A CROSS-CULTURAL DIALOGUE TO SAVE THE PLANET
Realizing Sustainable Development Goals 2030
Keywords:
Biocentric View, Biotic System, Cultural Values, Earth Values, Ethico-Religious Value Systems, Science–Culture Interface, Global-Local RelationsAbstract
The objective of this paper is to find the significance of a cross-cultural dialogue in the context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2030, specifically SDG 6 and SDG 12-15 which directly aim at sustainability of nature and the planet. During the times of the pandemic crisis the real challenge is to reform the global economy without causing environmental degradation guided by ethical vision and value systems embedded in diverse cultures. The pandemic situation turns our attention to see that the developmental needs of each nation is unique and hence there cannot be a unilateral and totalizing framework like the scientific one which is but anthropocentric in realizing the above SDGs. It is here that alternative models based on the biocentric view that every living organism has a moral significance and intrinsic value finds much relevance. The long tradition of cultural and ethico-religious values, typified as Earth Values, help in fostering global-local relations and the transformation of a political community around global ethics. Only a science-culture interface moulded in an ethical value framework can be successful in realizing the SDG’s. The contemporary writings and researches done on sustainability reveals that such cross-cultural engagements have already begun, and the paper investigates how value systems can give a good ethical momentum in ethical decision-making and sustainable action plans.
References
Adamson, et al. “Taking A Humanistic approach to Environmental Issues.” Arizona University News. April, 2021.
Baral, Sarangadhar. “Old Earth Values and the New Cultural Ethic.” Indian Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.XXXIX, No. 3,4 July-Dec. 2012.
Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management: New York: Taylor and Francis, 1999.
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Mariner Book, 1962.
Chandrakunnel, Mathew.” In Support of a Sustainable Green Earth: A Paradigm shift from Homo Faber towards Homo Custos.” Journal of Dharma. Vol.37, No.2, April-June 2012.
Evans, Dylan. Lacan: An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Routledge, 1996.
Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchist Theory of Knowledge. London: Verso, 1993.
Feyerabend, Paul. Farewell to Reason. London: Verso, 1993.
Friedl Marincowitz. Towards an Ecological Feminist Self Beyond Dualism and Essentialism. Cape Town: University of Stellenbosch, 1998.
Ghosh. “These Satellite Photos Show how Covid-19 Lockdowns have Impacted Global Emissions.” World Economic Forum, 2020.
Inaki, Xavier. Larreuri Pertierro. The Nature/Culture Divide: A Difference in Degree or in Kind. Australian University of Notre Dame, 2020.
IPBES.NET. “Global-assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform.” <https://ipbes.net/global-assessment> (15 August 2019).
Jerneck, A. Olson, et al. “Theoretical and Methodological Pluralism in Sustainability Science”cited in Mino, T. and Kudo, S. ed. Framing in Sutainability Science: Theoretical and Practical Approaches. New York: Springer, 2020.
Jetzkowitz, J. et al. “The Significance of Meaning. Why IPBES needs the Social Science and Humanities.” European Journal of Social Science and Research. 31. (2018): 39-40.
Joerstad, Mari. The Hebrew Bible and Environmental Ethics: Human, Non-Humans and Living Landscape. Cambridge, 2019. cited in Pingzhan, “Book Review.” Journal of Dharma. 46,1. Jan-Mar 2021.
Katarzyna Cichos, et al. ed. Sustainable Development Goals and the Catholic Church: Catholic Social Teaching and the UN Agenda 2030. London: Routledge, 2020.
Kochappilly, Paulachan. “All for Life, Life for All.” Journal of Dharma. Vol. 39. No. 4, 2014.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago University, 1962.
Lao Zi. Dao De Jing. New York: Ballantine, 2003.
Lease, Joseph R. ed. Climate Consciousness and Environmental Activism in Composition. London: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing, 2020.
Le Quere et al. “Brazil Scales Back Environmental Enforcement Amid Corona Virus Outbreak.” The Guardian. 27 March, 2020.
Myllyvirta, Lauri. ‘Analysis: Corona Virus Temporarily Reduced China’s CO2 Emissions by A Quarter.” Carbon Brief, February, 2019.
Nagastu, M. “Philosophy of Science for Sustainability Science.” Sustainability Science, 15. 2020.
Norstram, et al. “Principles for Knowledge Co-production in Sustainable Research.” Nature Sustainability. 3. (2020): 182-190.
Paul, Taylor. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press, 1986.
Sachs, JG. “Six Transformations to Achieve the SDG”. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), (2019): 805-814.
Sahadu, H. “Towards an Umbrella of Science of Sustainability.” Sustainability Science 11(5). (2016): 777-788.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. London: Penguin Books, 2003.
Scott Slovic, et al. Routledge Handbook of Ecocriticism and Environmental Communication. Routledge, 2020.
Spangenberg, J. H. “Sustainability Science: A Review, an Analysis and Some Empirical Lessons.” Environmental Conservation. 38(3). (2011): 275-287.
Sustainable Development Report 2020: Sustainable development Goals and Covid-19. Cambridge University Press. 2020.
Toretell, P. ed. Earth 2020: An Insider’s Guide to a Rapidly Changing Planet. England: Open Book, 2020.
Timothy, Morton. Ecology without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Zagonari, F. “Comparing Religious Environmental Ethics to Support Efforts to Achieve Local and Global Sustainability: Empirical Insights Based on a Theoretical Framework.” Susainability Science, 10 June 2020.
Zizek’s lecture on “Timothy Morton’s Ecology Without Nature”. The University of Athens, 3 October 2007. <https://harvardpress.typepad.com/Zizek-on-ecolog.htm> (12 March 2021).
Zoe Falquet. International Petroleum Corporation Sustainability Report 2019. (3 November 2020).
