Sustainable Development

Sust. Dev. 16, 117–125 (2008)

Published online 10 December 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.341

A Civilization Based on Sustainable

Development: Its Limits and Prospects
Antoni Skowroński*
Wydział Filozofii Chrześcijańskiej, Instytut Ekologii i Bioetyki, UKSW in Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACT
Solutions to current environmental and social problems cannot be achieved on the
basis of the traditional concept of development. One solution may be the idea of
‘sustainable development’, which presents a series of solutions leading to the protec-
tion and safeguarding of three thrusts to development, i.e. that of society (culture),
of nature and of the economy. It assumes major modifications to our way of thinking
– and to the means of civilizational development – pursued hitherto. It points to the
need for the spiritual development of humankind, and for an exchange of the goals
of development from the material centred to the non-materialistic. With respect to
these general assumptions and goals, sustainable development encounters many
practical and psychological problems that curb (or even prevent) the effective incor-
poration of the concept in practice (the greatest single barrier is global unilateralism).
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 1 December 2006; revised 7 May 2007; accepted 26 June 2007

Keywords: sustainable development; civilization; environment policy; social development; economic development

Introduction

I
N THE FACE OF THE NUMEROUS CRISES AND CATASTROPHES OF AN ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL NATURE
THAT are afflicting our planet, a justifiable question arises regarding the further fate of humankind
and our civilization. This is not a completely new question. Rather, it emerged for the first time in
discussions over the so-called functional requisites, without which no society can long persist
(Aberle et al., 1950). On the whole, however, up to the second half of the 20th century, the clear prefer-
ence shown for the idea of progress ensured that the world community either did not perceive, or else
failed to assign any critical assessment to, the negative consequences of human activity in nature.
However, the escalation of threats linked to the destruction of the very environment human beings
need if they are to live and develop at all made it imperative that alternative methods of further develop-
ment were sought. One of the proposals that people came up with was that concerning the ‘sustainable
development’ concept. Officially, this – as developed and perfected since the time of the Stockholm

* Correspondence to: Dr. Antoni Skowroński, Wydział Filozofii Chrześcijańskiej, Instytut Ekologii i Bioetyki, UKSW in Warsaw, Poland.
E-mail: antonios@pf.pl

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
118 A. Skowroński

International Conference of 1972 – was adopted for implementation at the June 1992 ‘Earth Summit’
in Rio de Janeiro. The ‘Rio Declaration’ and ‘Agenda 21’ (Earth Summit, 1992) have first and foremost
treated ‘sustainable development’ in global terms. In connection with this, the idea can be deemed
a point of departure for any shaping of new, planet-wide phases in the development of human
civilization.
The ‘sustainable development’ concept encompasses a prospect for the further global development of
the world and civilization. In contrast, the model of socio-economic development in place hitherto, and
based on the constantly increasing consumption of goods, services and fossil fuels and the accumulation
of wastes, is seen to destroy the very ecosystems on which we are dependent for our biological existence.
Further pursuit of civilizational development by this means is unacceptable, since it takes no account
of natural limitations and the needs of future generations, or even the increasing human population
(Capra, 1982). A markedly different model ought to involve environmentally friendly socio-economic
development that takes account of the finite nature of environmental resources and possibilities. This
model would also pay heed to the expectations – and developmental prospects – not only of our gen-
eration, but also of those that are to come.

Humankind in the Process of Civilizational Development

Humankind is an integrated biological system in whose subsystems a wide variety of life processes are
being engaged in, with a view to energy and matter being made use of, information made to flow and
all of these harnessed, converted and biosynthesized in regulation and reproduction. However, alongside
aspects of a biological nature common to all living things, humankind has something more that distin-
guishes our species from all others. The aspect in question is the capacity for abstract thinking that
shapes social relationships of a specific kind (cf. Kunicki-Goldfinger, 1993). These relationships come
together in ‘culture’, which is the experience and collected knowledge maintained in our species’ social
memory.
Culture puts in place the practical, ethical, political and social norms so critical as component elements
to the civilizational development of humankind (Zie/ba, 1995). Today, therefore, the human evolutionary
inheritance comprises that which is common to all living organisms (i.e. biochemical identity), plus that
which has arisen through peoples’ activity (culture), with ‘humankind living in a culture that carries
nature within it’ (Morin, 1973). The culture in question – which has become the unique property of our
own species – has brought with it the further injection of both intellectual rigour and humanity into
nature (Adamski, 1993). With time, it has led to the appearance of a new environment for the life and
development of humankind (L apiński, 1999; Hull, 1992). The systematic, conscious, goal-orientated
´
transformation and supplementation of nature has led to the emergence of new existential space typi-
cally dubbed the ‘socio-natural environment’, and comprising many elements, both natural and anthro-
pogenic (Dol ega, 1999, 2001). Persistence and further development in this kind of environment has
´
required the spatial organization of behaviour, as well as the setting out of certain rules for individual
conduct. This is the fundamental determinant of civilizational development.
In the past, the terms ‘culture’ and ‘civilization’ were made use of interchangeably. Currently, however,
the concept of ‘culture’ is used to describe output that is more spiritual than material in nature. In
contrast, ‘civilization’ is taken to mean the degree of development of a society in a given historical period,
this being characterized by a defined level of material culture, degree of mastery over the natural envi-
ronment and accumulation of social institutions. An important indicator of the level of material culture
is the skill manifested in utilizing and shaping nature. Thanks to its scientific and technological civiliza-
tion, humanity has replaced the direct action of biological mechanisms with a system of socio-economic

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 16, 117–125 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
A Civilization Based on Sustainable Development: Its Limits and Prospects 119

development it has brought into existence by itself. This has led to the emergence of many dangers,
and even to the prospect of humanity ending its own existence (Pia/tek, 2005). Different civilizational
systems known from history did suddenly plunge towards extinction, precisely on account of their
having exhausted resources; or else dwindled slowly into nothingness through stagnation – on account
of a failure to learn from the past, and hence an inability to adapt to changing conditions in their
surroundings.
I feel, however, that unfavourable regressive change in civilization may be curbed, providing that we
employ such a model of development as will be able to reconcile ecology’s laws with the rational and
justified expectations of people living in a particular place at a particular time. An important issue when
it comes to the further development of civilization concerns the shaping and protection of the environ-
ment to keep those parameters that ‘. . . while allowing for the attainment of developmental goals set
(steadily increasing wellbeing and comfort of life, consumption, etc.), ensure at the same time the pro-
tection of humankind – and the ecosystems important thereto – from biological degradation or even
extinction’ (Hull, 1993). If it wishes to head off along the road to this kind of civilizational development,
humankind must alter the style of development in place previously, and based solely on ‘growth’, by
adjusting the socio-economic system to the capacities of the natural environment.
We are convinced that the development of our Euro-Atlantic civilization is based on increasing knowl-
edge, technical and technological innovation and generated material needs. These are the main pre-
rogatives of this development, and they stand in opposition to culture (which, as mentioned earlier, is
more closely identified with the sphere of spiritual, aesthetic or moral values). In line with this, it is both
justifiable and logical to adopt ‘sustainable development’ as an alternative model for further civilizational
progress, since the idea both lies within – and is able to reconcile – material development and cultural
progress. By using its assumptions to construct further strategies and plans for global civilizational
development, we have a genuine chance to eliminate the threats obstructing and negating further prog-
ress of an economic, cultural and civilizational nature.

Sustainable Development – an Alternative for the Further Maintenance of Civilization

It was at the end of the 1960s that systematic changes in mentality and consciousness began to emerge
– first in the USA, but soon after also in Europe. The 1968 Flower Power ‘revolution’ brought scientific
and technological development into question, ushering in a series of serious publications, studies and
reports from academics, social activists and publicists (Commoner, 1971; Ehrlich, 1968; Hinrichs, 1971;
Meadows et al., 1972). However, the more precise analysis involved then and since has made it clear
that civilization’s growing problems are less the result of imperfect technology and more – above all – the
result of the system of values and style of life currently favoured in Western societies (Kiel czewski, 1993).
´
The global crisis is thus attributable to a crisis of humanity and its system of values, institutions and
cognitive principles, most especially because of the unsuitable way these are being applied to the real
situation or state of affairs, as well as the irrational way in which natural resources are utilized for the
short-term maximization of profits. The Italian academic and co-founder of the Club of Rome, A. Paccei,
observed that there was a categorical need to reject the conviction that humankind had the right to do
what it wanted to with the planet, as if other forms of life existed solely for the exclusive use of our
species and were entirely dependent upon us (Paccei, 1979). The unfavourable changes and warnings
that came to be associated with these beliefs encouraged the search for solutions, and ultimately the
emergence of a new concept for civilizational development based on equilibrium and self-maintenance.
As has already been noted, the idea gained for itself the name ‘sustainable development’.

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 16, 117–125 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
120 A. Skowroński

Content of the Sustainable Development Concept

The overall philosophy of sustainable development leads to a reconciliation – and a linking into a single
compatible whole – of the two opposing, and ostensibly antagonistic, concepts of ‘growth’ and ‘develop-
ment’. ‘Growth’ works towards material increase, while ‘development’ has as its goal a fuller and/or
greater and/or better situation attained through the expansion or attainment of defined possibilities
(Machowski, 2003). What the sustainable development concept has to offer is a qualitatively new form
of aware and responsible life at the level of the individual and of society, be these social or natural, with
account taken of both environmental limitations and social expectations.
In general, it is possible to speak of two basic approaches to sustainable development. The first of
these is practical and economic in nature, and is identified with the paradigm of the protection and
shaping of the environment. Sustainable development as understood in this way is a reconciliation of
traditional economic growth with ecological and environmental conditionings. It is a fact that, in today’s
economic programmes and strategies, politicians are ever more likely to make reference to the ‘sustain-
able development’ concept, as opposed to technological or economic progress.
The second way of looking at sustainable development is ideological and historiosophical in nature.
This conceptualization questions the models of civilizational development in place hitherto, concentrat-
ing instead on the search for new social objectives and behaviours, and – in the context of these – new
forms of civilizational development. Sustainable development conceptualizes the different elements of
civilization in a holistic manner. It takes in the management of natural, economic and human resources,
spatial planning, institutional solutions, the moral dimension, the shaping of awareness and the choice
of a defined life model (Piontek, 2002). What is in essence involved, then, is the search for and formula-
tion of a new environmentally optimal, and at the same time socially satisfying, vision of civilization.
The 1992 ‘Rio Declaration’ (Earth Summit, 1992) provided that the human being was at the centre
of sustainable development, enjoying the right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature
(see Principle 1). Both present and future generations are said to enjoy the right to have their develop-
mental and environmental needs met (Principle 3), while environmental protection is to be considered
an integral part of the development process (Principle 4). Politicians and governments have as their task
the eradication of poverty and the reduction of disparities in standards of living between the developed
and developing worlds (Principle 5). Improvements in the quality of life are envisaged to take place
through the reduction and elimination of the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption
distorting development (Principle 8). It is beyond doubt that the principles cited make this an approach
targeted at the good of humankind and its further development. In practice, activity in the spirit of
sustainable development is to lead to a sustained improvement in the life of today’s and future genera-
tions, through the shaping of appropriate proportionality between the economic, human and natural
types of capital. A similar definition was adopted at the 2002 Johannesburg Earth Summit, and included
within the Declaration on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit, 2002).
The mechanisms of a civilization based on sustainable development entail the achievement of three
fundamental goals: (1) an ecological goal entailing the halting of environmental degradation and the
elimination of threats to the environment, (2) an economic goal expressed in the meeting of human-
kind’s fundamental material needs via environment-friendly techniques and technologies and (3) a social
and humanitarian goal, assuming the securing of a minimum acceptable standard of living for all (the
elimination of famine and poverty), health protection, the development of people’s spiritual side (i.e.
culture), security and education (Machowski, 2003). The priority is to raise the ‘quality of life’ and to
ensure peace and justice, as well as social and environmental security. Also of crucial importance here
is the intellectual and spiritual development of humankind. What is thus involved is a re-evaluation of

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 16, 117–125 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
A Civilization Based on Sustainable Development: Its Limits and Prospects 121

the lifestyle prized hitherto, and the guiding of an ‘aware’ humankind along a new developmental track
that leads toward quality rather than quantity. These are assumptions of an ideological and aspirational
nature, but they find their justification in the search for new civilizational pathways.
However, there are real barriers obstructing or even preventing the incorporation of these theories
into the practice of the global economy and socio-cultural development, as elements making up what is
termed ‘civilization’. At the aforementioned Earth Summit in Johannesburg, there was a critical assess-
ment of the practice regarding the 10-year introductory period for the idea. It was stated there that,
without far-reaching changes in awareness, without reform of the present global system of economic
and environmental management and without a change in world economic priorities, sustainable devel-
opment may become a fiasco when efforts are made to implement it (Earth Summit, 2002). This state
of affairs is reinforced by the limited commitment being shown by the governments of the world’s most
fully developed states, the lack of policy coordination and the weak (in fact almost non-existent) funding
for the concept.
A fundamental problem is the lack of any authentic political will. It should be recalled that need,
poverty and a lack of ownership, capital and knowledge all lead to the irrational and unsustainable con-
sumption of natural resources by the poorest states. Poverty influences the state of the environment,
but the reverse is also true – an environment in a poor state intensifies poverty. The ongoing globaliza-
tion at first thought of as an opportunity for sustainable development to be achieved rapidly turned into
a particular kind of fiction, coming to be treated as a set of actions that maintains the hegemony of the
multinationals, and of rich states like the USA, as well as some countries in Europe. Yet another source
of difficulties where the process implementing sustainable development is concerned is the system of
values prevalent in highly developed countries. A dominant feature of this system is the greater impor-
tance attached to ‘having’ than to ‘being’. An important hindrance to the achievement of sustainable
development worldwide is thus the objectification of human needs and desires (Kozl owski, 2005). Fur-
´
thermore, socio-economic development and technical progress have been considerably outpacing
humankind’s intellectual and psychological development. These are problems of a moral and ethical
nature reflecting the model of civilizational development that still prevails around the world.

Support for Sustainable Development in the Process of Civilizational Progress

The motor converting civilization as it has been up to now into one based around sustainable develop-
ment should be a change in the fundamental attitudes and behaviours of humankind from those char-
acteristic of the industrial and technological era to those required in the ecological era. The most prosaic
and at the same time pragmatic question en route to a civilization based on sustainable development is
to ensure adequate funding, and the establishment of the necessary institutions that would gradually
allow the assumptions underpinning the concept to be made a practical reality. Proper funding can be
assured if relevant environmental fees and taxes are introduced, as well as if expenditure in other sectors
of the economy (e.g. the arms industry) is limited, with funds saved in this way being transferred for a
facilitated introduction of sustainable development. However, the proper functioning of sustainable
development does not depend solely on the sums of money assigned to the objective, being also depen-
dent on social acceptance and public awareness. In this respect it would be helpful to establish an
international organization whose task would be to take the political and organizational decisions con-
cerning worldwide problems connected with environmental threats.
In the process of building a civilization based on sustainable development, the important tasks include
(Michnikowski, 1992)

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 16, 117–125 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
122 A. Skowroński

• the promotion of humanity’s individual and collective information and knowledge,

• the linking of the eco-social utility of the work institutions and organizations do with the level of
income obtained as a result of that work,
• the mastering of the skills involved in long-term forecasting, as well as the faithful valuation of work
and the consequences of other changes in our surroundings,
• the establishment of flexible bases (including as regards information) that may head off threats to
eco-socially suitable management,
• the mastering of the skills to recognize the situation regarding quality of life on the basis of ecological
knowledge and
• the mastering of the skills to steer processes of change in humankind’s natural environment.
Combined with the assumptions of the ecological era, the above tasks represent a starting point for
the devising of detailed development strategies. These must also take account of the need for the
economy to be made more environment friendly, as connected with the protection of the natural envi-
ronment. At the present level of civilizational development, there is practically no natural environment
left. However, there is natural environment that may be shaped wisely, in line with nature’s eternal
laws. As this basic condition is fulfilled, there is a chance for further development and the co-existence
of industry, the natural environment and humankind. Thus far, however, global society has shown a
preference for making the environment part of the economy, rather than vice versa, any protection
being mediated by way of economic and technical measures. All economic entities wishing to incor-
porate sustainable development into their production processes should come into line with the follow-
ing requirements:
• that the consumption of non-renewable natural resources be steadily limited,
• that use of renewable resources, albeit only insofar as that the net sum of their utilization and regen-
eration, does not increase,
• that emissions of harmful substances be abated to the point where they do not exceed nature’s absorp-
tion capacity,
• that the burden imposed on the environment by non-biodegradable substances be reduced to the point
where these are eliminated altogether,
• that the utilization of land be limited to environmentally harmless levels,
• that there be avoidance of greater risks of the irreversible damage to ecosystems and social systems
that cannot be estimated,
• that maximal species diversity be preserved, with a view to the very functioning of ecological systems
and food chains being likewise preserved,
• that ways of life and means of consumption be shaped in such a way that the environment is protected
and
• that the natural and cultural space in which humans live be shaped and developed appropriately
(Kośmicki, 1997).

A major requirement along the road to sustainable civilizational development is the establishment of
principles of global security in connection with disarmament and the safeguarding of peace, as well as
the devising of new concepts for international cooperation and assistance. The basis is the counteraction
of all racial, cultural and inter-personal prejudice, as well as the minimization of any negative repercus-
sions of new ways of thinking and acting among people not adjusted civilizationally, and accustomed
to a traditional style of development.
The environmental policy responsible for the practical incorporation of the principles of sustainable
development needs to take account of at least two new principles:

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 16, 117–125 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
A Civilization Based on Sustainable Development: Its Limits and Prospects 123

• that the obligation to protect the environment be treated as an element in the proper functioning of
the economy, with any breach being regarded as a departure from the principles of good management,
and
• that account be taken of environmental protection requirements, as well as the security and comfort
of utilization of products at all stages in their life cycles – from the raw material through to manage-
ment of wastes following use or exhaustion (Poskrobko, 1998).

Also important from the practical point of view are all kinds of economic activity limiting the energy
– and materials – intensiveness of industry and raw-materials processing, such that space might be
managed economically, and the development of communications infrastructure, as well as the threat
posed by industry, limited (von Weizsäcker et al., 1995). In practice, it is vital that production and all
spatial forms be located appropriately. Spatial planning therefore plays a major role in this aspect of
sustainable development. Another requirement is that there be a gradual, but ultimately fundamental,
change in the global economic system. Currently, development is based around the ‘ongoing monetary
value of all goods and final services generated in a given economy at a defined time’ (which is to say
GDP) (Borys, 1999). This criterion is employed as a universal indicator by which to assess the style and
standard of living of different societies around the world. However, the early 1990s saw a new measure
of social development proposed, this being dubbed the HDI or Human Development Index (Kozl owski,
´
2005), as based on three component elements:
(1) life expectancy at the moment of birth,
(2) the level of education, knowledge and access to education among citizens and
(3) gross domestic product per capita.
The popularization of this index in politics and the global economy will require major changes in the
awareness of the global community noted up to now, as well as the acceptance of this by the governing
elites and the world business community.
The success of sustainable development will doubtless be determined by universal access to education,
the propagation of learning and new environment-friendly technologies. The pursuit of environmental
education should have, as its aim, a switch in human thinking from that engaged in from the standpoint
of ‘conqueror’ to that involving partnership with the natural environment. Knowledge of this type is
particularly needed by those responsible for the introduction and steering of economic and social pro-
cesses, and environmental protection. An important task in this respect is the ushering-in of pro-
environmental educational curricula where studies in economics and law are concerned, as well as the
injection of more economic (and human) content into courses concerned with the natural sciences and
technology. Future generations will inhabit an environment with far-reaching incorporation of the infor-
mation society, and indeed this is one of the assumptions underpinning sustainable development. Those
involved must therefore learn creative thinking, an ability to pose questions and solve problems inde-
pendently, on the basis of knowledge acquired steadily, as well as logical thinking and conclusion-
drawing at their own behest (Nowicki and Ribbe, 2001). It is thus essential that education be encouraged,
and the development of a knowledge- and information-based economy promoted.
Any process of global sustainable development must perforce entail fundamental changes in the
attitudes and behaviour manifested by human beings – as compared with those characteristic of the
industrial and technological era. Having at its disposal ever greater technical and technological possi-
bilities, and ever greater speeds with which information can be transferred and people moved about,
humankind needs to make the necessary psychological and moral adjustments to such a state of affairs.
From the point of view of its axiological and ethical content, sustainable development entails a moral
obligation towards other forms of life (i.e. nature) and other human beings, be these living now or yet

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 16, 117–125 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
124 A. Skowroński

to be born. Sustainable development requires ethical maturity and a fundamental enlargement of the
intellectual potential of the global society, as well as further appropriate development of science and
technology. What is needed is ‘evolutionary replacement of the forms of growth in place hitherto and
taking place at the cost of the environment, in favour of qualitatively new forms of socio-economic life
and development, along with the social and natural environment’ (Apel Warszawski, 1994). As time
passes, there must be change in the living standards relevant to the civilization based around consump-
tion. The changeover must bring in a different model that guarantees the maintenance of a high quality
of life on our planet (Piontek, 1999). The nature of the society of the future, including the form of sus-
tainable development adopted, will be very largely dependent on the spiritual development of humankind
at the level of the individual. In practice this will mean the translation of refined theories and political
declarations into concrete behaviour on the part of individual people.

Conclusions

Civilizational progress is something we owe to the search for new ways of enriching and perfecting our
social and cultural behaviours. At the beginning of the 21st century, an alternative to this process that
is taking shape is the sustainable development concept. This is a global-scale chance for survival. Alas,
global unilateralism is thus far limiting its great possibilities. However, as time goes by the world must
inevitably start to look for new solutions, and the concept detailed above offers a ready-made answer. At
the current stage of the search, the initiation of a civilization founded upon sustainable development
would seem to be the best option for further civilizational progress, if only this philosophy of new devel-
opmental objectives and possibilities can be introduced in practice into people’s lives.
I think that the future of sustainable development will be predicated upon the intensification of envi-
ronmental catastrophes, disasters and threats, inter alia the degree and scale of the exhaustion of natural
resources. In a quite natural way this will encourage the world community into becoming more fully
involved in, and committed to, an alternative vision of civilizational development. As I have tried to show
in this article, such an alternative already devised, and probably quite well analysed, is the idea of sus-
tainable development. When this is taken as a reference point, there unfolds a new panorama for a stable
and durable civilizational development in which all the inhabitants on Earth can participate. I think that,
notwithstanding its shortfalls, as well as the criticism it has attracted, the sustainable development
concept is noteworthy as a unique alternative where further civilizational development is concerned.

References
Aberle DF et al. 1950. The functional prerequisites of society. Ethics 60: 100–111.
Adamski F. 1993. Kultura mie/dzy sacrum a profanum. In Czl ´ owiek–Wychowanie–Kultura, Adamski F (ed.). WAM: Kraków;
198–210.
Apel Warszawski [The Warsaw Appeal]. 1993. The Economy and the Environment 1(4): 164–165.
Borys T. 1999. Wskaźniki Ekorozwoju. Ekonomia i Środowisko: Bial ystok.
´
Capra F. 1982. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. Simon and Schuster: New York.
Commoner B. 1971. The Closing Circle. Knopf: New York.
Dole/ga JM. 1999. Problematyka ochrony środowiska spoleczno-przyrodniczego w sozologii i ekofilozofii. In Ochrona Środowiska
´ w Filozofii i Teologii, Dole/ga JM, Czartoszewski JW´(eds). ATK: Warsaw; 10–26.
´
Dole/ga JM. 2001. Koncepcja Sozologii Systemowej. UKSW: Warsaw.
´
Earth Summit. 1992. Agenda 21. The Final Text of Agreements Negotiated by Governments at the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, 1992.
Earth Summit. 2002. http://www.earthsummit2002.org [31 December 2006].

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 16, 117–125 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
A Civilization Based on Sustainable Development: Its Limits and Prospects 125

Ehrlich PR. 1968. The Population Bomb. Ballantine: New York.

Hinrichs N. 1971. Population. Environment and People. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Hull Z. 1992. Filozoficzne podstawy ekorozwoju. ZN Poste/pów Nauk Rolniczych 401: 28–45.
Hull Z. 1993. Dylematy i wymiary ekorozwoju. Poste/py Nauk Rolniczych 3: 5–13.
Kielczewski D. 1993. Glówne nurty ekologiczne we wspólczesnej filozofii. In Interdyscyplinarne Podstawy Ochrony Środowiska
´ Przyrodniczego, Prandecka
´ ´
B (ed.). Ossolineum: Wroclaw; 38–57.
´
Kośmicki E. 1997. Środowiskowe dylematy ekorozwoju a przyszlość polskiego rolnictwa. Ekonomia i Środowisko 1(10): 21–34.
Kozlowski S. 2005. Przyszl ośc´ Ekorozwoju. KUL: Lublin.
´
´ ´
Kunicki-Goldfinger WJH. 1993. Znika/d Donika/d. PIW: Warsaw.
L apiński J. 1999. Pradzieje Homo technicus. Studia Philosophiae Christianae. 2(35): 162–187.
´Machowski .
J. 2003. Ochrona Środowiska. Prawo i Zrównowazony Rozwój. Zak: Warsaw.
Meadows DH, Randers DL, Behrens WW. 1972. The Limits to Growth. Universe: New York.
.
Michnikowski L. 1992. Ekorozwój jako forma wspólzycia. Wieś i Państwo 2: 135–144.
´
Morin E. 1973. Le Paradigme Perdu: la Nature Humaine. du Seuil: Paris; 1973.
Nowicki M, Ribbe L. 2001. Problemy Ekorozwoju Polski. Grzegorczyk: Warsaw.
Paccei A. 1979. Interview in Polityka 3 February.
. .
Pia/tek Z. 2005. Czlowiek jako podmiot zrównowazonego rozwoju: kontrowersje filozoficzno-spoleczne. In Zrównowazony
´
Rozwój. Od Utopii do Praw Czl owieka, Papuziński A (ed.). Branta: Bydgoszcz; 14–29.
´
. ´ .
Piontek B. 1999. Jakość zycia i sposoby jej mierzenia w strategii wzrostu gospodarczego i zrównowazonego rozwoju. Problemy
Ekologii 6(3): 221–232.
.
Piontek B. 2002. Koncepcja Rozwoju Zrównowazonego i Trwal ego Polski. PWN: Warsaw.
´
Poskrobko B. 1998. Podstawy polityki ekologicznej. In Ochrona Środowiska. Problemy Spol eczne, Ekonomiczne i Prawne, Górko
K, Poskrobko B, Radecki W (eds). Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne: Warszawa; 11–62.
´
von Weizsäcker EU, Lovins AB, Lovins LH. 1995. Factor Four – Doubling Wealth Halving Resource Use. Earthscan: London.
Zie/ba S. 1995. Kryzys ekologiczny. Realność czy utopia. Czl owiek i Przyroda 3: 5–26.
´

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 16, 117–125 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/sd