SUSTAINABILITY ECONOMIC CONCEPT AS A PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE
Name : Leya Alfares
Professor : Rose Penasaran Ya
Date : July, 2024
Week : 1
Introduction
The scarcity of natural resources raises reasonable human concerns, this can be seen
from various influential classic writings, namely the work of Thomas Malthus, "An Essay on
the Principles of Population" in 1798 (Malthus, 1872). In this work, Thomas describes the
fear of population growth, namely the rapid industrial development in the 19th century,
which was followed by pollution and the center of human growth to live and work in large
cities. In an era of troubling social change and social unrest, this included the rise of
environmental and health movements among urban dwellers. Meanwhile, efforts have been
made to develop a scientific and systematic understanding of the relationships between
natural species, populations, and ecosystems. It has also been done, like Darwin's Theory of
Evolution (Smith, 1977). However, it was not until the 1960s that the anti-industrial pollution
movement began to focus more on the correlation between human activities and the natural
environment. The concept of sustainability was introduced as a social goal in 1972 at the first
UN environmental conference in Stockholm. The organization of this conference was
motivated by global concerns about prolonged poverty and rising social injustice, food needs
and global environmental problems, along with the realization that the availability of natural
resources to support economic development is limited.
The balanced cycle of natural resources and human attitudes are also regulated in the
Quran in Surah Al Hijr (verses 19-22). Explanation of verse 19 "And We spread out the earth
and We built mountains and We grow on them in balance". In verse 20 it is explained, and in
it We prepared various sources of life for you and for those whose sustenance is not your
responsibility. Verse 21 reads: And all its (sources and) treasures (which never run out) are
with Us, as well as those We send only to a certain extent. And in verse 22, And We blow the
winds of dust, then We send down rain from the sky, with which We give you water, and you
are not the ones who maintain its storage (control its circulation).
In economic terms, capital in the economic system is a "stock" of real goods that has
the capacity to create goods (or benefits) in the future (Serafy, 1991). In addition, natural
resources, which are reserves of products and services and have the power to create products
and services and other activities, are classified as capital in the factors of production (Serafy,
1991). Alfred Marshal (Serafy, 1991) understood the role of natural resources in contributing
to production. This is reflected in the principle that natural resources can develop (or recover)
slowly. Economics is defined as the science of sharing resources between interested
individuals (Clark, 1989). The economic goal of natural resource allocation is efficiency, i.e.
to obtain the maximum benefit from the exploitation and use of resources. Resources are
considered infinite because technological progress and individual preferences are "given" and
are driving factors. Thus, in the economic framework, sustainability is a static framework and
leads to the concept of steady state as an optimization tool (Daly, 1991).
The concept of sustainable development in Indonesia is contained in the fourth
amendment to the 1945 Constitution on August 10, 2002. One of the concepts is found in
Article 33 Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, which reads: "The national economy must
be carried out with the principles of economic democracy, integration, efficiency and justice,
sustainability, environmental protection, with the principle of independence and maintaining
a balance of progress and national economic unity".
Resource use can be assumed to be sustainable for a certain period of time, typically
10-20 years. However, the time frame is often assumed to be insufficient to represent the
term "sustainable" (Conrad, 1999).
Sustainability is defined as a static equilibrium, where there is no change in
equilibrium, although of course there are occasional changes (Boulding, 1991; Pezzey, 1992).
Sustainability can also mean dynamic equilibrium (Clark, 1989), which has 2 meanings,
namely: first, the equilibrium of a system that changes, the equilibrium indicator changes to a
constant; second is the equilibrium of the system, where each parameter changes in such a
way that each transformation, for example the population spurs a return to the original
population value. Here is the history of Sustainability:
1962: Rachel Carson released "Silent Spring"
1970s: To celebrate the first Earth Day (April 22), Nixon decided that the EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) was driven by industrialization and the impact of
overpopulation.
1972: The first Human Environment Conference in Stockholm, Sweden.
1983: The United Nations established the World Commission on Environment and
Development, the purpose of which was to examine the critical nature of the world's
environmental and development problems and find solutions to them.
1987: Brundtland Commission Report: Sustainable development has three components,
namely environmental protection, economic growth, and equity/community prosperity. In
addition, it defines sustainability as "development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the power of future generations to meet their own needs".
1992: Earth Summit in Rio: More than 178 governments ratify Agenda 21, the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development and the Forest Principles.
2002: Third UN Conference in Johannesburg, South Africa on Environment and
Development.
Sustainability generally refers to the ability to continue and maintain the balance of processes
or system conditions associated with biological and built systems. In an ecological context,
sustainability refers to the ability of ecosystems to maintain and sustain ecological processes,
functions, productivity, and diversity well into the future.
The idea of sustainable living has been developed since the 1980s as an expression of
collective awareness and the limitations of natural resources and the environment to sustain
human life in the future. In 1989, the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED, 1987) published the Brundtland Report on sustainable development document, Our
Common Future, which became a well-known and widely accepted basis for organizing a
more sustainable world order. Sustainability is defined as "meeting the needs of the present
without compromising the needs of future generations". Another important principle of the
Brundtland Commission's understanding is the integration of the three pillars of economy,
social and environment to achieve the goal of sustainable development.
Sustainability is defined as an entanglement, a reciprocal relationship between one
event and another. In ecology, sustainability comes from the words "sustain" which means
"to continue" and "capacity" which means "ability". i.e. biological systems that can still
support unlimited biodiversity and productivity. Long-lived, healthy wetlands and forests are
examples of biologically sustainable systems. In general, sustainability is the sustainability of
systems and processes. The organizing principle of sustainable development is sustainable
development that covers 4 interrelated fields, namely ecology, economy, politics, and culture.
Sustainability science is the study of sustainable development and environmental science.
The word "sustainability" can be interpreted as a socio-ecological process indicated by the
realization of a common ideal. Ideals, by definition, cannot be achieved in a specific time and
space. However, through a continuous and dynamic approach, the process creates a
sustainable system. Healthy ecosystems and environments are essential for the survival of
humans and other organisms.
Research Methods
The method used in this study is the use of literature search techniques, so the
research utilizes literature in the form of books, notes and reports on the achievements of
previous studies (Hassan, 2002). Analysis based on systematic scientific literature; a
theoretical comparative analysis method; and a critical text reconstruction method. The first
step is to classify information related to the research, after which data analysis is carried out,
sorting out one meaning from another to obtain the desired information.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
Results and Discussion
Sustainability in Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism
According to Kuntowijoyo (1998), anthropocentrism is a school of thought that bases
its claims on the belief that humans are the rulers and determinants of reality, determining
what is to come and what happens to them. So, everything outside humans is treated as a
useful object to fulfill their needs. According to Keraf (2005), anthropocentrism as an
environmental management paradigm is based on the assumption that humans are the center
of the universe system. Society with its diverse interests becomes the determining authority
in planning ecosystem order and natural management policies. It stems from the belief that
only humans have value, so that everything in the universe only has value insofar as it
supports human needs. Nature has value only to the extent that its existence can be useful to
humans, until nature has no value. This anthropocentric view leads to a one-sided, human-
dominated relationship. This then results in a resource management model that is rather
exploitative and only oriented towards profit.
In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism establishes the opposite position.
Ecocentrism positions all subjects in the universe (biotic and abiotic) as something that has
value because they are interconnected in an ecosystem. Economic and ecological systems are
matters that can be seen as cause and effect. Economic and ecological systems are part of the
earth system that relates to the earth system as a whole. The ecological economy approach
involves a systematic and comprehensive study of the correlation between economic and
ecological systems (Costanza, 1991). The basic principles of ecological economics include
the complex, adaptive and "living" characteristics of economic and ecological systems, which
must be studied in integrated and co-evolving systems. The economic-ecological approach to
economic research is different from neoclassical economics (Hussen, 2000): In ecoecology,
economic life processes are viewed as part of the ecosystem subsystem. The main reference
is to the properties of mass and energy exchange between ecosystem subsystems and the
economy.
Then production is perceived as the starting point of economic activity (Ayres, 1978).
As explained in the previous component, the factor in the production process is the flow of
raw materials, energy and information along with the physical and biological processes
necessary to maintain life in the ecological system (ecosystem). Thus the ecosystem is the
main source of all materials that enter the economic subsystem (i.e. the ecosphere). In this
context, nature can be seen as the origin of wealth (Hussen, 23000). In addition, the
economic-ecological approach plays a role in the regeneration and assimilation capacity of
natural ecosystems with limits resulting from the physical laws of matter and energy
transformation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993 in (Hussen, 2000)). Therefore, natural resources
cannot be considered unlimited. In focusing on production (conversion of matter and energy),
thermodynamic principles and ecological principles are used to define the "limits" of the role
of natural resources in the economic process (Costanza, 1991). Because all change requires
energy and energy cannot be replaced, the eco-economic approach seeks to increase the value
of energy resources in economic processes and the overall ecosystem (Odum & Odum,
1976).
Another focus of ecological economics is complementary factors of production
(Serafy, 1991). All inputs to the production process are considered complementary, not
substitutes. Because physical and human capital cannot create natural capital. The depletion
of natural capital cannot be solved by replacing natural capital with physical and/or human
capital. The fish stocks and forests above are good examples of this. "Scale" refers to the size
of an economic subsystem in relation to the global ecosystem (Daly, 1991). Today, economic
subsystems are so large that they place significant emphasis on the limited capacity of
ecosystems to support the processes that occur in economic subsystems. Therefore, from an
economic-ecological perspective, the most important and first step to finding the optimal
scale is to understand the biophysical limits of economic growth (Daly, 1996).
Financially, profitability and sustainability are seen as compatible goals, i.e.
sustainable development that makes sure that future generations have the same financial
opportunities. (Temporary) economic efficiency is therefore a central theme of sustainable
development. While development can be economically efficient and sustainable at the same
time, efficiency does not guarantee sustainability. If the goal of economic development
activities is to be sustainable and effective, the optimal allocation of financial and
environmental (i.e. natural) resources must include criteria aimed at achieving both goals.
From an economic perspective that emphasizes efficiency, the problem is not the
irreversibility of natural resource depletion, but how future generations can be compensated
for the loss of natural resources. It can be considered that economic efficiency has different
criteria from the concept of sustainable development (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). People must
decide what is the best allocation of the total resources available today to increase economic
activity and welfare, and how much of the total resources must be saved or stored for the
future for the welfare of future generations.
Sustainability and Utilitarian Classical Ethical Theory
According to the theory of utilitarianism with respect to sustainable development,
seeing all humans and sometimes also non-human beings as carriers of the same utility, it is
possible to argue that we have the same responsibility for future generations as for the present
(Molotokiene, 2020). Speaking of weak versus strong sustainability and whether or not it is
possible to replace natural resources with man-made capital, a utilitarian solution would be to
perform a utility calculation. Classical utilitarianism developed by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill,
states that we should do what "maximizes" the amount of pleasure and "minimizes" the
amount of suffering for everyone affected by our actions. The true purpose of morality for
utilitarians is to ensure happiness and eliminate suffering. The utilitarians take the position
that we can achieve objective morality by considering the consequences of one action or
another.
According to Kymlicka (2004), utility has four definitions, namely: (1) Welfare
hedonism, defines utility in terms of the experience or feeling of pleasure. From this
perspective, humans always seek pleasure and avoid suffering (pain). This is an empirical
human need that is always measurable. (2) The benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind
Another definition of utility is the benefits of a non-hedonic state of mind. The perspective in
this second definition denies that utility refers only to pleasurable experiences or feelings.
That is because the form of experience or feeling that humans encounter is something
valuable that cannot be reduced to just one mental state, such as happiness. (3) Preference
satisfaction: According to this perspective, increasing one's utility means satisfying one's
preferences, regardless of the nature of those preferences. This definition has come under a
lot of criticism because it blurs the notion of what individuals currently prefer and what is
valuable for others to have or do. What is good or valuable for individuals may be different
from what they want or what they like now. In this context, neither desire nor preference
makes something valuable, but because certain objects (goods) have value, individuals prefer
them. (4) Informed Preferences According to this perspective's definition, utility should be
interpreted as preference satisfaction, which is based on complete knowledge and correct
(rational) judgment.
One of the things utilitarianism is most criticized for is that utilitarianism allows one
to harm individuals if it provides a more general good (Ariansen, 1993), hence the interests of
individuals are less significant than the interests of all humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainable development must offer solutions to meet people's basic needs, combine
development and environmental protection, achieve equality, ensure the establishment of
social life and cultural diversity and protect ecological integrity in an economic context.
Economic Perspective Anthropocentrism, humans are the rulers and determinants of reality,
which according to him has consequences in the form of resource management models that
tend to be exploitative and only oriented towards profit. This is different from ecocentrism,
where all subjects in the universe are valuable because they are connected in an ecosystem.
Sustainability in utilitarian theory asserts that all people and their ecosystems have equal
benefits and equal responsibilities for future generations, even if it harms individuals but
brings about the common good.
