphere: nature
grows always, yet is stable overall (Wilson, 1977), implying luxuriance without excess.. The only
material that could be stimulated to grow perpetually is the soil, which would also improve its
biome and sequester carbon. However our agricultural methods inhibit soil growth; even no-till
farming suffers from the agro-chemicals that inhibit soil organisms.
J.S. Mill clearly appreciated limits to growth, and in pointing out that there is no limit to human
improvement, he hoped that "people would be content to be stationary long before necessity
compels them to it" (Mill, 1900). Well-being would indeed improve with less excess and a general
slowing down. Fundamental human needs are distinguished from satisfiers by (Max-Neef, 1991)
and applied to climate change by Gough (2015, Fig. 1). A transition to low consumption (Rogers et
al., 2012) also requires that aspirations change (Andersen, 2022; Collier & Kay, 2020). The needs
and possibilities for change are stressed in Kohr (1978); Laurence (2020); Schumacher (1973) and
Tudge (2021).
This Row 5 clearly remains the largest hurdle to be overcome. Excess behaviors may have deeper
roots, but they are driven by our present economic systems. These are the first to be changed,
necessarily in conjunction with the other habits described here.
Row 6
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

12
Humans have reduced diversity and exterminated large eatable animals over millennia (Diamond,
2006) while increasing, until recently, their own diversity. While the human population continues to
rise, animal populations are declining in numbers and diversity amounting to the Earth’s sixth mass
extinction, due to our single species (Ceballos et al., 2020). In contrast, nature generally increases
diversity at all levels of ecosystem size and function and it is argued that diversity confers
resilience.
After pre-historical and historical diversification of culture in language and agriculture, now
industrial society lifestyle is becoming steadily more uniform and less resilient. The economic
collapse caused by the covid19 pandemic illustrates this (Gibb et al., 2020; Marinov, 2020).
Some native peoples still increase diversity in both natural and human culture, such as in South and
North America (Kimmerer, 2002; Posey, 1996). Now however such human-made diversity is also
being eroded, partly through the globalization described in Row 7.
Re-valuing the quality of diversity at personal, political and economic levels, offers solutions. This
question of diversity is closely related to the next row, on globalization.
Row 7
Individuals of a species live in local habitats, even if the species is widespread. Barriers between
continents and between regions underlie much diversification, and have in the past been important
for human diversification. In contrast, fast travel and world-wide instant communications break
through these barriers and impose uniformity in place of diversity. Local languages and cultures
thereby erode. The economy has become global. A few mega corporations dominate the supply
chains of essential goods with subsequent loss of resilience (Goldthau & Hughes, 2020). Similarly,
soluble fertilizers , F1 hybrids and GMOs have become globalized intellectual property held by the
few large corporations (Korten, 2015; Mohan, 2023). These threaten local community-supported
agricultural production. Yet farming in small, diverse, units as promoted long ago by Kropotkin
(Ward, 1985) nevertheless produces 30% or more of the global food supply (ECT Group, 2022;
Hazell & Wood, 2008; Ricciardi et al., 2018; Smaje, 2020).
Territoriality is a feature of human life which we share with all of nature but, expanded to a global
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

13
scale, becomes one of the most damaging. The empires of old have been replaced by empires of
economic dominance. Outsourcing for cheap labour and lax environmental regulation amounts to a
new colonialism.
Solutions involve a cooperative global economy as suggested in Row 4. This will include a changed
attitude to trade in which things "be homespun wherever possible" (Keynes, 1933).
This question about globalization involves the size, structure and sovereignty of nations. One can
again argue for smaller nations linked by some kind of federation (Kohr, 1978).
Row 8
The biosphere maintains conditions suitable for life on Earth (Kleidon, 2020; Lovelock, 2000), yet
we persistently counter this homeostasis. In contrast to the biosphere’s seemingly creative action,
human activities are harvesting and plundering its resilience (Krausmann et al., 2013; Smil, 2013).
The idea that life itself maintains the conditions for life on earth was vigorously denied by
scientists. Yet the evidence is clear: if the substances of the earth’s surface and atmosphere are out
of chemical equilibrium yet remain stable, something must be maintaining that stability. This can
only be life, acting on geological surfaces and atmosphere. Critics asked how life without
intelligence or purpose can adjust planetary conditions to suit life? The idea was resisted - the title
of my 1980’s student lectures on "The Gaia Hypothesis" had to be changed to "Homeostasis of
planetary conditions" to satisfy the School of Biology.
Now that the notion has become widely accepted, there is much discussion about valuing, in
economic terms, biospheric services such as water purification, absorption of pollutants and
pollination of crops (Costanza et al., 1997; Kubiszewski et al., 2017; Drupp et al., 2024) . Although
valuing biospheric services has become widespread, much of the global commons is omitted, for
example water (Rockström et al., 2023b). Further, the over-riding service remains the totality of
maintaining the planet to be fit for life, which cannot be valued in economic terms. It is not
understood how much of the biosphere is needed to fulfill this primary function (Lovelock, 2000),
or how to operate within planetary boundaries (Steffen, 2011). Several studies suggest that half the
land surface should be preserved functionally, and that this is feasible (Locke, 2014; Wilson, 2016).
There can be no one simple tool to bring our actions closer to natural processes but some
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

14
appreciation or understanding of ecology as a science is a prerequisite, as is a cultural appreciation
of wild nature. Our dependance on the whole of life must be at the core of education at all levels
(Andersen, 2022; Kimmerer, 2002; Sharma, 2020). Education about the biosphere compares with
teaching that the earth is a sphere circling the sun; it is basic.
Row 9
Life functions in networks of dynamic feed-back controls, mostly negative, that maintain equilibria.
The success of humanity has been to overcome such negative feedbacks, resulting in minimal
control on growth. Indeed, society’s feedbacks have become positive: expansion directly leads to
more expansion; the power of linear thinking promotes more linear thinking; economics depends on
the positive feedback of compound interest. Society extols continued growth without constraints.
This is so accepted that to question it has become heretical (see, e.g., Daly, 1996; Henderson, 2015;
Jackson, 2019; Soddy, 1931). The myth of continued growth without limiting feedbacks has to be
faced: we are now seeing the impacts of continued accumulation of capital and population as
predicted by Mill. "Necessity" now "compels" us to act.
Becoming liberated from nature’s negative feedbacks leaves us no alternative but to replace them
with human-made ones. This is recognized and accepted at the individual and national levels with
laws such as to avoid excessive monopolies and with regulations, agreements and customs designed
to prevent excessive action and to encourage cooperative behavior. But laws and regulations are not
dynamic controls and as shown above, they are inadequate.
One can however detect other, poorly understood, societal forces that are acting as subtle feedbacks.
In many countries, population growth has slowed or become negative without any obvious
incentives, laws or coercion as had been tried in India and China. Reducing population seems to
result from changes that would be desirable anyway, such as respect, equality, education and rights
for women, family welfare and security in old age (McIntosh, 2020). All these are needed and are
expressed in some SDGs (Bain et al., 2019) although there is no SDG for reduced population,
which remains a taboo subject. Countries now experiencing a fall in population, European as well
as Asian, would do well to celebrate their success instead of bemoaning their plight in spite of the
obvious problems associated with an aging population. One can envisage similar hidden negative
feedbacks in some other activities where improvements that would be desirable anyway could
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

15
mitigate against over-expansion.
Negative feedbacks may result from changes away from quantity to quality and from maximum to
minimum in material requirements, as was indicated 1972 in The Limits to Growth (Meadows,
Meadows, Randers, & Behrens III, 1972). Such improvements could be achieved by social and
political will, and are beginning to emerge in public campaigns. Permaculture meets these criteria,
in which the process itself limits excesses, yet feeds the people. Indeed, negative feedback is
actually a positive boon (Hardin, 1985).
Discussion
This description of the differences between us and nature shows how our cultural habits determined
both the development of our civilization and the development of our destructive actions. The latter
can only be resolved by a basic change in mind-set, both for our lives and for the essential life of
biosphere. Many others over the past two or more centuries have argued for basic changes, as
mentioned below. Some particular problems of pollution, such as acid rain, the ozone hole and lead,
have been solved after extended negotiations, but major ones like climate and extinction remain
even after decades of trying. They require a more comprehensive approach. The tasks may appear
too overwhelming to be tackled, yet the directions for change are possible as indicated here. Table 1
suggests comprehensive levers for change to fit our ways of life within carrying capacity, at both
individual level and society as a whole. Any one problem can be solved only through cultural
change involving all habits together. constituting ways of thought that can guide future activities.
Some of our habits have ancient origins while others are recent. Studies to expand understanding
about them would be in the "structuration" of society (Giddens, 1984) and cultural theory and are
beyond the scope of this paper, but are explored in the context of human ecology in Steiner (1993).
The past two or three centuries have seen the self-catalyzed intensification of all of these habits;
they have become continually more entrenched in a "technological imperative" linked with self-
enhancing financial systems, an "autopoesis" leading to ever greater domination of nature and of
each other. The Davos Economic Forum seems to promote this with its objective to merge Man and
Machine (Schwab, 2017). It remains questionable whether such human-made versions of life can
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

16
ever become viable or are even possible.
It should be noted that the right hand (industrial) side of Table 1 leads to mega-corporations, and
correspondingly to many large philanthropic organizations, presumably as parts of their business
plans. As such, these organizations also tend to reinforce the same damaging human habits; they
could instead foster a new transition towards the left side of Table 1 (Stirling, 2024).
There have been many other approaches for re-thinking, as for example in education and "bildung"
(Andersen, 2022), in positively moving towards a world we choose (Figueres & Rivet-Carnac,
2020), in pointing to "The Way" we live (Goldsmith, 1972) and re-analyzing our choices (Russel-
Jones, 2021), especially in agriculture (Smaje, 2020) and in rethinking our whole life-style
(Fleming, 2016; Tudge, 2021; von Weizsặcker & Wijkman, 2018). In contrast the Davos Economic
Forum is also a re-think, but as mentioned above in a direction away from nature. (Schwab, Klaus,
2017).
This paper suggests four significant areas that are in the process of re-thinking. They are:
(a) Science, having explained how our habits are damaging, can now apply its attitude and method
in the new direction; it is ironic that in doing so, its power over nature would not be lost but
enhanced by a new power acquired by harmonizing with nature .
(b) Economics, which could be on the verge of a scientific revolution to accept that unlimited
conventional growth is impossible (Wilson, 1977; Editorial, 2020), and can now re-think how a new
economics of integration with nature and within society can be developed.
(c) Agriculture, which is evolving into an agro-ecology, can now develop its regenerative capacities
to integrate its social and ecological impacts.
(d) Education, as the basis on which civilization depends, can now encompass life as it really is and
re-design its approaches accordingly (Andersen, 2022).
These four all stand out as areas that, having developed successfully, now need to change. While I
intend to follow these in subsequent papers, the hope is that others will take up the challenges
indicated to expand these topics. This paper concludes with some implications.
Related Ideas and Implications
This paper follows many earlier prognoses that human development is heading in damaging
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

17
directions. The early progress of industrialization was criticized from the arts (William Blake,
Wordsworth) as well as from "science" as it then was. Alexander von Humboldt described how
everything in nature is inter-connected and how, by the early 19th Century. humans were destroying
this. His holistic or systems thinking (simpler to achieve when much less was known) influenced
Darwin and also Haeckel, who introduced the word "ecology". Seuss followed with the term
biosphere and Vernadsky then proposed "Noosphere", which would integrate human thought and
action with the biosphere (Oldfield, & Shaw, 2013; Yanshin, 1989). Dubos similarly promoted a
human "wooing of the Earth" (Dubos, 1980) which seeks to integrate humans with nature.
Schweitzer promoted a universal "reverence for life" (Schweitzer, 1955). Such arguments have been
made by many others, as in urban and rural development by Geddes, Howard, Mumford and
McHarg (McHarg, 1969) and earlier by Kropotkin (Ward, 1985) and of course by the great
conservationists of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Theologians also might consider how the biosphere is of concern to religion (Page, 1986). The
biblical injunction to "go forth and multiply" and have "dominion" over life, has been achieved
globally and there is now an urgent need for new interpretations. The biosphere has many of the
features of the sacred, worthy of praise and prayer. Pope Francis in Laudato Si' called for a new
attitude and respect for nature (Francis, 2015). Such attitudes of reverence are scientifically
supported in many books on biology entitled "What is Life", e.g. (Margulis & Dorian, 2000; Nurse,
2020) and most of E. O. Wilson’s books (Wilson, 1992). All finish with sentiments of conservation
and reverence concluded from their science.
The ideas here echo the cultures of those traditional peoples who viewed the world as one
integrated whole, respected in "nature" religions (Goldsmith, 1996; Kimmerer, 2002). One hopes
that such awareness can meld with scientific efforts to maintain the biosphere (Polunin & Burnett,
1990) alongside human development, as was attempted at the Stockholm Conference of 1972. Now,
50 years later, Extinction Rebellion has lifted the debate up the political agenda; yet agreements still
seem to elude us.
It remains a sad reflection of our culture that Academies of Science and most Universities, although
researching and teaching sustainable development as an academic subject (Clark, 2007) have not
taken on this new understanding of basic change, succinctly called human ecology, perhaps because
it transcends all disciplines and it challenges accepted norms (Ehrlich, 1985; Estim, & Saleem,
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

18
2021; Loening, 2021; Meadows 1989b; Steiner, 1993).
Time is short but just as rapid change has happened before, so one hopes it will again. One can then
agree with the optimism expressed by Figueres and Rivet-Carnack (2020).
Future generations, if we succeed, may see this period as another Enlightenment.
Acknowledgments
This paper is a summary of decades of collaboration with many colleagues, mainly through the
Centre for Human Ecology, initially at University of Edinburgh. Although taking full responsibility
for errors, I thank these and many others including colleagues at a seminar in Vienna; colleagues of
the Balaton group and Profs. Erik Millstone, Jonathan Gressel and David Fowler. All provided
critical constructive comment even when they did not agree with some of my judgments. Francesca
my wife critically commented on the manuscript.
References
Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2020b). Agroecology: challenges and opportunities for farming in the
Anthropocene. International Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 47(3), 204-215. doi.org/
10.7764/ijanr.v47i3.2281
Altieri, M. A., Ponti, L., & Nicholls, C. I. (2012). Soil Fertility, Biodiversity and Pest Management. In G. M.
Gurr, S. D. Wratten, W.. E. Snyder & D. M. Y. Read (Eds), Biodiversity and Insect Pests. Key Issues for
Sustainable Management (pp. 72-84). Wiley. doi.org/10.1002/9781118231838.ch5
Andersen, Lene Rachel (2022). Libertism; Grasping the 21st Century. Nordic Bildung.
Bain, P. G., Kroonenberg, P. M., Johansson, L.-O., Milfont, T. L., Crimston, C. R., Kurz, T., Bushina, E.,
Calligaro, C., Demarque, C., Guan, Y., & Park, J. (2019). Public views of the Sustainable Development
Goals across countries. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 819-825. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0365-4
Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018). The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 115(25), 6506-6511. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115
Barnham, K. (2015). The Burning Answer. The Solar Revolution, a Quest for Sustainable Power. Pegasus
Books.
Barnham, K., Knorr, K., & Mazzer, M. (2016). Recent progress towards all-renewable electricity supplies.
Nature Materials, 15(2), 115-116. doi.org/10.1038/nmat4485
Beddington, J. (2010). Food security: contributions from science to a new and greener revolution.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1537), 61-71. doi.org/
10.1098/rstb.2009.0201
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

19
Birch, A.N.E., Begg, G.S., & Squire, G. R. (2011). How agro-ecological research helps to address food
security issues under new IPM and pesticide reduction policies for global crop production systems.
Journal of Experimental Botany 62(10), 3251-3261. doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err064
Blakemore, R. J. (2017). Veni, Vidi, Vermi… I. On the contribution of Darwin’s "humble earthworm" to soil
health, pollution-free primary production, organic "waste" management & atmospheric carbon capture
for a safe and sustainable global climate. VermEcology Occasional Papers, 2(1), 1-36. https://
orgprints.org/31188
Blakemore, R., & Hochkirch, A. (2017). Restore earthworms to rebuild topsoil. Nature, 545(7652), 30-30.
https://www.nature.com/articles/545030b
Bradshaw, C. J. A., Ehrlich, P. R., Beattie, A. et al. (2021, January 13). Underestimating the Challenges of
Avoiding a Ghastly Future. Frontiers in Conservation Science. doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419
Capra, F., & Luisi, L. (2014). The Systems View of Life. A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press.
Carson, R. (1963). Silent Spring. Hamish Hamilton.
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., & Raven, P. H. (2020). Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological
annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS),
117(24), 13596-13602. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922686117
Clark, W. C. (2007). Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 104(6),
1737-1738. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611291104
Collier, P., & Kay, J. (2020). Greed is Dead Politics after Individualism. Penguin Random House, UK.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., & de Groot, R. (1997). The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural
Capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253-260. doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Daly, H., E. (1996). Beyond Growth. The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon Press.
Diamond, J. (2006). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Allen Lane (Penguin Group).
Doherty, T. J. (2009). The Rediscovery of Ecopsychology. Ecopsychology, 1(3), 105-109. doi.org/10.1089/
eco.2009.0049
Drupp, M. A., Hänsel, M. C., Fenichel, E. P. et al. (2024). Accounting for the increasing benefits from scarce
ecosystems. Science, 383(6687), 1062-1064. doi.org/10.1126/science.adk2086
Dubos, R. (1980). The Wooing of Earth. Athlone Press.
EPA, USA (2020). Data, Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-
greenhouse-gas-emissionsdata
ETC Group, (2022). Small-Scale Farmers and Peasants Still Feed the World. Overview: Explaining
competing claims of 70% vs. 30% and why it matters. https://www.etcgroup.org/content/backgrounder-
small-scale-farmers-and-peasants-still-feed-world
Editorial (2020). Calling all economists. Nature, 578, 489. doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00532-4
Ehrlich, P.R. (1985). Science as a Way of Knowing: Human Ecology. American Zoologist, 25(2), 379-394.
Estim, A., & Saleem, M. (2021). Inculcating Sustainability and Circular Economy Perspectives in
Institutions of Higher Education. Academia Letters, Article 439. doi.org/10.20935/al439
Estok, S. C. (2019). Introduction: Theorizing Ecophobia, Ten Years In. Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

20
and Environment (ISLE), 26(2), 379-387. doi.org/10.1093/isle/isz034
Figge, F., Thorpe, A. S., Givry, P. et al. (2018). Longevity and Circularity as Indicators of Eco-Efficient
Resource Use in the Circular Economy. Ecological Economics, 150, 297-306. doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2018.04.030
Figueres, C., & Rivet-Carnac, T. (2020). The Future we Choose; Surviving the Climate Crisis. Manilla Press.
Fleming, D. (2016). Lean Logic; a Dictionary for the Future and How to Survive It. Chelsea Green
Publishing.
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A. et al. (2011). Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. Nature,
478(7369), 337-342. doi.org/10.1038/nature10452
Fowler, D., Pyle, J.A., Raven, J.A., Sutton, M.A. (Eds) (2013). The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first
century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 368(1621). doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0164
Fraser Darling, F. (1986). An account of journeys made in the United States and Mexica in the course of a
Rockefeller Fellowship; 1951. In J. M. Boyd (Ed.), Fraser Darling’s Islands (p. 7). Edinburgh
University Press.
GCI (Global Commons Institute) (2024). Institution Website. http://www.gci.org.uk (retrieved March 15).
Gibb, R., Redding, D. W., Chin, K. Q. et al. (2020). Zoonotic host diversity increases in human-dominated
ecosystems. Nature, 584, 398-402. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2562-8
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society; Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of
California Press.
Goldsmith, E. (Ed.) (1972). A Blueprint for Survival. The Ecologist, 2(1), 1-43.
Goldsmith, E. (1996). The Way; An Ecological World-View. Themis Books.
Goldthau, A., & Hughes, L. (2020). Protect global supply chains for low-carbon technologies. Nature,
585(7823), 28-30. doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02499-8
Gough, I. (2015). Climate change and sustainable welfare: the centrality of human needs. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 39(5), 1191-1214. doi.org/10.1093/cje/bev039
Habisreutinger, S. N., & Reese, M. O. (2022). Building perovskite solar cells that last. Science, 377(6603),
265-266. doi.org/10.1126/science.abq7013
Haegel, N. M., Verlinden, P., Victoria, M. et al. (2023). Photovoltaics at multi-terawatt scale: Waiting is not
an option. Science, 380(6640), 39-42. doi.org/10.1126/science.adf6957
Hardin, G. (1985). Human Ecology: The Subversive, Conservative Science. American Zoologist, 25(2),
469-476.
Hazell, P., & Wood, S. (2008). Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 495-515. doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2166
Henderson, H. (2015). The Politics of the Solar Age: 1975-2015. Cadmus. New Perspectives on Major
Global Issues, 2(5), 101-111. http://www.cadmusjournal.org/volume2-issue5-october-2015
Hill, A.V. (1952). The ethical dilemma of science. Nature, 170(4323), 388-393. doi.org/10.1038/170388a0
Hillman, M., Fawcett, T., & Rajan, S. C. (2007). The Suicidal Planet. \Thomas Dunne Books.
Jackson, T. (2019). The Post-growth Challenge: Secular Stagnation, Inequality and the Limits to Growth.
Ecological Economics, 156, 236-246. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.010
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

21
Keynes, J. M. (1933). National Self-Sufficiency. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 22(86), 177-193.
doi.org/10.1108/S0743-4154(2014)00031B002
Jureidini, J., & McHenry, L. B. (2022). The illusion of evidence based medicine. BMJ, 376: o702. doi.org/
10.1136/bmj.o702
Keller, E. F. (2002). The Century of the Gene. Harvard University Press.
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press.
Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education: A Call to
Action. Bioscience, 52(4), 432-438. doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0432:wtekib]2.0.co;2
King, F. H. (1911). Farmers of Forty Centuries. Of Permanent Agriculture in China, Korea and Japan.
Rodale Press.
Kleidon, A. (2023). Understanding the Earth as a Whole System: From the Gaia Hypothesis to
Thermodynamic Optimality and Human Societies. In P. König & O. Schlaudt (Eds), Kosmos. Vom
Umgang mit der Welt zwischen Ausdruck und Hoffnung [Cosmos. Dealing with the World between
Expression and Hope] (pp. 417-446). Heidelberg University Publishing. doi.org/10.17885/
heiup.857.c15266
Kohr, L. (1978). The Breakdown of Nations. E. P. Dutton.
Korten, D. C. (2015). When Corporations Rule the World. Berret-Koehler.
Krausmann, F., Erb, K. H., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., Bondeau, A., Gaube, V., Lauk, C., Plutzar, C., &
Searchinger, T. D. (2013). Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th
century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 110(25), 10324-10329. doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1211349110
Kropotkin, P. (1902). Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution. McClure, Philips & Co.
Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Anderson, S., & Sutton, P. (2017). The future value of ecosystem services:
Global scenarios and national implications. Ecosystem Services, 26, 289-301. doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.05.004
Lawrence, R. L. (2020). Overcoming Barriers to Implementing Sustainable Development Goals: Human
Ecology Matters. Human Ecology Review, 26(1), 95-115. doi.org/10.22459/HER.26.01.2020.08
Leakey, R. R. B. (2020). A re-boot of tropical agriculture benefits food production, rural economies, health,
social justice and the environment. Nature Food, 1(5), 260-265. doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0076-z
Locke, H. (2014). Nature Needs Half: A Necessary and Hopeful New Agenda for Protected Areas in North
America and around the World. The George Wright Forum, 31(3), 359-371.
Loening, U. E. (1993). The ecological challenges to population growth. Transactions of The Royal Societv cf
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 87, Supplementary 1, 9-12. doi.org/ 10.1016/0035-9203(93)90520-Z
Loening, U. E. (2012). The Attitude of Human Ecology. In L. Williams, R. Roberts, & A. McIntosh (Eds),
Radical Human Ecology (pp. 15-30). Ashgate Publishing Co.
Loening, U. E. (2021, October 10). The world needs human ecology. Questioning and rethinking how and
where we live will determine whether we go on living at all. Times Higher Education (Blog). https://
www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/world-needs-human-ecology
Lovelock, J. (2000). Homage to Gaia. Oxford University Press.
Luisi, P. L. (2003). Autopoiesis: a review and a reappraisal. Naturwissenschaften, 90, 49-59. doi.org/
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

22
10.1007/s00114-002-0389-9
Luther, J. M., & Schelhas, L. T. (2022). Perovskite solar cells can take the heat. Science, 376(6588), 28-29.
doi.org/10.1126/science.abo3368
Lynch, J., Cain, M., Frame, D., & Pierrehumbert, R. (2021). Agriculture’s Contribution to Climate Change
and Role in Mitigation Is Distinct From Predominantly Fossil CO2-Emitting Sectors. Frontiers in
Sustainable Food Systems, 4, Article 518039. doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.518039
Margulis, L., & Sagan. D. (2000). What is Life? University of California Press.
Marinov, G. K. (2020). Boost longevity of economic model. Nature, 581(7808), 262-262. doi.org/10.1038/
d41586-020-01501-7
Martinez, D. A., Loening, U. E., Graham, M. C., & Gathorne-Hardy, A. (2021). When the Medicine Feeds
the Problem: Do Nitrogen Fertilisers and Pesticides Enhance the Nutritional Quality of Crops for Their
Pests and Pathogens. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. Article 701310. doi.org/10.3389/
fsufs.2021.701310
Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.J. (1991). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Springer.
Max-Neef, M. A. (1991). Human Scale Development. Conception, Application and Further Reflections. The
Apex Press.
McHarg, I. (1969). Design with Nature. The Natural History Press.
McIntosh, A. (2020). Riders on the Storm: The Climate Crisis and the Survival of Being. Birlinn Books.
Meadows, D. H. (1989a). When we’re Ready for Fusion Energy, It’s Ready for Us. The Global Citizen, May
4. Island Press. https://donellameadows.org/archives/when-were-ready-for-fusion-energy-its-ready-for-
us/
Meadows, D. H. (1989b). Harvesting One Hundredfold Key Concepts and Case Studies in Environmental
Education. United Nations Environment Programme. https://donellameadows.org/archives/harvesting-
one-hundredfold-key-concepts-and-case-studies-in-environmental-education/
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. & Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse,
Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Chelsea Green.
Meadows, D. H., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Chelsea
Green.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Pan
Books.
Meyer, A. (2004). Briefing: Contraction and convergence. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Engineering Sustainability, 157(4), 189-192. doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2004.157.4.189
Mill, J. S. (1900). Principles of Political Economy. Colonial Press (first published 1848 by John W. Parker.
Mohan, B. (2023). New Trend of Patenting Genetically Modified Foods – Its Issues and Regulation. Journal
of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 103(1), 86-100. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/
get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jpatos103&section=8
Morse, S.S., Mazet, J. A. K. Woolhouse, M. et al. (2012). Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic
zoonosis. The Lancet, 380(9857), 1956-1965. doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61684-5
Morseletto, P. (2020). Restorative and regenerative: Exploring the concepts in the circular economy. Journal
of Industrial Ecology, 24(4), 763-773. doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12987
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

23
Noble, D. (2016). Dance to the Tune of Life. Biological Relativity. Cambridge University Press.
Noble, D. (2021). The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis. Biosemiotics, 14(1), 5-24. doi.org/10.1007/
s12304-021-09405-3
Nurse, P. (2020). What is Life? Understand Biology in Five Steps. David Fickling Books.
Oldfield, J. D., & Shaw, D. J. B. (2013). V. I. Vernadskii and the development of biogeochemical
understandings of the biosphere, c.1880s–1968. The British Journal for the History of Science, 46(2),
287-310. doi.org/10.1017/s0007087412000015
Ostrom, E. (1991). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge
University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2008). The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources. Environment, Science and Policy for
Sustainable Development, 50(4), 8-21. doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.4.8-21
Page, R. (1986). While the Earth Endures. A Report on the Theological and Ethical Considerations of
Responsible Land Use. SRT Project. https://archive.org/details/whileearthendure0000unse/mode/2up
Pasternak, C. (Ed.) (2007). What Makes us Human? Oneworld Publications.
Pelt, J-M. (1977). L’homme renaturé [The renatured human]. Editions du Seuil.
Pimentel, D. (2006). Impacts of Organic Farming on the Efficiency of Energy Use in Agriculture. The
Organic Centre. https://eorganic.info/sites/eorganic.info/files/u3/pimentel_organic_ag_energy_report.pdf
Polunin, N., & Burnett, J. H. (Eds) (1990). Maintenance of the Biosphere. Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Environmental Future (3rd ICEF). Edinburgh University Press.
Francis (Pope) (2015). Laudato Si' [Praise be to you]. The Vatican. https://www.vatican.va/content/
francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
Posey, D. A. (1996). Protecting Indigenous Peoples’ Rights to Biodiversity. Environment: Science and Policy
for Sustainable Development, 38(8), 6-9 & 37-45. doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1996.9930990
Presse, A. (2015). Is Water Really a Scarce Resource? Initiating Entrepreneurship for Global Clean Water
Supply. In K. W. Hipel, L. Fang, J. Cullman, & M. Bristow (Eds), Conflict Resolution in Water
Resources and Environmental Management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14215-9_6
Pretty, J., Benton, T. G., Bharucha, Z. P. et al. (2018). Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for
sustainable intensification. Nature Sustainability, 1(8), 441-446. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0
Pretty, J. N., Brett, C., Gee, D., et al. (2000). An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture.
Agricultural Systems, 65(2), 113-136. doi.org/10.1016/s0308-521x(00)00031-7
Quammen, D. (2012). Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic. W. W. Norton.
Quilley, S., Hawreliak, J., & Kish, K. (2016). Finding an alternate route: Towards open, eco-cyclical, and
distributed production. Journal of Peer Production, Issue #9: Alternative Internets. http://
peerproduction.net/issues/issue-9-alternative-internets//
Raworth, K. (2018). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Chelsea
Green Publishing.
Ricciardi, V., Ramankutty, N., Mehrabi, Z., Jarvis, L., & Chookolingo, B. (2018). How much of the world’s
food do smallholders produce? Global Food Security, 17, 64-72. doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263),
472-475. doi.org/10.1038/461472a
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

24
Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Lenton, T. M. et al. (2021). Identifying a Safe and Just Corridor for People and the
Planet. Earth’s Future, 9, e2020EF001866. doi.org/10.1029/2020ef001866
Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., et al. (2023a). Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature, 619(7968),
102-111. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8
Rockström, J., Mazzucato, M., Andersen, L. S. et al. (2023b). Why we need a new economics of water as a
common good. Nature, 615(7954), 794-797. doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00800-z
Rogers, D. S., Duraiappah, A. K., Antons, D. C. et al. (2012). A vision for human well-being: transition to
social sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 61-73. doi.org/10.1016/
j.cosust.2012.01.013
Russel-Jones, R.. (2021). The Gilgamesh Gene Revisited. Shepheard Walwyn.
Sagasti, F. (2000). The twilight of the Baconian Age and the future of humanity. Futures, 32(6), 595-602.
doi.org/10.1016/s0016-3287(00)00010-0
Salazar, O., Rojas, C., Baginsky, C. et al. (2020). Challenges for agroecology development for the building
of sustainable agri-food systems. International Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 47(3),
152-158. doi.org/10.7764/ijanr.v47i3.2308
Schumacher, E.F. (1973). Small is Beautiful. A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. Blond & Briggs..
Schwab, Klaus. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Random House..
Schweitzer, A. (1955). My life and Thought. Guild Books.
Sharma, R. (2020). Our Environmental Concerns Past, Present and Future Scenario with Need of
Environmental Education Especially the Role of Teachers in Creating Awareness towards Ecological
Security and Sustainable Utilization of Natural Resources. Environmental Analysis and Ecology Studies,
7(4), 790-794.. https://crimsonpublishers.com/eaes/pdf/EAES.000666.pdf
Smaje, C. (2020). A Small Farm Future: Making the Case for a Society Built Around Local Economies, Self-
Provisioning, Agricultural Diversity, and a Shared Earth. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Smil, V. (2008). Energy in Nature and Society. General Energetics of Complex Systems. MIT Press..
Smil, V. (2011). Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact. Population and development Review, 37(4),
613-636. doi.,org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00450.x
Smil, V. (2013). Harvesting the Biosphere: What we Have Taken from Nature. MIT Press.
Soddy, F. (1931). Money versus Man. A Statement of the World Problem from the Standpoint of the New
Economics. Elkin Matthews & Marrot.
Steffen. (2011). How Defining Planetary Boundaries Can Transform Our Approach to Growth. Solutions:
For a Sustainable and Desirable Future, 2(3), 59-65. http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/8764
Steiner, D., & Nauser, M. (Eds) (1993). Human Ecology, Fragments of anti-fragmentary views of the world.
Routledge.
Stent, G. (1974). The Dilemma of Science and Morals. Genetics, 78, 41-51. doi.org/10.1093/genetics/
78.1.41.
Stirling, A. (2024). The "Bill Gates problem": do billionaire philanthropists skew global health research?
Nature, 626(7999), 477-479. doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00394-0
Tickell, C. (1993). The Human Species: a Suicidal Success? The Geographical Journal, 159(2), 219-226.
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution

25
doi.org/10.2307/3451413
Tudge, C. (2021). The Great Re-Think. A 21st Century Renaissance. Pari Publishing.
von Weizsặcker, E. U., & Wijkman, A. (2018). Come On! A Report to the Club of Rome. DOI:
10.1007/978-1-4939-7419-1_1 !
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint, Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New
Society Publishers.
Waddington, C.H. (2014). The Strategy of the Genes. A Discussion of Some Aspects of Theoretical Biology.
Routledge.
Ward, C. (Ed.). (1985). Peter Kropotkin’s Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow. Freedom Press.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford
University Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1992). The Diversity of Life. Penguin Books.
Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half Earth. Our Planet’s Fight for Life. Liveright Publishing Corporation.
Wilson, J. T.. (1977). Overdue: another scientific revolution. Nature, 265(5591), 196-197. doi.org/
10.1038/265196a0
Xu, Z., Chau, S. N., Chen, X. et al. (2020). Assessing progress towards sustainable development over space
and time. Nature, 577(7788), 74-78. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1846-3
Yanshin, A. (1989). Ecological Imperative. In T. Ilyina (Ed.). On the Road to Noosphere: Prominent
Soviet Scientists and Experts Hold a Round-Table Discussion on Major Problems of
Environmental Protection (pp. 10-33). Novosti Press Agency Publishing House
unproofed manuscript
not for distribution