Environmental sustainability is not worth pursuing unless it is achieved for ethical reasons

Abstract

This paper analytically characterizes the four main environmental sustainability paradigms (i.e., WS, weak sustainability; AG, a-growth; DG, de-growth; and SS, strong sustainability) by introducing uncertainty about future preferences for consumption and future technologies. SS represents an ethical approach because of its maximum aversion to intergenerational inequality of resources, whereas DG depicts preference changes, AG depicts technology changes, and WS represents the reference paradigm without accounting for preference or technology changes. By comparing the costs and benefits of these paradigms, solutions derived for the whole parameter domains based on data for a globally representative individual suggest that whenever environmental sustainability is pursued for welfare reasons within a utilitarian perspective (i.e., WS, AG, DG), it is not worth pursuing. In contrast, if environmental sustainability is achieved for ethical reasons within an egalitarian perspective (i.e., SS), it is worth pursuing, even with an increased world population. In terms of feasibility (i.e., whether there are realistic parameter values such that a given sustainability paradigm can achieve its goal), solutions are ranked ethics > preference > technology (i.e., SS > DG > AG), whereas WS is unfeasible. Thus, WS, AG, and DG are inconsistent sustainability paradigms, SS empirically solves the theoretical dispute on absolute rights, and environmental sustainability must be treated as an ethical issue. A conceptual discussion about environmental ethics and a statistical analysis based on panel data at a country level support the same insights. In terms of reliability (i.e., whether there are national policies or international agreements which can support a feasible sustainability paradigm), SS could be enforced by a global environmental agreement, supported by 66/55% of governments (i.e., top-down approach) and by 56/51% of citizens (i.e., bottom-up approach), in the most certain/uncertain scenarios, respectively.

Ethical Artificial Intelligence in Chemical Research and Development: A Dual Advantage for Sustainability

“…Chemical R&D can be fundamental to solutions that underpin and accelerate sustainable development. Since sustainability initiatives and research always have an ethical dimension (e.g., Schneider et al, 2019 ; Zagonari, 2020 ), chemical R&D that are powered by AI and pursue sustainable products and solutions have to be particularly open and explicit about guiding ethical principles and the alignment with existing guidelines (Vinuesa et al, 2020 ). In light of the rapid advancement of AI, chemical R&D will contribute to the development of sustainable substances and products in the future (e.g., biopesticides; Pretty, 2018 ) by means of sustainable and resource-efficient R&D processes.…”

“…While some scholars argue that environmental sustainability is only worth pursuing for ethical reasons (Zagonari, 2020 ), others consider sustainability as an epistemic-moral hybrid (Schneider et al, 2019 ). Sustainability also constitutes an ethical principle and objective related to the development and deployment of AI (Jobin et al, 2019 ).…”

“…By integrating broad and diverse data resources and a multi-stakeholder perspective, AI-based R&D processes incorporate the justice principle, which should also guide sustainable intensification (Loos et al, 2014 ) and environmental sustainability (Zagonari, 2020 ). The justice principles espouses fairness and the prevention of unwanted/unfair biases and discrimination, also amending past inequities (Jobin et al, 2019 ; Morley et al, 2020 ).…”

Artificial intelligence in research and development for sustainability: the centrality of explicability and research data management

“…Investigating a multitude substances and product candidates further accounts for the justice principle, which should also guide environmental sustainability [45]. The justice principle fairness and the prevention of unwanted/ unfair biases [21,31], sharing benefits and prosperity and fostering solidarity [14].…”

Guest editorial

“…For instance, organizational promotion of sustainability, whether from a consequentialist perspective or focused on the intentions of the agents, necessarily involves an ethical reference framework. Also, environmental sustainability can be viewed a part of CSR (Starik and Rands, 1995), and some argue it must be treated as an ethical issue (Zagonari, 2020). Others posit sustainability as “an inclusive operational dimension of CSR strategy” (Garavan and McGuire, 2010, p. 490) that can and should be extended to organizational activities that affect people’s subjective well-being and health.…”