This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.

Unclaimed
Sabina W. Lautensach
Human Security Institute (Canada), Terrace, Canada

Basic Info

Basic Info is private.

Honors and Awards

The user has no records in this section


Career Timeline

The user has no records in this section.


Short Biography

The user biography is not available.
Following
Followers
Co Authors
The list of users this user is following is empty.
Following: 0 users

Feed

Conference paper
Published: 31 October 2014 in Proceedings of The 4th World Sustainability Forum
Reads 0
Downloads 0

In many respects education systems worldwide still contribute more to the obstacles than to solutions in humanity's quest to implement acceptable forms of sustainable living. The same appears to be the case with governments, especially at superregional and national levels. We summarise the evidence suggesting that many governments fall short of their own broadly stated commitments towards sustainability. Their achievements are evaluated in relation to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and currently discussed notions about the forthcoming Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Also, widely advocated transition strategies, in the educational sector and elsewhere, have met with only partial success. Our findings confirm our previous critical assessment of the UN's Decade of Education for Sustainable Development and of the dominant interpretations of sustainable development per se. We describe the extent of the shortfall and offer some explanations for it. In the classroom, efforts to educate for sustainability are dominated by contingencies, norms and possibilities that differ fundamentally from governance in their dynamics and contingencies. It is therefore possible for teachers at all levels to take the initiative in ways that can compensate to some extent for the failures of governments. This possibility is documented by example cases and further expanded conceptually to describe a productive operating space for educators to help prepare learners for the inevitable challenges of the transition. We refer specifically to the goals of making communities more resilient, reducing their ecological overshoot, and maximising their human security. It is the level of community that offers the greatest potential for mitigating the failures of government as well as of education.

ACS Style

Alexander Lautensach; Sabina Lautensach. Education for Sustainability: How can Educators Address the Failure of Government? Proceedings of The 4th World Sustainability Forum 2014, 1 .

AMA Style

Alexander Lautensach, Sabina Lautensach. Education for Sustainability: How can Educators Address the Failure of Government? Proceedings of The 4th World Sustainability Forum. 2014; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alexander Lautensach; Sabina Lautensach. 2014. "Education for Sustainability: How can Educators Address the Failure of Government?" Proceedings of The 4th World Sustainability Forum , no. : 1.

Conference paper
Published: 01 November 2013 in Proceedings of The 3rd World Sustainability Forum
Reads 0
Downloads 0

In the light of the increasing constraints imposed on human affairs and ambitions by the limits of our ecological support systems, the concept of sustainable development has undergone substantial revisions. In fact, many programs and plans that were advocated under the banner of sustainable development hardly qualify as either sustainable or even as development in any rigorous sense (Lautensach & Lautensach 2013). This finding is supported by the observation that the bioproductive areas of many of the world’s least ‘developed’ countries still exceed their ecological footprints (Lautensach & Lautensach 2010). In other words, unlike almost all of the world’s richer countries, they still operate within the realm of sustainability. The widely shared humanistic concern for the well-being of future generations elevates sustainability to a prime goal among our national and global aspirations. Countries that operate sustainably need to ensure that they remain in that realm, and others should endeavour to reach it. In this paper we focus on the former of those propositions and suggest some general policy directions that would help ‘developing’ countries retain their relatively sustainable status while improving the well-being and human security of their citizens. Preventive health care, subsistence agriculture, fertility reduction, and restrictions on foreign investments are discussed as possible means. Policies that are to be avoided include development schemes that increase market dependence and the ratio of footprint over capacity. As prerequisites we suggest counter hegemonic solidarity, democratic consensus, and holistic education. Lautensach, A. & S. Lautensach. 2013. Why ‘Sustainable Development’ is Often Neither: A Constructive Critique. Challenges in Sustainability 1(1): 3-15. http://librelloph.com/challengesinsustainability/article/view/cis-1.1.3 Lautensach, S. & A. Lautensach. 2010. Prioritising the Variables Affecting Human Security in South-East Asia. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies.Vol. 3 (2): 194-210. http://www.seas.at/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=40

ACS Style

Alexander Lautensach; Sabina Lautensach. Assessing the Top Performers: Mindful Conservatism and ‘Sustainable Development‘. Proceedings of The 3rd World Sustainability Forum 2013, 1 .

AMA Style

Alexander Lautensach, Sabina Lautensach. Assessing the Top Performers: Mindful Conservatism and ‘Sustainable Development‘. Proceedings of The 3rd World Sustainability Forum. 2013; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alexander Lautensach; Sabina Lautensach. 2013. "Assessing the Top Performers: Mindful Conservatism and ‘Sustainable Development‘." Proceedings of The 3rd World Sustainability Forum , no. : 1.

Conference paper
Published: 29 October 2012 in Proceedings of The 2nd World Sustainability Forum
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Efforts and programs toward aiding sustainable development in less affluent countries are primarily driven by the moral imperative to relieve and to prevent suffering. This utilitarian principle has provided the moral basis for humanitarian intervention and development aid initiatives worldwide for the past decades. It takes a short term perspective which shapes the initiatives in characteristic ways. While most development aid programs succeed in their goals to relieve hunger and poverty in ad hoc situations, their success in the long term seems increasingly questionable, which throws doubt on the claims that such efforts qualify as sustainable development. This paper aims to test such shortfall and to find some explanations for it. We assessed the economic development in the world\'s ten least affluent countries (identified by per capita GDP, excluding fragile and failing states) by comparing their ecological footprints with their biocapacities. This ratio, and how it changes over time, indicates how sustainable the development of a country or region is, and whether it risks ecological overshoot. Our results confirm our earlier findings on South-East Asia, namely that poor countries tend to have the advantage of greater sustainability. We also examined the impact that the major development aid programs in those countries are likely to have on the ratio of footprint over capacity. Most development aid tends to increase that ratio, by boosting footprints without adequately increasing biocapacity. One conceptual explanation for this shortfall on sustainability lies in the Conventional Development Paradigm, an ideological construct that provides the rationales for most development aid programs. According to the literature, it rests on unjustified assumptions about economic growth and on the externalisation of losses in natural capital. It also rests on a simplistic version of utilitarianism, usually summed up in the principle of \'the greatest good for the greatest number\'. We suggest that a more realistic interpretation of sustainability necessitates a revision of that principle to \' the minimum acceptable amount of good for the greatest sustainable number\'. Under that perspective, promoting the transition to sustainability becomes a sine qua non condition for any form of \'development\'.

ACS Style

Alexander Lautensach; Sabina Lautensach. Why ‘Sustainable Development’ is Often Neither: a Constructive Critique. Proceedings of The 2nd World Sustainability Forum 2012, 1 .

AMA Style

Alexander Lautensach, Sabina Lautensach. Why ‘Sustainable Development’ is Often Neither: a Constructive Critique. Proceedings of The 2nd World Sustainability Forum. 2012; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alexander Lautensach; Sabina Lautensach. 2012. "Why ‘Sustainable Development’ is Often Neither: a Constructive Critique." Proceedings of The 2nd World Sustainability Forum , no. : 1.

Journal article
Published: 22 May 2012 in Sustainability
Reads 0
Downloads 0

It seems intuitively clear that not all human endeavours warrant equal concern over the extent of their sustainability. This raises the question about what criteria might best serve for their prioritisation. We refute, on empirical and theoretical grounds, the counterclaim that sustainability should be of no concern regardless of the circumstances. Human security can serve as a source of criteria that are both widely shared and can be assessed in a reasonably objective manner. Using established classifications, we explore how four forms of sustainability (environmental, economic, social, and cultural) relate to the four pillars of human security (environmental, economic, sociopolitical, and health-related). Our findings, based on probable correlations, suggest that the criteria of human security allow for a reliable discrimination between relatively trivial incidences of unsustainable behavior and those that warrant widely shared serious concern. They also confirm that certain sources of human insecurity, such as poverty or violent conflict, tend to perpetuate unsustainable behavior, a useful consideration for the design of development initiatives. Considering that human security enjoys wide and increasing political support among the international community, it is to be hoped that by publicizing the close correlation between human security and sustainability greater attention will be paid to the latter and to its careful definition.

ACS Style

Alexander K. Lautensach; Sabina W. Lautensach. When Should We Care About Sustainability? Applying Human Security as the Decisive Criterion. Sustainability 2012, 4, 1059 -1073.

AMA Style

Alexander K. Lautensach, Sabina W. Lautensach. When Should We Care About Sustainability? Applying Human Security as the Decisive Criterion. Sustainability. 2012; 4 (5):1059-1073.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alexander K. Lautensach; Sabina W. Lautensach. 2012. "When Should We Care About Sustainability? Applying Human Security as the Decisive Criterion." Sustainability 4, no. 5: 1059-1073.

Conference paper
Published: 02 November 2011 in Proceedings of The 1st World Sustainability Forum
Reads 0
Downloads 0

It seems intuitively clear that not all human endeavours warrant equal concern over the extent of their sustainability. This raises the question about what criteria might best serve for their prioritisation. We refute on empirical and theoretical grounds the counterclaim that sustainability should be of no concern regardless of the circumstances. We propose that human security can serve as a source of criteria that are both widely shared and can be assessed in a reasonably objective manner. Following the respective classifications established in the literature, we compile and compare four forms of sustainability (environmental, economic, social, and cultural) in their relationships with the four pillars of human security (environmental, economic, sociopolitical, and health-related). Our findings, based on probable cause and effect relationships, suggest that the criteria of human security allow for a reliable discrimination between relatively trivial incidences of unsustainable behavior and those that warrant widely shared serious concern. They also confirm that certain sources of human insecurity, such as poverty or violent conflict, tend to perpetuate unsustainable behavior, a useful consideration for the design of development initiatives. Considering that human security enjoys wide and increasing political support among the international community, it is to be hoped that by publicizing the close correlation between human security and sustainability greater attention will be paid to the latter and to its careful definition.

ACS Style

Alexander Lautensach; Sabina Lautensach. When Should We Care about Sustainability? Applying Human Security as the Decisive Criterion. Proceedings of The 1st World Sustainability Forum 2011, 1 .

AMA Style

Alexander Lautensach, Sabina Lautensach. When Should We Care about Sustainability? Applying Human Security as the Decisive Criterion. Proceedings of The 1st World Sustainability Forum. 2011; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alexander Lautensach; Sabina Lautensach. 2011. "When Should We Care about Sustainability? Applying Human Security as the Decisive Criterion." Proceedings of The 1st World Sustainability Forum , no. : 1.