Com canvien els marcs temporals cíclics i localitzats, com el «tots-els-temps» aborigen, els enfocaments moderns de la conservació ecològica intergeneracional en comparació amb els models de progrés occidentals lineals?

Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime everywhen cyclical temporality indigenous ecological management conservation

In Australian Aboriginal cosmologies, time, space, and ecology are unified within what settler anthropologists termed the “Dreaming” (e.g., *Jukurrpa* in Warlpiri or *Tjukurrpa* in Pitjantjatjara). Far from denoting a chronological golden age in the past, this framework posits a continuous, cyclical temporality. As anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner observed in his foundational essay *The Dreaming* (1956), “One cannot ‘fix’ The Dreaming in time: it was, and is, everywhen”. Ancestral creator beings did not vanish; their imprints and agency remain continuously active in landforms, totemic kinship obligations, seasonal cycles, and customary Law. Practitioners enact this relational ontology through *Caring for Country*—an ethos wherein “Country” is not property or raw material, but a conscious, sentient matrix of humans, non-human kin, and ancestral energy. Custodians maintain ecological balance through precise cultural practices, most notably “cultural burning” (fire-stick farming). As documented by historian Bill Gammage (*The Biggest Estate on Earth*, 2011) and modern fire ecologists, Indigenous communities systematically applied low-intensity mosaic burns linked to micro-seasonal ecological cues (such as insect emergences or plant blossomings). Mainstream ecological science now recognizes that this deliberate disturbance regime shaped Australia’s ecosystems over millennia, curbing mega-bushfires and maintaining biodiversity. A foundational tension exists between Aboriginal relational ecology and Western conservation models. Anthropologist Deborah Bird Rose (*Nourishing Terrains*, 1996) highlighted that Western preservationist notions of “pristine wilderness”—nature isolated from human presence—clash directly with customary ontology. In Aboriginal thought, an ecosystem devoid of human stewardship is not pristine; it becomes neglected or “sick Country,” susceptible to catastrophic wildfires and ecological collapse. A contemporary political tension concerns governance: while state programs frequently incorporate Indigenous land-management techniques for carbon-credit schemes and park management, scholars and Indigenous leaders (e.g., Muller, Hemming, & Rigney, 2019) critique state “co-management” arrangements for compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledge into technocratic, bureaucratic frameworks while denying Traditional Owners jurisdictional sovereignty and autonomous decision-making power over their ancestral estates.

• commonground.org.au
• welcometocountry.com
• themathesontrust.org
• destinationhistorypod.com
• wikipedia.org
• theway.org.uk
• timhwb.org.au
• uts.edu.au
• nsw.gov.au
• ecologyandsociety.org

Christian linear eschatology dominion stewardship Laudato si intergenerational environmental ethics

Across Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions, environmental ethics is grounded in a linear salvation history moving from divine creation through incarnation to eschatological consummation. Historically, historian Lynn White Jr. argued that Judeo-Christian anthropocentrism and linear teleology licensed environmental exploitation by demythologizing nature. While a minority of apocalyptic or dispensationalist Protestant traditions have treated the earth as a disposable backdrop destined for fiery annihilation, mainstream Christian theology strongly affirms cosmic redemption: creation is not destroyed but transformed, echoing the Apostle Paul’s vision that creation itself “will be set free from its bondage to decay” (Romans 8:21) and culminating in a renewed cosmos (Revelation 21:1–5). The tradition resolves the concept of “dominion” (*radah*, Genesis 1:28) by reading it alongside the vocation to “till it and keep it” (*’abad* and *shamar*, Genesis 2:15). Dominion is understood not as despotic license, but as an accountable, servant stewardship reflecting God’s own care. In Roman Catholic social thought, Pope Francis synthesized this in the encyclical *Laudato Si’* (2015), forcefully rejecting the idea that human dignity warrants “absolute domination over other creatures” (§67). Francis articulates an “integral ecology” linking the cry of the earth with the cry of the poor and stresses intergenerational ethics: “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” (§159). In Eastern Orthodoxy, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I grounded ecological duty in sacramental cosmology, famously declaring that “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God” (Santa Barbara Address, 1997). Orthodoxy views the human person as the *priest of creation*, offering the world back to God in thanksgiving rather than consuming it selfishly. Similarly, mainline Protestant ecotheologians, such as Jürgen Moltmann (*God in Creation*, 1985), emphasize the Trinitarian indwelling of the Spirit within nature. Practitioners live this theology through the global observance of the liturgical “Season of Creation,” fossil-fuel divestment campaigns, and community regenerative agriculture, framing the preservation of biodiversity for future generations as a binding covenantal duty to God.

• hchc.edu
• vatican.va
• ecojesuit.com
• romana.org
• cdpsisters.org
• wordpress.com
• orthodoxcouncil.org
• yale.edu

1 source from the original research is no longer reachable

Buddhist cyclical time samsara pratityasamutpada intergenerational ecological conservation ethics

Across Buddhist traditions, ecological and intergenerational ethics are rooted in the metaphysics of **pratītyasamutpāda** (dependent origination) and the cosmic scale of **saṃsāra** (cyclical existence). Early Pali canonical texts define reality through specific conditionality (*idappaccayatā*): *“When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises”* (*Majjhima Nikāya* 79). Rather than treating time as linear, the cyclical worldview extends moral accountability backward and forward across vast eons (*kalpas*). In the *Māta Sutta* (*Saṃyutta Nikāya* 15.14), the Buddha observes that through beginningless rebirths, scarcely any sentient being can be found who has not at some point been one’s mother, father, or child, dissolving strict divisions between self, other generations, and nonhuman life. Furthermore, early texts like the *Aggañña Sutta* (*Dīgha Nikāya* 27) explicitly link environmental degradation—such as the depletion of natural abundance—directly to collective human greed (*lobha*) and moral decline. Internal developments deepen this relational ontology: * **Mahāyāna & Huayan:** Extend dependent origination into radical interpenetration, epitomized by the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra’s* metaphor of **Indra’s Net**, in which every jewel reflects all other jewels throughout space and time. * **Zen / Chan:** Expands Buddha-nature (*buddhadhātu*) to the insentient world. In the *Shōbōgenzō* (*Sansuikyō* / "Mountains and Waters Sūtra"), 13th-century Zen master Eihei Dōgen asserts: *“The mountains and waters of the present are the actualization of the word of the ancient buddhas.”* In contemporary practice, this manifests as "Engaged Buddhism" (pioneered by figures like Thich Nhat Hanh, who framed this as *interbeing*) and Thailand’s "ecology monks" (*phra song nak anurak*), who confer monastic ordination (*pabbajjā*) on old-growth trees with saffron robes to prevent deforestation. **Scholarly Tensions & Hermeneutics:** Critical Buddhologists, notably Lambert Schmithausen (*The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ecological Ethics*) and Ian Harris (*Causation and Telos: The Problem of Buddhist Environmental Ethics*), warn against anachronistic readings. They point out that early Buddhism’s primary soteriological aim was detachment from and liberation *out of* saṃsāric suffering (*dukkha*), not planetary preservation. Mainstream academic consensus recognizes modern Buddhist eco-ethics not as an unmediated ancient preservationist doctrine, but as an authentic contemporary hermeneutic synthesising Mahāyāna non-duality, monastic vinaya restraint, and the timeless causal logic of *pratītyasamutpāda*.

• researchgate.net
• ijfmr.com
• encyclopediaofbuddhism.org
• ecoaxes.com
• digitaloceanspaces.com
• dickinson.edu
• cambridge.org
• mdpi.com
• yale.edu

1 source from the original research is no longer reachable

Islamic environmental ethics mizan khilafah intergenerational ecological balance linear teleology

In mainstream Sunni and Shia theology and ethics, environmental stewardship is anchored in a theocentric cosmology rather than secular anthropocentrism. Nature is not raw material for unchecked exploitation; it comprises divine signs (*āyāt*) that continuously praise God (*tasbīḥ*). ### Foundational Principles and Texts Islamic ecological ethics rests on three interlocking doctrines: - ***Mīzān* (Cosmic Equilibrium):** God created the cosmos in dynamic equilibrium. The Qur’an commands: *“He raised the heaven and established the balance (*al-mīzān*), that you do not transgress the balance”* (Surah Ar-Raḥmān 55:7–8). Causing ecological ruin (*fasād fī al-arḍ*, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:205) ruptures this divine order. - ***Khilāfah* (Stewardship) and *Amānah* (Trust):** Human authority on Earth is not ownership (*milkiyyah*, which belongs exclusively to God), but a delegative trusteeship (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:30). The Prophet Muḥammad stated: *“The world is sweet and green, and verily Allah is going to install you as vicegerents (*khalīfah*) in it in order to see how you act”* (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2742). - **Linear Teleology and Intergenerational Equity:** Islamic eschatology frames worldly action toward an ultimate reckoning (*Yawm al-Qiyāmah*). Because humanity’s tenure is temporary, resource rights are usufructuary: current inhabitants hold Earth in trust for future generations and non-human beings (*al-anām*, Surah Ar-Raḥmān 55:10). Underscoring teleological duty over fatalism, the Prophet instructed: *“If the Resurrection were established upon one of you while holding a sapling in his hand, let him plant it”* (Musnad Aḥmad 12902). ### Living Practice and Tensions Historically and practically, these principles manifested in legal institutions such as *ḥimā* (conservation sanctuaries), *ḥarīm* (protected riparian buffer zones), and *waqf* (charitable endowments preserving public wells and land). Contemporary applications include eco-mosques, environmental *fatwas*, and landmark consensus frameworks like the *2015 Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change*. Scholarly discourse (pioneered by figures like Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Mawil Izzi Dien, and Fazlun Khalid) faces notable tensions: 1. **Instrumental Development vs. Sacred Ecocentrism:** A tension persists between petro-state modernization models—which prioritize economic utility under *maṣlaḥah* (public interest)—and eco-theologians arguing that degrading nature violates the *Amānah*. 2. **Jurisprudential Nuance:** While Sunni jurists increasingly incorporate *ḥifẓ al-bīʾah* (environmental preservation) as an imperative within the higher objectives of law (*Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah*), Shia eco-theologians (e.g., Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabāʾī) frequently stress cosmic justice, ontological servitude, and equitable resource allocation mediated through the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt.

• semanticscholar.org
• singaporesedekah.com
• uinkhas.ac.id
• webofjournals.com
• traditionalhikma.com
• ifees.org.uk
• eaalim.com
• bibliotekanauki.pl
• researchgate.net
• wikipedia.org
• truthaboutislam.net
• d-nb.info
• islamiqate.com
• researchgate.net
• researchcorridor.org
• royalliteglobal.com

Derek Parfit future generations non-identity problem linear progress discounting rate conservation ethics

Within analytic philosophy and philosophical naturalism, obligations to posterity are scrutinized through rigorous modal logic, population axiology, and decision theory. The contemporary landscape is primarily anchored by Derek Parfit’s foundational treatise, *Reasons and Persons* (1984, Part Four). ### The Non-Identity Problem and Axiological Tensions Parfit’s most influential dilemma demonstrates that long-range social policies—such as environmental conservation versus resource depletion—radically alter which conceptions take place, thereby altering *which specific individuals* will exist. Because an individual’s identity is biologically contingent on specific gametic pairings, people brought into existence under a policy of environmental depletion cannot claim that this policy harmed them, provided their lives remain worth living; had conservation been chosen instead, those particular persons would never have existed. This undermines common **person-affecting principles** (the intuition that an action is wrong only if it makes identifiable individuals worse off). Resolving this drives philosophers toward **impersonal axiology**, yet Parfit demonstrated that unconstrained impersonal aggregation yields the **Repugnant Conclusion**: the judgment that an enormous population whose lives are barely worth living is ethically preferable to a smaller, deeply flourishing society. Formal work in population ethics—such as Gustaf Arrhenius’s impossibility theorems—has since established that no axiological framework can simultaneously satisfy all intuitive moral desiderata. ### Discounting Rates and Conservation Ethics Analytic philosophers and normative economists heavily contest descriptive economics regarding the **social discount rate**. Mainstream policy models often apply a positive rate of "pure time preference," discounting future well-being simply because it occurs later in time. Ethicists overwhelmingly reject this, upholding mathematician Frank Ramsey’s classic verdict that pure time discounting is *"ethically indefensible and arises merely from the weakness of the imagination"* (1928, p. 543). In *Reasons and Persons* (Appendix F), Parfit similarly demonstrates that discounting welfare purely by temporal distance is as arbitrary as discounting someone's interests based on spatial distance. Concurrently, philosophical naturalists (e.g., John Broome, *Climate Matters*, 2012) reject naive assumptions of **linear progress**—the belief that compound economic and technological growth will inherently outpace and compensate for ecological collapse. Because severe climate externalities inflict non-fungible harms, conservation is reframed as a direct duty of justice rather than an intergenerational trade-off. While these arguments underpin practical movements like Longtermism, mainstream analytic consensus treats intergenerational neutrality as an established ethical baseline, while treating speculative scenarios involving astronomical future post-human populations with severe epistemic caution.

• uoa.gr
• scribd.com
• pgrim.org
• wikipedia.org
• wikipedia.org
• oup.com
• warwick.ac.uk
• harryrlloyd.com
• ox.ac.uk

traditional ecological knowledge TEK versus western scientific conservation time horizons integration

In environmental anthropology, ethnobiology, and conservation biology, **Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)** is recognized as a cumulative body of place-based knowledge, practices, and beliefs regarding dynamic ecological interactions. Practitioners live this knowledge through long-term, subsistence-based engagement with specific ecosystems—such as rotational harvesting and cultural burning. ### Time Horizons: Synchronic vs. Diachronic The core epistemological divergence between Western scientific conservation (WSC) and TEK centers on temporal and spatial baselines: * **Synchronic Time Horizons (WSC):** Western ecology relies heavily on standardized, quantitative, simultaneous measurements sampled over broad geographies but compressed temporal scales (e.g., 3-to-5-year grant cycles), rendering it susceptible to "shifting baseline syndrome." * **Diachronic Time Horizons (TEK):** Plant ecologist Robin Wall Kimmerer notes that TEK provides a *diachronic* record—"a record of observations from a single locale over a long time period". Accumulated across generations, TEK incorporates centuries of environmental variability, rare disturbance regimes, and climate anomalies. ### Key Figures, Texts, and Concepts * **Fikret Berkes** established the foundational academic framework in *Sacred Ecology* (1999) and landmark papers (e.g., Berkes, Colding, and Folke, 2000, *Ecological Applications*), defining TEK as an evolving system of adaptive management. * **Two-Eyed Seeing (*Etuaptmumk*):** Coined by Mi’kmaw Elder Albert Marshall, this paradigm encourages learning to view the world through one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and through the other with the strengths of Western sciences. * **Braiding and Reciprocal Restoration:** Kimmerer (*Braiding Sweetgrass*, 2013) rejects extractive models, arguing that ecological restoration requires *reciprocal restoration*—healing human-nature relationality alongside physical landscapes. ### Internal Tensions and Epistemic Status A broad scientific and anthropological consensus views TEK as a rigorous, empirically grounded complement to ecological science. However, a significant sociopolitical tension exists: * **"Scientizing" and Extractive Integration:** Anthropologists such as Paul Nadasdy (*Hunters and Bureaucrats*, 2003) and Indigenous philosopher Kyle Powys Whyte caution against asymmetrical integration. State bureaucracies often "mine" TEK for isolated data points (such as animal migration shifts) to fit Western quantitative models while discarding the Indigenous sovereignty, ethical obligations, and spiritual cosmologies from which that data derives.

• upaya.org
• wikipedia.org
• earthwiseaware.org
• biohabitats.com
• psu.edu
• colorado.edu

1 source from the original research is no longer reachable

Daoist natural cycles wu wei and Confucian intergenerational continuity environmental preservation

### East Asian Traditions: Daoist Natural Order and Confucian Intergenerational Continuity Classical East Asian philosophy approaches environmental preservation not through rights-based legalism or utilitarian calculation, but through relational cosmologies that align human behavior with natural orders. #### Daoism: Natural Spontaneity (*Ziran*) and Non-Coercive Action (*Wu Wei*) Classical Daoism—centered on the *Daodejing* (traditionally attributed to Laozi) and the *Zhuangzi*—posits an ecocentric ontology where human beings are embedded participants in cosmic patterns rather than lords over them. The cosmos operates according to *ziran* (literally "self-so," natural spontaneity), and humans preserve balance by practicing *wu wei* (effortless or non-coercive action—acting without artificial, domineering intent). * **Canonical Foundation:** *Daodejing* 25 establishes that *"humanity follows Earth, Earth follows Heaven, Heaven follows the Dao, and the Dao models itself after nature (ziran)"*. * **Praxis and Tensions:** Practitioners cultivate simplicity (*pu*), restraint, and yielding attunement to seasonal transitions. An ongoing tension within Daoist environmental philosophy divides radical primitivism—which rejects statecraft and technology in favor of spontaneous living—from the administrative models of texts like the *Huainanzi*, which adapt *wu wei* into sustainable, decentralized ecological statecraft. #### Confucianism: Lineage Continuity and Anthropocosmic Stewardship Confucian environmental ethics frames ecological care as an intergenerational and moral mandate rooted in *ren* (benevolence) and *tian ren he yi* (the unity of Heaven and humanity). Preservation is inseparable from filial piety (*xiao*): exhausting land or species ruptures obligations to ancestors and starves future generations. * **Canonical Foundation:** In the *Mencius* (1A.3), Mencius instructs King Hui of Liang that benevolent governance requires strict temporal attunement to ecological renewal: > *"If close nets are not allowed to enter the pools and ponds, the fishes and turtles will be more than can be consumed. If the axes and bills enter the hills and forests only at the proper time, the wood will be more than can be used."* * In the *Xunzi* (Chapter 9, "The Rule of a King" / *Wangzhi*), Xunzi codifies seasonal harvesting taboos: when trees blossom, axes are forbidden in forests; when aquatic animals spawn, nets and poison are barred from wetlands. #### Synthesis While contemporary scholars (e.g., Mary Evelyn Tucker) caution against romanticizing ancient agrarian maxims as modern ecology, they emphasize their complementary strengths: Daoist *wu wei* imposes humility and curbs anthropocentric domination, while Confucian relational ethics anchors conservation within a civic and intergenerational duty of care.

• hkbu.edu.hk
• fabriziomusacchio.com
• theshantispace.com
• hawaii.edu
• scribd.com
• mdpi.com
• google.com
• cambridge.org
• wikisource.org
• tota.world
• unt.edu

1 source from the original research is no longer reachable