For example, substantial quantitative upscaling might only be possible in tandem with organizational upscaling.”
“Sustainability scientists continue to struggle with overcoming the reactive environmental protection paradigm and focusing on the urgent and complex challenges that threaten the long-term vitality and integrity of societies around the globe (Rayner 2011).1 These challenges are no longer ignorable, as they have triggered fierce debates and controversies
across all sectors and classes of society, finally infiltrating the ivory towers of academia. Yet, public attention is captivated by the entertaining media episodes www.selleckchem.com/products/Ispinesib-mesilate(SB-715992).html on these catastrophes and hardly any attention is paid to the catastrophes’ underlying structures and root causes. Recent examples include Fukushima’s nuclear power plant fiasco and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that divert attention from the key drivers, namely, the insatiable energy consumption in industrialized nations; the economic ideologies of safety and security that justify military interventions and arms trade, which continue to increase and
spread in spite of humanitarian rhetoric and global recession; the continuous urbanization, with the majority of the world’s population now living in urban areas, thereby, perpetuating the discredits and exploits of rural areas; the silent discounting Fludarabine cell line of our children’s future through industrial food, resulting in more than a quarter of all children in industrialized nations being obese
SN-38 cell line or overweight, with the majority staying obese as adults (Wiek et al. 2011b). While research and education slowly recognize the importance of shifting their efforts to such challenges and their root causes (Jerneck et al. 2011; Spangenberg 2011; Wiek et al. 2011a), sustainability scientists lack experience and expertise in contributing to feasible and effective solution options. The concept of linking knowledge to action for sustainability was initiated a decade ago (Kates et al. 2001) and has been reiterated since then (Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006); yet, too many scholars still believe that this link will miraculously emerge. However, it is obvious that it requires a very Selleck Sapitinib different type of research and education (Sarewitz et al. 2010; Wiek et al. 2011a): namely, research that generates knowledge that matters to people’s decisions and engages in arenas where power dominates knowledge; and education that enables students to be visionary, creative, and rigorous in developing solutions and that leaves the protected space of the classroom to confront the dynamics and contradictions of the real world. Against this background, the community of sustainability scientists is confronted with two essential questions.