Page 37 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

20 K. Ott et al.

situation that is practice-oriented but without any direct pressure to act. It assumes
the perspective of citizens as moral persons examining together reasons provided by
theorists. The key arguments are (Ott and Döring 2008; Ott 2009):

• Critique of the general economic framework on which the concept of weak
sustainability relies: A general reference to ‘technological progress’ or to economic
models is not sufficient to justify weak sustainability. Such models are not at all
neutral (Held and Nutzinger 2001); rather, if they make uncritical use of decisive
economic concepts, such as substitution, discounting, and compensation, then
they are part of the problem. An often given example of the falsification of the
theory of weak sustainability is the insular state of Nauru in the Pacific Ocean
(Gowdy and McDaniel 1999).
• Multifunctionality of ecological systems: A weighty argument against unlimited
replaceability of natural assets is the multifunctional nature of many ecological
systems. Specifically, for every single ecological function that a natural asset
might possibly provide an artificial substitute must be identified. The substitutes
must additionally be available now and not merely as a theoretical possibility. In
addition, it is by no means certain that substitutes will always be of better value,
have a lower risk or be more socially tolerable or ‘prettier’.
• Risk assessments and the precautionary principle: In accordance with the
precautionary principle, it would be wiser to opt for the concept of strong sus-
tainability in case it turns out that after the consumption of large quantities of
natural capital it proves to be indeed non-replaceable.
• Greater freedom of choice for future generations: It is by no means certain that
people alive in the future will approve of current substitution processes. It does
not necessarily follow from the fact that future preferences (beyond minimum
requirements) are changeable that future generations will be delighted with a
denatured, artificial world. The conservation of natural capital leaves more
options open to people alive in the future.
• Better compatibility with the argumentative framework of environmental ethics:
It is incontestable that strong sustainability pays greater respect to the diverse
cultural, biophilic and spiritual values that people associate with the experience of
nature and landscape. If, at the general level of environmental ethical discourses,
people alive today speak, or learn to speak, authentically and autonomously about
what natural assets and experiences of nature really mean to them, then they are
thus (ipso facto) attempting to create an ethical tradition that should also be taught
in environmental and nature education, should become habitual and should have
some degree of permanence into the future. This leads to the question of which
concept of sustainability best matches current insights, convictions and attitudes
in the area of environmental ethics. Educationalists in the fields of environmental
studies and nature conservation in particular could better convey the meaning and
purpose of their activities within the framework of strong sustainability. Conversely,
advocates of weak sustainability must – for conceptual reasons – regard current
efforts in the field of nature education somewhat sceptically, even if they might
not like to say so out loud to nature education practitioners.