Autumn 2006

The big picture - in education

Educating for a sustainable future: a holistic approach

Education for a sustainable future involves more than cognitive goals such as understanding complex natural systems. Ian Lowe argues that, above all else, it requires developing the new values without which a sustainable future cannot be achieved.

The case for change

The evidence is clear. The way we are currently living is not sustainable; in fact, it would be hard to make a case that it is satisfying any of the main criteria. We are using resources future generations will need, damaging environmental systems, reducing social stability and increasing the gap between rich and poor.

Further, there is no prospect of extending the lifestyle of the wealthy world to developing countries. People in the poorer parts of the world are constantly reminded by film and television of the widening gulf between their material deprivation and the wasteful consumption of the rich. If civilisation is to survive, the next century will have to be a time of dramatic transformation, not just in technological capacity but also in our approach to the natural world—and to each other.

The most serious obstacle is the dominant mind-set of most decision-makers, who do not even recognise the problem and see potential solutions as threatening their short-term interests. Both at the local and the global level, there is still hope that we can achieve a transition to a sustainable future, but it will require fundamental changes to values and social institutions. The hope springs from the fact that human systems can change radically almost overnight. The transition needed for survival may be catalysed by the growing global recognition of the need for radical change.

The role of education

Our capacity to become a sustainable society can only be achieved through education. Sterling (2001) argued that the unprecedented changes we need require education to play a key role, and education will itself be transformed in the process.

As the foreword to the Queensland Environmentally Sustainable Schools Initiative (QESSI) says, ‘education is the key, providing both awareness of the problem and, more importantly, the capacity to find solutions’. So, education for sustainability must encompass, in terms of content:

• understanding of human impact on natural systems
• awareness of the finite scale of non-renewable resources
• awareness of the limits on use of renewable resources
• understanding of the need for durable economic activities
• awareness of the consequences of increasing social inequality
• understanding of the importance of cultural traditions, beliefs and practices.

This is the cognitive basis of education for sustainability, but it is not by any means the whole story. In terms of developing capacities, education should aim to give young people the ability and confidence to shape their own future, rather than passively accepting a future imposed on them by outside forces. It should also aim to instil an appreciation of our moral responsibility to other species and future generations.

Perhaps the best metaphor for the outcome we should be seeking is Globo sapiens, a term developed by Patricia Kelly in 2003 for use in education from an idea originally proposed by Finnish futurist Pentti Malaska. Our goal should be to produce wise global citizens, aware of their responsibility to the rest of humanity, to the other species with which we share this planet and the future generations for whom we hold it in trust.

The need for a shift in values

The Great Transition envisaged by Raskin et al (2002) is above all else a transition driven by a change in values, away from individualism and consumerist greed toward an acceptance of our responsibility to other humans, to other species and to future generations. In this optimistic view, globalisation can itself directly drive the values transition needed for a future sustainable society.

In a compelling development of this broad idea, Raskin (2005) proposed a concise summary of the values transition needed for a sustainable global society. Currently, the dominant values are individualism, consumerism and domination of nature. Individualism, the notion that we can all be self-sufficient in a globalised world, needs to be replaced by a rediscovery of the sense of community and a recognition that we share a common ecological fate with the entire human family.

A recent study found no improvements in community health as societies become wealthier, (above an average income of about US$5000 per year), but a very strong negative relationship between inequality and life expectancy (Wilkinson 2005). The principle of consumerism, that fulfilment flows from acquisition of material goods, has reached the ridiculous level of becoming effectively the modern religion and source of solace. As the Twin Towers crumbled on 11 September 2001, US president George Bush urged his shocked citizens to go shopping! The evidence is clear that people do not become happier as their consumption increases beyond a relatively modest level (Eckersley 2004), so the consumer fetish needs to be replaced by an emphasis on quality of life and personal fulfilment.

Finally, we need to outgrow the naïve notion that we can impose our will on the natural world and ‘manage’ its complex systems. We certainly do not understand the natural world well enough to be able to manage it; perhaps the best concise summary of the current state of scientific knowledge is ‘islands of understanding in an endless sea of mystery’ (Ehrenfeld 2002). While science is constantly engaged in land reclamation, extending the islands of understanding, there is no prospect of filling in the ocean.

So we should, as Raskin argues, aim to live within the limits of ecological systems. We should take a precautionary approach that aims to err on the side of maintaining the health and productivity of those natural systems that provide breathable air, usable water, and the capacity to produce our food, our sense of cultural identity and spiritual sustenance.

History shows that some impressive societies collapsed, while others resolved serious threats to their survival. It is an important reminder that past trend is not necessarily future destiny. Problems can be resolved and alarming trends can be halted. Diamond (2005) argues that societies choose to survive or fail, that our fate is not a matter of chance, but a result of social choices. He analyses societies that refused to respond to serious threats and perished, like the Mayan civilisation and Easter Island, as well as those that faced their problems and survived, like the island of Tikopia and medieval Japan.

Several factors determine whether societies survive. Some are historically obvious, such as whether the society has hostile neighbours or lives on friendly terms with those around it. Some are ecologically obvious, such as whether the society interacts sustainably with its local environment. Climate is another factor, because a society could be in balance with its environment until climate change alters the equation. Critically, Diamond argues, whether a society can manage a concerted response to its problems depends on cultural values and social institutions—including political structures and economic practices.

All around the globe, individuals and groups are striving to develop the social and institutional responses that will bring about a transition to a sustainable future. Tinkering with environmental regulations or pollution trading schemes will not achieve the sustainable future our descendants deserve. We all have to change our values in fundamental ways. This is simply our moral duty to future generations, our own descendants.

References

Diamond, J (2005). Collapse, Penguin, New York and London.

Eckersley, R (2004). Well and Good, Text Publishing, Melbourne.

Ehrenfeld, D (2002). Swimming Lessons: Keeping Afloat in the Age of Technology, Oxford University Press, New York.

Hamilton, C (2003). The Growth Fetish, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Raskin, P et al (2002). Great Transition: The promise and lure of times ahead, Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston.

Raskin,P (2005). Values for a Great Transition, Tellus Institute, Boston.

Sterling, S (2001). Sustainable Education, Green Books, Schumacher Society, Devon.

Wilkinson,R (2005). The Impact of Inequality, The New Press, New York.

Ian Lowe is emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University and president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The author owns the copyright in this article. For information related to the reuse of this work in any form please contact the publisher denise.quinn@curriculum.edu.au