Double crisis: social and planetary

Social ecology proposes a humanistic approach to the environment, considering that ecological problems are deeply related to social structures. Murray Bookchin, first social ecologist and was also the first to define this field. Bookchin proposed a holistic vision of natural beings, including humans as an integral part of the ecosystem. According to this perspective, environmental balance could be achieved through self-regulation, avoiding external interventions, which, far from helping the planet, generate environmental problems.[5]​.

The ideal society would be an ''ecological society'' that would not follow the ideas of capitalism, but would be organized under the shield of the ecological economy, based on sustainability in all its aspects, organized through the coordination of independently self-governed communities. [5]​.

According to this vision, environmental balance would be achieved through forms of social organization that prioritize cooperation, equity and self-regulation, thus reducing the need for interventions that have historically generated more harm than solutions.[5]​.

Causes of ecological-social unsustainability

Contemporary authors complement this critical vision by pointing out that the current development model is based on unsustainable paradigms. The current paradigm maintains a vision of the Earth as a thing (res extenso), a simple inexhaustible repository of resources for the realization of unlimited progress. This perspective was consolidated with the emergence of the modern scientific spirit in the 20th century, reinforcing profound dualisms: human being and nature, reason and feeling, subject and object. Such divisions legitimized the systematic exploitation of nature as something separate from the human being.[6]​.

This model led to a relationship of use and abuse of the Earth, treating it as an object without spirit or purpose. As a result, a logic of intensive exploitation was generated that led to the overexploitation of ecosystems, the domestication of nature and the occupation of approximately 83% of the planet by human activities.[6]​.

Criticism of illusory anthropocentrism

One of the factors that deepens the sustainability crisis is anthropocentrism, understood as placing the human being at the center of everything, granting them superior value compared to other beings. This vision has been historically legitimized by religious and philosophical interpretations that reinforced the idea of ​​human dominion over the Earth. However, it is proposed that this position ignores the interdependence between the human being and the rest of the biosphere, proposing to rescue a relationship of care, as suggested by the ''Carta da Terra**''** that promotes a community of life. This anthropocentrism is aggravated when human beings are placed outside and above nature, ignoring that they are just one more link in the chain of life and that they depend on natural systems for their survival [6]​.

The myth of unlimited progress

Another criticized aspect is the Modernity project, which promotes the myth of unlimited progress. It is based on the idea that the Earth can be exploited without limits to sustain economic growth and continued development. However, this model has proven to be unviable, since the Earth is limited and does not support unrestricted consumption. This logic produced vast accumulation of wealth for a few and widespread poverty for others, coupled with global environmental devastation. This situation is aggravated by demographic pressure and the unequal ecological footprint between regions: calculations indicate that if the entire world population lived with the ecological footprint of an average American, about 3.5 planet Earths would be needed to sustain that lifestyle.[6]​.

Compartmentalized and mechanistic vision

There are questions about the fragmented and mechanistic vision of reality, characteristic of the modern worldview. This perspective separates the elements of nature into isolated compartments, forgetting their interrelated and organic nature. By atomizing knowledge into specialties, understanding of the whole is lost, which limits the ability to address socioecological problems in a comprehensive manner.[6]​.

Transformative proposal

These approaches highlight the need for a civilizational transformation that surpasses the current paradigm. It is proposed to build a new relationship with the Earth, based on cooperation, respect and co-responsibility between all living beings, to guarantee the vitality of ecosystems and the continuity of the human species.[6]​.

Double crisis: social and planetary

Social ecology proposes a humanistic approach to the environment, considering that ecological problems are deeply related to social structures. Murray Bookchin, first social ecologist and was also the first to define this field. Bookchin proposed a holistic vision of natural beings, including humans as an integral part of the ecosystem. According to this perspective, environmental balance could be achieved through self-regulation, avoiding external interventions, which, far from helping the planet, generate environmental problems.[5]​.

The ideal society would be an ''ecological society'' that would not follow the ideas of capitalism, but would be organized under the shield of the ecological economy, based on sustainability in all its aspects, organized through the coordination of independently self-governed communities. [5]​.

According to this vision, environmental balance would be achieved through forms of social organization that prioritize cooperation, equity and self-regulation, thus reducing the need for interventions that have historically generated more harm than solutions.[5]​.

Causes of ecological-social unsustainability

Contemporary authors complement this critical vision by pointing out that the current development model is based on unsustainable paradigms. The current paradigm maintains a vision of the Earth as a thing (res extenso), a simple inexhaustible repository of resources for the realization of unlimited progress. This perspective was consolidated with the emergence of the modern scientific spirit in the 20th century, reinforcing profound dualisms: human being and nature, reason and feeling, subject and object. Such divisions legitimized the systematic exploitation of nature as something separate from the human being.[6]​.

This model led to a relationship of use and abuse of the Earth, treating it as an object without spirit or purpose. As a result, a logic of intensive exploitation was generated that led to the overexploitation of ecosystems, the domestication of nature and the occupation of approximately 83% of the planet by human activities.[6]​.

Criticism of illusory anthropocentrism

One of the factors that deepens the sustainability crisis is anthropocentrism, understood as placing the human being at the center of everything, granting them superior value compared to other beings. This vision has been historically legitimized by religious and philosophical interpretations that reinforced the idea of ​​human dominion over the Earth. However, it is proposed that this position ignores the interdependence between the human being and the rest of the biosphere, proposing to rescue a relationship of care, as suggested by the ''Carta da Terra**''** that promotes a community of life. This anthropocentrism is aggravated when human beings are placed outside and above nature, ignoring that they are just one more link in the chain of life and that they depend on natural systems for their survival [6]​.

The myth of unlimited progress

Another criticized aspect is the Modernity project, which promotes the myth of unlimited progress. It is based on the idea that the Earth can be exploited without limits to sustain economic growth and continued development. However, this model has proven to be unviable, since the Earth is limited and does not support unrestricted consumption. This logic produced vast accumulation of wealth for a few and widespread poverty for others, coupled with global environmental devastation. This situation is aggravated by demographic pressure and the unequal ecological footprint between regions: calculations indicate that if the entire world population lived with the ecological footprint of an average American, about 3.5 planet Earths would be needed to sustain that lifestyle.[6]​.

Compartmentalized and mechanistic vision

There are questions about the fragmented and mechanistic vision of reality, characteristic of the modern worldview. This perspective separates the elements of nature into isolated compartments, forgetting their interrelated and organic nature. By atomizing knowledge into specialties, understanding of the whole is lost, which limits the ability to address socioecological problems in a comprehensive manner.[6]​.

Transformative proposal

These approaches highlight the need for a civilizational transformation that surpasses the current paradigm. It is proposed to build a new relationship with the Earth, based on cooperation, respect and co-responsibility between all living beings, to guarantee the vitality of ecosystems and the continuity of the human species.[6]​.