Sustainabilty: Academic Theories On Sustainability (Essay Sample)

Reflections on sustainability
Name
Institution
Introduction
The issue of sustainability is more alive in this century than previously. This is because of the renewed appreciation for sustainability in this century. Factors such as green house emissions, global warming, and depletion of resources are responsible for this renewed appreciation. In academic circles, the issue of sustainability is the subject of much research. The research is in four broad categories namely ecological, technological, green house emissions and limits to growth in cities. The ecological dimension appreciates the importance of the environment in ensuring sustainability. In this regard, this school of thought emphasizes on the need for humanity and the environment to co exists. Therefore, striking a balance between ecological concerns and human wants is vital. The technological aspect of sustainability appreciates the role of technology in sustainability initiatives. This school of thought observes that technology presents an opportunity that if well exploited would make achievement of sustainability goals much easier. Therefore investing in technology is critical for sustainability. About green house emissions, they have been on the increase this century thanks to the increase in number of industries. Consequently, global warning results, the effects of which are global catastrophes like floods and hurricanes. This calamities cost many human lives. To reduce the calamities demands reducing green house emissions. Concerning growth is cities; sustainable development of the cities in line with population growth is demanded. Failure to do this leads to big cities without basic wants. A question on sustainability is how best to approach the issue. Some argue that the use of a specific academic theory is the best approach to achieve consistency and avoid ambiguity. Others argue that a single academic theory is not enough to address sustainability concerns. Therefore, addressing sustainability demands borrowing from several academic schools of thought. A review of various academic theories on sustainability follows, to establish their applicability, and which of the two arguments is true.
Academic theories on sustainability
One set of academic theories that has stood out in sustainability debates is the economic limits theories dominated by Malthus. He suggested that increasing population would lead to increase in labor (Australian government, 2013). This will in turn lead to a reduction on the cost of labor. Moreover, as the population increases the demand for available resources will stretch beyond normal limits. This will lead to an immediate decline in population thereby creating a cycle. This cycle will be repeated until an equilibrium point is reached where population will match available resources. Years after the development of this theory, reality disapproved it. For example, in the West an increase in economic development led to the population remaining stable. Moreover, history has proved that with economic development, comes an improved standard of life (Australian government, 2013). Consequently, death rates reduce and birth rates too. Eventually, the population stagnates then stabilizes. As demonstrated by the two examples, this theory does not hold much water. However, it provides a good economic way of thinking that is important in assessing sustainability. Despite the stated concerns, some academicians still hold to the Malthus view when approaching sustainability. They argue that focusing on aspects of sustainability such as green house emission and ecological concerns sidetracks us from the real issue, which is capitalism. The proponents of this school of thought believe that solving sustainability issues should start from the economic side, which is the root cause of the problems, as opposed to green house and other dimensions. For example to address the issue of green house gasses and ecological concerns, it is important to focus on the economics of production and consumption. Strategies should be formulated on these two fronts that will eventually lead to a reduction in green house gasses. The use of this approach is still subject to much debate in the academic fraternity.
The green outlook is another sustainability school of thought that has emerged in academia. The school of thought is more recent having been incepted barely a half a century ago. It rose in response to the increase in environmental degradation in previous years (Alfonso, Zorondo-Rodríguez, & Simonetti, 2016). The ideology behind the school of thought is ecologism, alluding to its heavy borrowing from the discipline of ecology. In the discipline, ecology was originally defined as the study of the interrelationship between the living and the environment. Ecologist views depict humanity as part of the wider animal and plant kingdom, which interacts with the non-living component to form an ecosystem (Alfonso, Zorondo-Rodríguez, & Simonetti, 2016). Each living thing in the ecosystem plays a part for the greater good of the ecosystem. Producers make food. Consumers use up the made food by the producers. Decomposers break down food making it a raw material for the producers. Each species in the ecosystem has a specific task identified by its niche. When two species compete in the same niche, natural selection kicks in and eventually one of them is phased out. Ecologists believe that an ecosystem exists in a state equilibrium. Pressure in one part of the ecosystem will receive a reaction from another part until eventually the equilibrium point is restored. The non-living component of the ecosystem includes soil, water, and light among other things. The living component are animals bacteria and others. Each of the non-living components has a preset range that is good for the survival of the living component. When this range is changed, the living component is affected. Applying the school of thought to sustainability, the human population has been on the rise leading to a distortion in the delicate balance of the ecosystem. Naturally, other aspect of the ecosystem will react upon such an increase until the equilibrium state is restored. However, this does not seem to happen for the case of human activities. Evidently, natural resources are being depleted and there is no way of restoring them back. Proponents of this idea propose that to guarantee sustainability, ways should be incepted to ensure that humans don not over stretch the capacity of the ecosystem. This school of thought has led to what is termed as the green movement. The movement has in the recent times tried to convince companies to go green. In this respect, they should try to initiate measures to contribute positively to the ecosystem. Measures like afforestation and reforestation are encouraged.
Another academic perspective on sustainability regards the approach by various stakeholders on the issue. This perspective identifies three approaches namely romantic, idealist, and anarchist (Van Egmond & De Vries, 2011). The romantic approach is traced to Carlyle, Ruskin, Wordsworth, and Byron. The idealist is common among religions like Budhism and Hindusim. Lastly, the anarchist approach was championed by Marx, Kroptin and Morris. The three approaches present a radical dimension to the issue of sustainability. The roots of this way of thinking stem from the belief that humans have a significant role in the subject of ecology, and sustainability is the pursuit of an ecological culture (Van Egmond & De Vries, 2011). The romantic tradition came in the 18th and the 19th century in reaction to the effects of industrialization. The proponents observed the effect of industrialization on architecture. According to them, changes in architecture reflect the changes in the society in general. They expressed their views through literature, music, and painting. They viewed this form of expression as deeply emotional, and the best way to voice their concerns. The idealist tradition suggests that sustainability movements need to be coupled with a societal desire to transform. However, a confrontational method is not advocated to achieve sustainability goals. Instead, consensus among all parties should be encouraged. This is because to achieve sustainability goals demands societal change, which can only be achieved through consensus, as it involves changes in values and attitudes. The idealist approach advocates for change in lifestyle and consumer cultures to foster peaceful coexistent with nature. The anarchist approach is more radical. The approach is highly confrontational. However, they tend to accept different perspectives. The anarchist thinking is pessimistic of with regard to political views. All the stated approaches are not fully applicable to the society because they represent ideals. However, they present different points of view to the analysis of the issue of sustainability.
Modern perspectives in sustainability are more scientific and technological. The new thinking presents a depiction of nature based on a highly scientific perspective (UN, 2013). Science is used to determine the way nature is supposed to be. Moreover, sustainability can be achieve by exploiting of technology. However, both technology and science can be viewed as threats to sustainability. As science and technology progresses, they create new issues that impact negatively on sustainability concerns. An example of this is nuclear threats that could destroy all environmental gains from technology (UN, 2013). This modern school of thought proposes technologically feasible ideas such as exploring renewable resources as opposed to non-renewable ones. The justification for this is to ensure sustainability and to reserve resources for future generations. Developed countries should lead initiatives in this front partly because they are mor...