Abstract

This is an inquiry into the meaning and implications of using economic means to realise the ideals expressed in the concept of sustainability. Sustainability is said by economist commentators such as Pearce, Markandya, and Barbier to have three main requirements. Economic activity can be sustainable only if it "values the environment", "extends the time horizon" of economic activity, and increases its "equity" content. I argue that economic visions of sustainability are best with three basic problems. These are "instrumentalism", "maximisationism", and "privatariaism". Instrumentalism is a focus on the use of nature for satisfaction of human wants that effectively makes instrumental value the only value. Maximisationism is a focus on the objective of maximising monetary wealth that effectively makes both a primary and a coherent ethical goal. Privatarianism is a focus individual economic rationality as definitive of human behaviour that effectively makes the economic individual the exclusive focal point for the achievement of societal aspirations. ;These three characteristics are identified to show why mainstream economic visions are likely to fall short of the three requirements of sustainability and prove that a focus on economic measures, criteria, and policies alone lack the internal criteria on which the ethical requirements of sustainability can be satisfactorily fulfilled. Economic foundations remain highly contingent, providing no clear ground for either endorsing of condemning any particular relationship between economic wealth and either sustainability, ethics, or ecological limits. Since the three characteristics are implicated as much in unsustainable practices as they are in sustainable ones, it is argued that purely economic renditions of sustainability will fail to fulfill its worthy and urgent aspirations