Before you read any more about the book, please construct your own tentative personal theory about the issue which we ponder in the title of this chapter.
First think by yourself what life is about, what are problems in life, issues of life. What do you understand by ‘sustainability’, ‘good environment’ and ‘good life’? Make a list and discuss with others whom you trust.

After you have constructed your answer, only after that, please compare you conception to the ideas presented in this book on the following page(s).

Basic ways to approach problems and issues of life

Human life is full of problems and issues. The field of environmental education is no exception. There are three to four logically different ways of handling complex situations, complex, open, real life problems (e.g. Åhlberg 1988, 1997a and 1997b, strongly adapted from Bunge 1983, 259 - 261):

Particuralism is an approach in which you concentrate on some parts of the whole. It may be a reductionistic or atomistic approach, in which some parts of the whole are thought to be so basic in importance that it is enough to concentrate on them. E.g. those who concentrate on conflicts of interests are atomistic in this sense (e.g. Conflicting interests in the use of natural resources 1996). Only one part or atom is taken to be the really important issue in the environmental problem, so you feel that you do not need to worry about other complexity of the issue.

Or it may be a detailistic approach, detailism, in which you concentrate on enormously rich details of some system, some part of the world. For instance those naturalists who concentrate on watching birds and try to record as many different bird species as possible is an example of detailism. I do not mean that knowing species would not be important. That kind of biological knowledge is extremely important basis of all serious environmental conservation and protection. But it is only one part of environmental education, alone it is not enough.

Intuitive holism is an approach by which you concentrate in sweeping generalizations, feelings of the whole, as if you know enough when you have this feeling. You do not need to worry about the details any more. Many of those who want to save the Earth, the World or the Planet, are those kind of intuitive holists (e.g. Brown, Flavin and Postel 1991; Dasmann 1972; Falk 1971; MacEachern 1990; Tolba 1992). In reality the planet Earth does not need our saving. Even after nuclear war or some unknown deadly virus epidemic, it would be going round the Sun. It is good sustainable environments for good human life which need to be saved.

There are plenty of dogmatic slogans in this approach, e.g.: “Small is beautiful” (Schumacher 1973). In front of global problems also big international agreements and actions are really “beautiful” and important. In intuitive holism they do not really trust in scientific research and results of science. E.g. in Steve van Matre’s (1990) Earth Education there are very little proper references, as if he himself would have invented all those ecological and other issues presented. Or in Lovelock’s (1979) Gaia-theory, as if there would be scientifically anything more than is already in the ecosystems theory. Stead and Stead (1996, 45) claim on basis of Lovelock’s Gaia-theory as a fact: “The earth is a living system...” E.g. Roszak (1992, 136 - 159) develops this idea as believer of Gaia, the World Soul. The original definition of ecosystem which Tansley (1991, 333 - 334, originally 1935, 299 - 300) formulated do not claim any world souls or any other spirits: “... there is a constant interchange of the most various kinds within each system, not only between organisms but between organic and inorganic. These eco-systems, as we call them, are of the most various kinds and sizes.” Modern definition of ecosystem is formulated in many university level textbooks of ecology, eg. Odum (1971, 8) and Botkin (1990, 230) and the definition clearly separates living organisms and their nonliving environment: “Ecosystem A set of interacting species and their local, nonbiological environment, functioning together to sustain life”. For sure they are interacting and both are needed to sustain life, but it does not make the whole system living.

Intuitive holism can be anti-intellectualism, dogmatic, stagnant, in the worst cases be used as a justification for militant action, because the ideas are not continually tested theoretically and empirically, just repeated. Holistic intuitivists are often world-savers (term applied from Lofland and Stark 1965). There are many examples that from dogmatic viewpoints there are no real possibilities to promote sustainable develop-ment, good environment and good life (e.g. Lewis 1992).

Integrativism or scientific holism or systemism is an approach in which you concentrate at the same time on important systems and their relevant parts, and what are the most relevant ways that the parts are connected to each other. Integrativism rests ontologically on the ground that as far as we know the world, the universe is the biggest system known. All other systems are parts of the universe. If there would be some part of the universe which is not connected to the other parts of the universe, we would not be able to know anything about it. Epistemologically there are two basic ideas:
· All human knowledge is tentative, prone to continual scrutiny, testing and retesting both theoretically and empirically.
· There is nothing wrong in constructing integrative and integrating theories of some field. (There is a difference between ‘integrative’ and ‘integrating’ theory, which is explained later on in this book.)

Integrating theories are not atheoretical, eclectic collections of different viewpoints, not comprehensive theories and for sure not any totalizing theory. As long as you integrate truthful and coherent parts of conceptions and theories, they are theories of this one unitary world. And because theories are like maps or models of the world, you can always construct a better, deeper and larger theory. Integrativism is an approach which takes sciences, arts and other best human products seriously. In this sense it is based on scientific humanism.
 

Sustainable development or sustainability

Sustainability according to Åhlberg (1997b) means sustainable development which has many aspects:
a) It is that kind of global development which allows both present and future societies to satisfy optimally their real needs, to have good life;
b) It means ecological sustainability: main ecosystems and their species develop naturally enough to maintain the Earth as good environment as possible for humankind;
c) It means societal sustainability; human societies have that kind of structure and function that they are safe, good environments for good life;
d) It means sound sustainable economy, which makes reasonable profits but is also at the same time ecologically sustainable. Sustainable economy provides resources for good environment and good life. Flavin (1997, 3) warns: ‘the world is falling short of achieving its central goal -- an environmentally sustainable global economy’.

However von Weizsäcker, Lovins & Lovins (1996 and 1997) in their new reports to Club of Rome are optimistic that by new already available technology and by right political decisions humankind can double its wealth, halving its resource use. Also DeSimone and Popoff (1997) present many examples how many business corporations have made great progress. Bhat (1996) explains why and how a new competitive advantage for an corporation is to become a green organisation. Brown (1996) from Worldwatch Institute has written an inspiring article “We can build a sustainable economy” where he presents well reasoned argumentation about what is needed to construct sustainable economy;
e) It means cultural sustainability, local cultures which are sustainable will remain and develop their own pace;
f) It also means that we must continually learn our way towards sustainable development, sustainable societies, because at present major human societies are not sustainable.

The idea that sustainable development has aspects of ecological, economic, social and cultural sustainable development is presented in the Finnish National Environmental Strategy (1992), which was officially approved by the Finnish Government in the same year. My interpretation of those concepts differs slightly from those of the original document. The World Bank documents (e.g. Serageldin and Steers 1994, 2) lack the concept of cultural sustainability.

Good environment for human beings according to Åhlberg (1997b) is that kind of environment which provides sustainability and good health for humans. It also means optimal biodiversity in practice, because from viewpoint of future, the most important prerequisite for sustainability are healthy life supporting ecosystems. Healthy democracy without corruption is a part of good environment for humans. Healthy, ecologically sustainable economy is also a part of good environment. Sustainable good environment is also beautiful. People enjoy being in it.

Gifford (1987, 415 - 417) created a new term ‘entopia’ for a good environment and improved and improvable environment. It is not an utopia to have a good or better environment. Environmental psychology is useful in thinking, planning and creating better environments. Environmental aesthetics (e.g. Porteus 1996) has also plenty to offer.

Taylor and Repetti (1997, 411) describe healthy environment as follows: “provides safety, opportunities for social integration, and the ability to predict and/or control aspects of that environment”. Unhealthy environments are “those that threaten safety, that undermine the creation of social ties, and that are conflictive, abusive, or violent”.
For Environmental Education Posch (1991, 14 and 101) defines concept of “environment” broadly: “Here the term “environment” does not only comprise the natural environment but also the technical, social, economic, cultural, and political environments.”

Sauve (1996, 8 - 15) has analysed discourse of EE and infers that there are six different ways to talk about environment, six different conceptions of environment: 1) environment as nature to be appreciated, respected, preserved, 2) environment as resource to be managed, 3) environment as a problem to be solved, 4) environment as a place to live, to know and learn about, to plan for, to take care of, 5) environment as a biosphere in which we all live together, into the future and 6) environment as a community project in which to get involved. All these are important aspects in our efforts to have a good environment and to improve quality of environment.

Good life according to Åhlberg (1997b) means optimal satisfaction of real needs, not any kind of whimsies, fancies etc. Sustainable development and good environment are preconditions to good life. Experiencing good life means immersion in activities which support sustainable development, good environment and future good life. So people can get optimal experiences, enjoying their life. Those activities can be any kind as long as they are challenging enough, people learn more and more, doing things better and better but at the same time they do not harm sustainable development, good environment and good life for their society or humankind.
There are nowadays research on quality of life. One of the useful articles is Gatersleben and Vlek (1998). Gatersleben and Vlek (1998, 148) present 15 aspects of good quality of life: 1) good social relations, 2) good development/education, 3) comfort, 4) pleasure/arousal, 5) beauty, 6) good work/labor, 7) health, 8) privacy, 9) money, 10) good status, 11) safety, 12) nature/good environment, 13) freedom/control of one’s life, 14) leisure time, 15) social justice.

In order to make this textbook practical enough for teachers and becoming teachers there is a suggestion in the end of each chapter, what would be our best tentative hints which area theoretically and empirically tested and grounded.
 

Practical suggestion:

Everybody must take full responsibility of her/his own learning, thinking and acting and construct an integrating theory of her/his own. Life is full of problems and situations where choices and decisions are made. Everybody’s life is at least partly constructed by own choices.