Skip to main content

Science and Technology for Sustainability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Handbook for a Sustainable Economy
  • 2746 Accesses

Abstract

In recent centuries there has been an enormous development of science and technology that has allowed us to know much more about the birth and development of life on Earth, how nature works, genetic codes, the universe and its evolution, subatomic physics, etc. Many technologies have brought about significant advances in the well-being of societies, such as electricity, telecommunications, transport, some productive technologies, etc. But there are many patent social and environmental impacts that cause an evident reduction in our quality of life (atmospheric and acoustic contamination, hazardous waste, the deterioration of nature, etc.), in addition to the depletion of resources. These impacts show the unsustainability of the dominant science and technology system. The science of sustainability rejects the dominant paradigm and is based on another that changes the vision of the position of the human species on Earth and in the universe. We must get down off the pedestal from which we think we rule over nature, which is supposedly at our service, to see ourselves as just another species: “The core idea is that nature, imaginative by necessity, has already solved human problems (…) The conscious emulation of life’s genius is a survival strategy for the human race, a path to a sustainable future” (Benyus J. What do you mean by the term biomimicry? www.biomimicryinstitute.org, 2009). The development process of the science and technology system for sustainability requires the fulfilment of the following premises: informative transparency, democratic decision-making, geared towards the universal satisfaction of essential needs in a sustainable way.

Keywords

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allenby, B. R. (2009). The industrial ecology of emerging technologies. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 168–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, B. R., & Rejeski, D. (2008). The industrial ecology of emerging technologies. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anton, P., et al. (2001). The global technological revolution. Santa Monica: National Defence Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benyus, J. (1998). Biomimicry. Innovation inspired by nature. New York: Quill/William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benyus, J. (2009). What do you mean by the term biomimicry?. www.biomimicryinstitute.org

  • Curtis, F. (2003, March). Eco-localism and sustainability. en Ecological Economics 46

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001a). WHITE PAPER. European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide (COM(2001) 370). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001b). Libro Verde sobre la política de productos integrada (COM (2001) 68 final). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001c). Comunicación sobre el Sexto Programa de Acción de la Comunidad Europea en materia de Medio Ambiente (COM(2001) 31 final). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001d). Sustainable production. Challenges & objetives for EU research policy. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001e). Propuesta de estrategia de desarrollo sostenible (COM(2001)264 final). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002a). Towards a global partnership for sustainable development (COM(2002) 82 final). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002b). La tecnología medioambiental en pro del desarrollo sostenible (COM(2002) 122 final). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2004a). Nanotechnologies: A preliminary risk analysis on the basis of a workshop organized in Brussels on 1–2 March 2004. Brussels: DG Health and Consumer Protection.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2004b). National sustainable development strategies in the European Union. A first analysis by the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2004c). Stimulating technologies for sustainable development: An environmental technologies action plan for the European Union (COM (2004) 38 final). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007a). Handbook for trade sustainability impact assessment. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007b). Sustainable urban transport plans (Technical Report 2007/018). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007c). Comunicación interpretativa sobre residuos y subproductos (COM(2007) 59 final). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007d). Green paper on market-based instruments for environment and related policy purposes (COM(2007) 140 final). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007e). Report of environmental technologies (2005–2006) (COM(2007) 162 final). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., & Kerr, R. (2003). Innovation dynamics and environmental technologies: The emergence of fuel cell technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hukkinen, J. (2003). From groundless universalism to grounded generalism: improving ecological economic indicators of human-environmental interaction. Ecological Economics, 44, 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICSU (International Council For Science). (2005). Science and society: Rights and responsibilities. Paris: ICSU.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICSU (International Council For Science)., & IGFA (International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research). (2008). IGSU-IGFA review of the Earth Systems Science Partnership (ESSP). Paris: ICSU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korowicz, D. (2010). Tipping point. Near-term systemic implications of the peak in global oil production. An outline review. Dublin: Faesta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laszlo, E. (2007). An integral theory of everything.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle. Remaking the way we make things. Nueva York: North Point Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Modvar, C., & Gallopin, G. C. (2005). Sustainable development: Epistemological challenges to science and technology. Santiago: CEPAL, ONU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, T. (2008, April). Biomimetics: Design by nature. National Geographic.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (1997c). Reforming environmental regulation in OECD countries. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (1998). Eco-efficiency. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2008a). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2008. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2008b). Environmental innovation and global markets. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2009b). The bioeconomy to 2030. Designing a policy agenda. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2009c). Sustainable manufacturing and eco-innovation. Framework, practices and management. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schettkat, R. (2009). Analyzing rebound effects. Wuppertal: Schumpeter School of Business and Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg, J., & O’Connor, M. (2003). Sustainability science in the European research area: Descriptions, definitions, and challenges. Bureau Cologne: Sustainable Europe Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists). (2008). Federal science and the public good. Securing the integrity of science in policy making. Cambridge: UCS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists). (2009). Failure to yield. Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge: UCS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists). (2012). Heads they win, tails we lose. How corporations corrupt science at the public’s expense. Cambridge: UCS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (United Nations Enviromental Program). (2003). Environmentally sound technologies for sustainable development (revised draft). Paris: UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2000). Millennium declaration. UN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakeford, T. (2003, May). Who’s in control? The Ecologist.

    Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD (Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2000). Eco-efficiency. Geneva: WBCSD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuppertal Institute, et al. (2008). Eco-innovation: Putting the EU on the path to resource. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benyus. (2010). The Biomimicry Institute. Inspiring, educating, and connecting biomimics throughout the world. Biomimicry Institute. www.biomimicryinstitute.org

  • Funtowics, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makover, J., & Pernick, R. (2001). Clean Tech: Profits and potential. Clean Edge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECOS (Environemental Council of the States). (2007). Regional collaboration among states to improve joint planning and priority setting: A new England case study. ECOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernick, R., et al. (2010). Clean tech job trends 2010. San Francisco: Clean Edge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, V. (2012). Biomimicry 3.8: What would you ask nature? Core 77. www.core77.com

  • Schumacher, E. F. (1978). Lo pequeño es hermoso. Madrid: Hermann Blume.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bermejo, R. (2014). Science and Technology for Sustainability. In: Handbook for a Sustainable Economy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8981-3_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics