Como as estruturas temporais cíclicas e localizadas, como o 'everywhen' aborígene, alteram as abordagens modernas à conservação ecológica intergeracional em comparação com os modelos de progresso ocidentais lineares?

Christian linear eschatology vs ecological stewardship Laudato Si intergenerational justice

In Christian theology, a sharp tension exists between otherworldly linear eschatologies and the mandate for ecological stewardship. A popular strand within modern dispensationalist and apocalyptic Protestantism envisions the end of history as total cosmic annihilation (*annihilatio mundi*, often citing 2 Peter 3:10). In this framing, the material earth is a temporary stage destined for destruction, which has historically fostered political apathy toward conservation and environmental regulation. In contrast, mainstream Roman Catholic teaching and ecumenical Protestant eco-theology interpret Christian linear eschatology through *transformatio mundi*—the cosmic renewal and resurrection of all creation (Romans 8:19–22; Colossians 1:20). Reformed theologian Jürgen Moltmann (*God in Creation*, 1985; *The Coming of God*, 1996) decisively argued that authentic Christian hope is not an escape from earth, but God’s future indwelling of the cosmos, which obligates believers to participate in active ecological preservation. Scriptural stewardship is similarly re-anchored in Genesis 2:15: humanity’s role is not exploitative dominion, but a covenantal calling to “till and keep” (*‘abad* and *shamar*) the garden. This theological trajectory found magisterial expression in Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical *Laudato Si’*. Francis articulates two foundational paradigms: * **Integral Ecology**: The premise that environmental breakdown and socioeconomic inequality are inextricably linked, requiring an ethical response that simultaneously hears “both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” (§49). * **Intergenerational Justice**: The assertion that future generations hold an inherent moral claim on current planetary resources. Francis writes: *“Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us... ‘The environment is part of a logic of receptivity. It is on loan to each generation, which must then hand it on to the next’”* (§159). To live this out, the encyclical calls for an **“ecological conversion”**—a spiritual reorientation prioritizing simplicity, liturgical contemplation of nature, and systemic decarbonization. Lived practice includes denominational divestment from fossil fuels, parish greening initiatives, and advocacy alongside vulnerable communities. However, sociological data (such as Pew Research findings) demonstrate a persistent fault line: while Catholic leadership, the World Council of Churches, and mainline Protestants emphasize urgent ecological stewardship, conservative evangelical communities frequently remain resistant, viewing climate activism as secular distraction or interference with God's sovereign timeline.

• intechopen.com
• olemiss.edu
• asburyseminary.edu
• malua.edu.ws
• godblog.org
• thegospelcoalition.org
• scielo.org.za
• yale.edu
• substack.com
• mdpi.com
• vatican.va
• capp-usa.org
• thegospelcoalition.org
• oikoumene.org

pratityasamutpada cyclical time intergenerational environmental ethics Mahayana Buddhism

In Mahayana Buddhism, environmental and intergenerational ethics are anchored in the foundational doctrine of **pratītyasamutpāda** (dependent origination)—the realization that no entity possesses an isolated, independent essence (*svabhāva*); rather, all phenomena co-arise conditionally within an interdependent web. Nāgārjuna formalized this in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* (24:18), equating causal dependence directly with emptiness (*śūnyatā*): *“Whatever is dependently co-arisen / That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, / Is itself the middle way”*. This ontology was further developed in East Asian Mahayana traditions, notably Huayan Buddhism, which utilizes the metaphor of **Indra’s Net** (*indrajāla*) from the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra*: an infinite cosmic lattice of multifaceted jewels, each reflecting every other jewel simultaneously. When applied to cyclical time (*saṃsāra*) and vast cosmic epochs (*kalpas*), past, present, and future beings are understood as causally entangled. Because actions (*karma*) reverberate across lifetimes, the suffering of future generations is not an externality but an intrinsic consequence of current volitions. Practitioners translate this cosmology into lived ethics via the **Bodhisattva vow**—the commitment to defer ultimate personal cessation until all sentient beings achieve liberation. In the *Bodhicaryāvatāra* (8.90), Śāntideva articulates this as *parātmasamatā* (the equalization and exchange of self and other): *“Strive at first to meditate upon the sameness of oneself and others. In joy and sorrow all are equal; Thus be every being’s guardian.”* Contemporary Engaged Buddhists (such as Thich Nhat Hanh, who coined the term "interbeing") apply this non-dual relationality directly to climate action, habitat preservation, and intergenerational justice. **Internal Tensions & Hermeneutic Nuance:** Scholars of Buddhist studies urge caution against retrofitting modern ecological sensibilities uncritically onto ancient soteriology. Philological historians such as Lambert Schmithausen (*Buddhism and Nature*) and Ian Harris demonstrate that classical Indian Buddhist texts were primarily *renunciatory*—aiming to escape cyclical existence (*saṃsāra*) rather than preserve natural ecosystems. Harris argues that transforming *pratītyasamutpāda* from an analysis of the psychological mechanics of suffering into an ecocentric charter is a modern, innovative hermeneutic rather than an explicit ancient mandate. Nevertheless, within contemporary Mahayana practice, it remains one of global religion's most influential conceptual frameworks for sustainability.

• brightstarevents.com
• scribd.com
• thezensite.com
• researchgate.net
• integral-review.org
• chuagiacngo.com
• meditationcircle.org.uk
• thuvienhoasen.org
• cambridge.org
• researchgate.net
• ijfmr.com

1 source from the original research is no longer reachable

intergenerational ethics discount rate linear progress vs temporal relationalism Derek Parfit

### Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical Naturalism: Intergenerational Ethics and Discount Rates Within analytic philosophy and naturalist axiology, intergenerational ethics examines how reasons for action extend across time. Naturalist frameworks view persons and time without metaphysical teleology: temporal location is treated as an objective coordinate, structurally analogous to spatial coordinates. #### Core Positions and Tensions Mainstream analytic ethics strongly rejects a **pure rate of time preference**—discounting well-being simply because it occurs in the future. Derek Parfit and Tyler Cowen demonstrate that discounting the intrinsic moral badness of future suffering is fundamentally arbitrary. However, a major internal tension divides: 1. **Temporal Neutrality (Impartial Utilitarianism / Consequentialism):** Moral consideration does not decay with time; future people possess equal moral weight regardless of temporal distance. 2. **Temporal Relationalism and Partiality:** Relational theorists argue that moral obligations diminish not by mere passage of time, but because agent-relative ties—such as kinship, shared cultural institutions, or direct reciprocity—weaken across generations. This debate directly impacts policy: while standard economics uses positive social discount rates (typically 2–7%) to guide climate policy, analytic ethicists argue this conflates empirical growth or uncertainty with pure moral devaluation. #### Key Figures and Primary Texts - **Derek Parfit**, *Reasons and Persons* (Oxford University Press, 1984), Appendix F: “The Social Discount Rate” and Part IV. - **Tyler Cowen and Derek Parfit**, “Against the Social Discount Rate” (in *Justice Between Age Groups and Generations*, eds. Peter Laslett and James S. Fishkin, Yale University Press, 1992). - **Frank Ramsey**, “A Mathematical Theory of Saving” (*The Economic Journal*, 1928), which famously described discounting future utilities as a practice that “is ethically indefensible and arises merely from the weakness of the imagination”. #### Distinctive Concepts - **Pure Time Preference vs. Instrumental Discounting:** Ethicists distinguish discounting for risk (the future may not occur) or diminishing marginal utility of consumption (future societies may be wealthier) from *pure* time discounting (evaluating an identical harm as morally less important simply because it occurs later). - **The Spatial Analogy:** Parfit's key refutation: *"No one suggests that... we should adopt a spatial discount rate. No one thinks that we may care less about long-range effects of our acts, at a rate of n percent per yard. The temporal discount rate is, I believe, as little justified"* (*Reasons and Persons*, 1984). - **Relation R and Psychological Connectedness:** Parfit’s reductionist view of personal identity holds that if personal unity reduces to overlapping chains of memories and intentions, self-interest over long horizons weakens; yet interpersonally, this reinforces impartial neutrality—temporal distance itself carries zero moral weight. #### Epistemic Status Philosophical consensus broadly rejects pure time discounting in ideal axiology, but debates remain unresolved regarding relationalist obligations, population axiology (e.g., the Non-Identity Problem and Repugnant Conclusion), and practical implementation within macroeconomic climate models.

• stanford.edu
• stanford.edu
• researchgate.net
• cmu.edu
• ox.ac.uk
• econstor.eu
• stafforini.com
• ethics.org.au
• effectivealtruism.org
• scribd.com
• oup.com
• stanford.edu
• uchicago.edu
• treasury.govt.nz
• stanford.edu

traditional ecological knowledge cyclical time vs linear resource management sustainability peer reviewed

In ecological anthropology and resilience science, environmental governance is increasingly analyzed through the clash of temporal paradigms: the **linear model** of industrial natural resource management versus the **cyclical temporality** of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). ### Disciplinary Position, Practices, and Tensions Mainstream natural resource management emerged from an industrial paradigm that views time linearly—defined by discounted future values, progressive extraction, and equilibrium optimization (such as Maximum Sustained Yield). In contrast, TEK—which ecologist Fikret Berkes defines as a cumulative **“knowledge-practice-belief complex”**—treats social and ecological systems as co-evolving through seasonal, generational, and regenerative rhythms. Practitioners live this cyclical model through phenological indicators: harvesting is dictated not by bureaucratic calendar dates, but by recurrent ecological cues (e.g., the blooming of specific flora or migratory arrivals). Social scientists caution against the “ecological noble savage” trope, noting that TEK is neither static nor universally conservationist by default; rather, it is an empirical, adaptive system. A key tension in contemporary policy is the institutional tendency to “mine” TEK for empirical data while stripping out its relational ethics and governance sovereignty. ### Landmark Works and Empirical Foundations * **C. S. Holling and Gary K. Meffe (1996):** In *“Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management,”* the authors demonstrated that linear attempts to suppress natural variation (such as wildfire suppression or rigid harvest quotas) reduce system resilience, leading to abrupt ecological collapses. * **Fikret Berkes (*Sacred Ecology*, 1999/2018):** Berkes synthesized decades of field research among Subarctic Cree and other communities, showing that TEK mirrors non-linear adaptive management by expecting disturbance and cyclical renewal. * **Kyle Powys Whyte & Robin Wall Kimmerer:** Indigenous scholars emphasize “spiraling time” and reciprocal restoration, wherein responsibilities to ancestors and descendants collapse linear distance into cyclical kinship obligations. ### Distinctive Concepts * **Command-and-Control Pathology:** The counterproductive attempt to engineer linear predictability into dynamic ecosystems, ultimately eroding ecological buffers. * **Adaptive Renewal Cycle (Panarchy):** The recognition that ecosystems move cyclically through growth, conservation, collapse, and reorganization; TEK aligns practices with this renewal rather than attempting perpetual maximum yield. * **Kincentric Ecology:** Enrique Salmón’s term for viewing human beings and non-human species as reciprocal kin within an ongoing shared life-cycle, transforming “resource extraction” into mutual obligation.

• activeremedy.org
• google.com.om
• frontiersin.org
• researchgate.net
• cardiff.ac.uk
• archive.org

Aboriginal everywhen concept ecological conservation deep time Custodianship Australia

### Position and Relational Custodianship In Australian Aboriginal ontologies, ecological conservation is grounded in kinship rather than external management. Land is not an inert commodity or unpeopled "wilderness," but a living relative known as **Country**. Practitioners live this through "Caring for Country"—a reciprocal obligation of kinship and customary Law, sustained via ritual, seasonal tracking, and cultural burning (*fire-stick farming*). A central tension exists between Western linear conservation—which often historically privileged "fortress conservation" that separated humans from nature—and Aboriginal ontology, where country deteriorates into "sick Country" without human presence and custodial fire. Similarly, modern archaeological frameworks conceptualize deep time as an abstract, quantitative timeline (surpassing 65,000 years), whereas Indigenous traditions understand time multidimensionally. While concepts vary across more than 250 distinct language nations (e.g., *Jukurrpa* among the Warlpiri, *Manguny* among the Martu), all align in rejecting human dominance over ecological kin. ### Core Concepts * **Everywhen (*The Dreaming* / *Jukurrpa*)**: A sacred, continuous present. Ancestral creation events did not occur merely in a distant, linear past; they are permanently unfolding and accessible through place and performance. * **Country**: Capitalized to convey a sentient, indivisible whole encompassing geographical terrain, skies, waters, non-human kin, human custodians, and spiritual ancestral presence. * **Custodianship**: Relational stewardship governed by moral reciprocity, where humans hold custodial obligations rather than absolute property rights. ### Landmark Works and Scientific Context The concept of the "everywhen" was formulated in Western literature by anthropologist W. E. H. Stanner in his 1956 essay *The Dreaming* (later in *White Man Got No Dreaming*, 1979), writing: > *"One cannot 'fix' The Dreaming in time: it was, and is, everywhen."* Anthropologist Deborah Bird Rose, in *Nourishing Terrains* (1996) and *Dingo Makes Us Human* (1992), described Country as a: > *"nourishing terrain, a place that gives and receives life."* More recently, *Everywhen: Australia and the Language of Deep History* (McGrath, Rademaker, and Troy, 2023) examines how these non-linear temporalities expand academic historical method. **Empirical Consensus vs. Ontological Framework:** Mainstream peer-reviewed ecology increasingly corroborates the efficacy of Indigenous biocultural practices: empirical studies (e.g., Goolmeer et al., *Nature Ecology & Evolution*, 2024) confirm that Aboriginal cultural burning and Indigenous Ranger programs significantly reduce destructive megafires and conserve biodiversity. Concurrently, the "everywhen" operates as an Indigenous cosmological philosophy rather than a speculative physical hypothesis about space-time.

• bravenewwords.info
• deakin.edu.au
• scribd.com
• mythologis.com
• sprep.org
• naturalhazards.com.au
• nih.gov
• 4sonline.org
• anu.edu.au
• researchgate.net
• commonground.org.au
• socialsciences.org.au
• welcometocountry.com
• timmelville.com
• timhwb.org.au
• blogspot.com

4 sources from the original research are no longer reachable

Daoist natural cycles ziran wu wei ecological conservation intergenerational ethics

In Daoism (*Daojiao* and *Daojia*), ecological conservation and intergenerational responsibility are grounded in an organic cosmology where humanity, Heaven, Earth, and the primordial *Dao* form a continuous continuum. Rather than placing humans atop a hierarchy of dominion, Daoism views ecological disruption as a distortion of cosmic order that cascades across generations. ### Distinctive Concepts and Canonical Texts * **_Ziran_ (自然, "Self-so-ness" / Spontaneity):** Rather than referring to "nature" as an external resource, *ziran* denotes the inherent, spontaneous self-unfolding of all things. As the *Daodejing* (ch. 25) canonical formula declares: *"Humans model themselves on Earth, Earth models itself on Heaven, Heaven models itself on the Dao, and the Dao models itself on its own spontaneity (*ziran*)"*. * **_Wu wei_ (無為, Non-coercive Action / Responsive Attunement):** Often misconstrued as passivity, *wu wei* entails acting without artificial imposition or exploitative force, aligning intentional activity with existing ecological flows (*yin-yang* cycles) rather than overmastering them. * **_Chengfu_ (承負, Inherited Burden / Intergenerational Transmission):** Found in the Han-dynasty religious text *Taipingjing* (太平經, *Scripture of Great Peace*), *chengfu* articulates an explicit intergenerational ethic. The scripture argues that the moral and environmental disruptions enacted by ancestors accumulate and must be borne by future generations unless current generations re-establish "central harmony" (*zhonghe*) through ritual repair, modest consumption, and bodily cultivation (*yangsheng*, 養生). ### Praxis, Branches, and Tensions In practice, monastic and communal Daoist lineages have historically maintained sacred mountains (*dongtian*, "grotto-heavens"), conserved sacred forests, and restricted resource extraction according to cyclical seasonal taboos. In the late 20th and 21st centuries, the Chinese Taoist Association formalized this heritage through green declarations and reforestation programs. Scholars of Chinese philosophy and religion (e.g., Chi-tim Lai, James Miller, and Liu Xiaogan) delineate a critical tension: ancient Daoist writers were cosmologists rather than modern environmentalists. Contemporary interpretations often risk romanticizing early texts by projecting modern climate policy into antiquity. Classical Daoism—particularly the radical relativism of the *Zhuangzi* and chapters of the *Daodejing* stating that "Heaven and Earth are not benevolent" (ch. 5)—embraces indifferent, cyclical transformation rather than human survivalism. Nevertheless, contemporary environmental philosophers maintain that Daoism offers a non-anthropocentric framework that conceives human well-being as inseparable from long-term planetary homeostasis.

• encyclopedia.com
• sciepublish.com
• researchgate.net
• hawaii.edu
• dokumen.pub
• urd.ac.ir
• hkust.edu.hk

1 source from the original research is no longer reachable

block universe eternalism vs arrow of time ecological responsibility intergenerational discounting

### Foundations: Spacetime Ontology and the Causal Arrow In mainstream relativistic physics and analytic philosophy of time, the dominant view is **eternalism** (or the **block universe** / B-theory). Rooted in Hermann Minkowski’s 1908 formulation—proclaiming that *"space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows"*—and formalized by the Rietdijk–Putnam argument, special relativity implies that because simultaneity is relative, past, present, and future events are equally real. Einstein reiterated this in 1955, writing that the distinction between past, present, and future is *"only a stubbornly persistent illusion."* Simultaneously, mainstream physics recognizes an **arrow of time** (Arthur Eddington, *The Nature of the Physical World*, 1928). While microphysical dynamical laws are time-reversal invariant, the macroscopic universe displays an asymmetric thermodynamic arrow dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and a low-entropy origin (David Albert’s *Past Hypothesis*). Dynamic models (such as C. D. Broad’s "growing block universe" or presentism) remain active minority views in metaphysics but struggle to reconcile with Lorentz covariance. ### Ethical Implications: Temporal Neutrality vs. Intergenerational Discounting This tension directly shapes ecological responsibility and intergenerational ethics: * **Ontological Equality:** Under eternalism, a person suffering from ecological collapse two centuries from now is as ontologically real as someone suffering today. Temporal distance is analogous to spatial distance; treating future persons as less significant simply because they inhabit a later coordinate constitutes an arbitrary prejudice akin to geographic chauvinism. * **Rejection of Pure Time Discounting:** In environmental economics, future costs are often discounted. Philosophers of intergenerational justice—such as Derek Parfit (*Reasons and Persons*, 1984) and John Broome (*Climate Matters*, 2012)—join Frank Ramsey (*A Mathematical Theory of Saving*, 1928) in arguing that a "pure rate of time preference" is *"ethically indefensible and arises merely from the weakness of the imagination"*. If future harms possess concrete existence in the four-dimensional manifold, discounting them simply because they occur later is unjustifiable. * **Thermodynamic Asymmetry of Agency:** While eternalism flattens the *moral value* of all times into parity, the thermodynamic and causal arrow breaks the symmetry of *action*. Because entropy ensures causes precede effects, current generations hold an entirely one-way causal dominion over the conditions of future life. The block universe guarantees that our present ecological degradation remains an enduring, permanent feature of physical reality.

• medium.com
• researchgate.net
• reducing-suffering.org
• etown.edu
• utm.edu
• wikipedia.org
• effectivealtruism.org
• wikipedia.org
• cambridge.org
• stanford.edu
• miraheze.org
• georgiasouthern.edu
• medium.com

1 source from the original research is no longer reachable