Is it really growth that is to be questioned, or how it is defined? Can it be bad to seek growth in biodiversity, in improvements in quality of life, or in safety and security for the vast majority of people today? Is it not an integral goal of sustainability to seek both continuity and social justice--durability and desirability?

The standard concept of economic growth is based on a very partial view of how the world works. It is an idea that even some economists now question. But there is no sign of this in the mainstream media where reports of stock market indices, GDP , corporate deals, and the glories of globalization are daily occurrences. Few, if any, governments seem to understand that natural capital--minerals, water, biodiversity--is being squandered, at least in part because the standard econometric measures of success marginalize nature in favor of currency (exports, imports, sales, consumer prices, jobs, energy prices, or the costs of the war on “terrorism”). The Human Development Index of the UN is a brave attempt to counter this ruling mind-set.

As for sustainability science, this is a new kind of discipline now struggling devilishly hard to be born. As an earth scientist myself, I share Reitan’s confidence that a fuller understanding of earth systems-- how the biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and pedosphere function--is a key to a better way of living on this small planet. But, until a dialogue can be enjoined with economists, social scientists and philosophers, we well-meaning earth scientists will continue to squeak away, our perspective ignored by those who control governments and the corporate world. As what I consider to be the most significant idea of the contemporary world, and one which has institutions and organizations the world over searching for its meaning, sustainability science deserves a broader understanding than can be brought to it from the “holistic and historical sciences.” These are surely necessary but hardly sufficient, in my view, without the accumulated experience from engineering, medicine, and sociology (especially critical theory), among others.

Reitan argues that people have first to want to seek a better world. He thinks that this desire can be readily found in any of the world’s religions, and, for those who are not religious, in deep ecology. The idea that we ought to act as stewards of nature, which certainly runs throughout Islam, Judaism, and even Christianity (though perhaps not so clearly in Taoism, Hinduism, and even less so in Confucianism and Buddhism) should, one would suppose, encourage such desires. The long history of religions offers little encouragement for this view, but now that science has revealed a great deal about the natural world and about human pressures on it, time may be ripe for a re-consideration of the great religious canons. I would put my money, however, more on projects such as the Earth Charter, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and the non-governmental organizations that constitute an essential and growing part of civil society.

I defined “In Growth We Trust!” as the addiction of our societies to growing consumption, and used it as a “shorthand” for the standard concept of the need for and virtues of economic growth. My intention was not to condemn all growth. I would, of course, be pleased by a reversal of the present wave of extinction of species; I applaud growths in efficiency (which I support by having paid more than I normally would consider for a car in order to use a hybrid), as well as equity and justice. Dr. Berger and I agree completely on the limited and inadequate evaluation of the benefits and losses associated with the standard concept of economic growth.

I often feel and share the discouragement voiced when Dr. Berger writes, “we well-meaning earth scientists [and, I would like to add, others that join us] will continue to squeak away, our perspectives ignored by those who control governments and the corporate world.” But long-term sustainability of successful societies is too important to let that discouragement incapacitate us. So we share the dedication to find broader understanding and use of the science and art of living sustainably. And Dr. Berger would like to add engineering and medicine to my proposed definition of “Sustainability Science.” Yes, the applied sciences and technologies are an appropriate part of our tool kit in efforts to deal with the threats to sustainability, in addition to the basic natural sciences and their integration with the social sciences and humanities.

Dr. Berger’s last paragraph suggests that a crucially important part of my essay may be misunderstood. We have many tools available to help increase the sustainability of our approaches to living on Earth (the Millennium Assessment, among others). But, and this is where my main point may be missed, we will need more than tools. Our worldview, or overall philosophy, directs the choices we make about how we use our tools, and what policies and practices we adopt. I think the present dominant worldview is leading the world’s societies to make choices and adopt policies that are unsustainable. As this is demonstrated through the mounting discoveries of “sustainability scientists,” and through effective education about those discoveries, I hope that our blindness and denial may be overcome so that a different worldview is then wanted. When the present dominant worldview is recognized as a failure, then people may want change, want to support collective efforts to bring global human policies and practices into accord with what the Earth can sustain. The moral underpinning and guidance necessary for a worldview that prioritizes Earth stewardship may then be sought and found in any and all of the world’s major religions, despite Dr. Berger’s uncertainty about some of them (see Earth Ethics, 1998, for brief summaries of the world’s major religions and ecology, Daedalus, 2001, for articles on the world’s major religions and ecology, and the URL http://environment.harvard.edu/religion for extensive related materials) as well as in environmental ethics, including the ethical framework of Deep Ecology and the moral challenge posed by the Earth Charter.

Milbrath suggests that, while social learning may, on rare occasions, occur quickly, “we are unlikely to learn until we move into a crisis” (Milbrath, 1989, p.340). My hope is that we will be able to avert the crisis of a collapse of societies and that each of us individually may be able to seek and find the ethical guidance, whether in a religion or in a moral philosophy, to propel societies to move toward acceptable rules, guidelines, and policies that will enable our societies to live successfully on Earth for a long time.

Daedalus, 2001, Religion and Ecology: Can the Climate Change?: M. E. Tucker and J. A. Grim, eds., v. 130, 306 p.

Earth Ethics, 1998, v. 10, 30 p.

Milbrath, L. W., 1989, Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out: State University of New York Press, 403 p.

Antony Berger asked earlier: “Can it be bad to seek growth in biodiversity . . . or . . . security for the vast majority of people today?” I responded that I would be pleased by a reversal of the present wave of extinction of species and by growth of efficiency (especially thinking of energy consumed per unit of product or service) as well as of equity and justice.

“Betterment,” as Philip Henshaw says, is sometimes difficult to measure, as might also be “improvements in quality of life” (Berger 6/5/05). What could seem a betterment to quality of life might, if allowed to grow excessively, no longer be tolerable in the interest of long-term human success.

What is crucial as we, with all of our limitations, try to discern the impacts of our choices, is to reach a judicial balance of our individual desires and the impact of satisfying them with the needs and desires of all entities that have intrinsic value now and in the future. This task is NOT easy and is fraught with potential for error, but we should do our best to accomplish it with all the moral responsibility of which we are capable.