This concept paper aims to raise the awareness of mankind on the necessity for its peaceful coexistence with nature. A nature-friendly sustainability is first step toward the protection of nature that is critical to the mutual survival of mankind and nature. This new definition of "sustainability" has completely different characteristics than its contemporary versions. When implemented, this new concept of sustainability aims to affect the designs of engineered structures and revolutionize the recovery methods and processing of natural resources.
This concept paper aims to raise the awareness of mankind on the necessity for its peaceful coexistence with nature. A nature-friendly sustainability is first step toward the protection of nature that is critical to the mutual survival of mankind and nature. This new definition of "sustainability" has completely different characteristics than its contemporary versions. When implemented, this new concept of sustainability aims to affect the designs of engineered structures and revolutionize the recovery methods and processing of natural resources.
This concept paper aims to raise the awareness of mankind on the necessity for its peaceful coexistence with nature. A nature-friendly sustainability is first step toward the protection of nature that is critical to the mutual survival of mankind and nature. This new definition of "sustainability" has completely different characteristics than its contemporary versions. When implemented, this new concept of sustainability aims to affect the designs of engineered structures and revolutionize the recovery methods and processing of natural resources.
M. Javier, EnviroMine, Denver, CO N. Y. Chang, Univ. of Colorado, Denver, CO
ABSTRACT This concept paper is presented in the hope of raising the awareness of mankind on the necessity for its peaceful coexistence with nature. It is a food for thought. It takes compromise and sacrifice of people, who will have to learn to curb their greed and move toward a more organic form of prosperity. A nature-friendly sustainability is first step toward the protection of nature that is critical to the mutual survival of mankind and nature. People need the resources from the finite earth to survive and nature needs the prevention of human destruction in order to continue to regenerate and provide. The contemporary notion of sustainability is self-serving. It serves the interest of industry by camouflaging itself to look like natures protector. The sustainability concept presented in this paper aims to extend the longevity of the utilization of the limited natural resources for many generations to come. It is an important, responsible first step in creating a healthy sustainability concept that, when implemented, extends the longevity of mankind by the most efficient use of the finite resources on this limited Planet Earth, all the while taking into consideration the increase in anthropogenic activities due to exponential human population growth. This new definition of sustainability has completely different characteristics than its contemporary versions. Nature has its own destiny, rules and principles. Being a part of nature, human society depends on it for survival and must play by its rules and never the other way round as in its initial pretensions. Society should not try to humanize nature, but rather to respect the rule of the nature in a peaceful way of co- existence. When implemented, this new concept of sustainability aims to affect the designs of engineered structures and revolutionize the recovery methods and processing of natural resources, such as mineral resources in the most efficient manner. Finally, this paper intends to stimulate critical thinking and initiate serious discussions aiming at producing a general consensus for the best definition for human society to not only enrich, but to extend its existence. Thus, the spirit of this new definition is pro future generations and environment. KEYWORDS: Sustainability Definition, Nature, Geommic, Deproduction. INTRODUCTION After more than a decade into this new millennium, we still cannot stipulate a functional definition of Sustainability. Sustainability, as defined today, was created by the United Nations under the auspices of the Brundtland Commission (1987). A huge volume of literature was generated with more concern for environmental issues in human history. Meanwhile, the UN definition led to a variety of interpretations in respect to the capacity of nature. The UN definition focuses only on the human view without any regard to the characteristics of nature. The important dilemma is still whether or not mankind can flourish for a long time in nature without following the rules and principles of nature. If mankind does not grab the horns of the dilemma, humanity will continue to live the illusion that humanity can continue the way humanity is in its current pattern through time. The fundamentals of the definition of sustainability presented either the answer to the question of mankind's sustainability, or questioned the possibility of human sustainability within the confines of nature. In the UN definition, economic, environmental, and social issues are assigned the same level of importance. This is grossly misleading. First, mankind is a part of nature, not vice versa. Second, economics is part of the social issues. Nature is not managed by economics. This presumption demands that the humans respect the principles and laws of the nature because Natures laws are inexcusable, incorruptible, permanent and indisputable by humans. Nature, with any anthropogenic activity, only acquires imbalance or disequilibrium because its design is not made to satisfy the design of nature, Fig. # 1.
Figure 1. Equilibrium in nature. An ideal definition of sustainability will have to take into account not only human needs, but natures rules and laws as well. Ridding the human perceived defects of the current definition of sustainability still will not yield an ideal definition because nature is still not included in the formulation; only human-perceived errors are corrected. Assuming the contemporary sustainability definition is ideal then the nature, inclusive of the human, should be in existence forever. Is this true? The answer is definitely negative and a more appropriate definition is urgently needed to avoid further destruction of nature. Per the contemporary definition, the depletion and exhaustion of natural resources are unavoidable because of the exponential growth of global human population and its associated materialistic needs and its greed. Furthermore, the waste accumulation and the wasteful disposal of some precious natural resources show a lack of proper waste design. Thus, improving the waste disposal process and taming of human greed and population growth are integral parts of an ideal sustainability definition. A waste disposal process must follow the criteria that are friendlier to nature for the purpose of establishing its equilibrium (Geommic). The second most important player under this new definition is mankind, which has grown exponentially to 7 billion. This increasing human population needs more natural resources, which are, unfortunately, limited. It is fascinating to ask How many people should live on earth and who deserves to live? This leads to further questions of the population management based on justice and equality through intensive debates that can be quite unpleasant. This debate, however, is necessary, if real sustainability of nature, inclusive of us humans, is SME Annual Meeting Feb. 24 - 27, 2013, Denver, CO
2 Copyright 2013 by SME what is being sought. Even if maintaining the current population level, in time the earth will exhaust its resources at this rate of exploitation, greed and type of lifestyle. It seems that sustainability will inevitably require wars and forms of birth control in order to curtail the continual, accelerated rate of consumption of natural resources, unless drastic actions are taken through public education designed to tame the human appetite for more and more use of limited, dwindling natural resources. To formulate a proper model of management for the planets natural resources to fulfill the new sustainability definition will involve: population control, resource distribution quota, regeneration of renewable resources, environmental protection, etc. which are interlaced with morality and ethics issues. As far as we know to date, Earth is the only planet in this multiverse that is viable for human living. However, currently we do not have the luxury of moving to another livable planet even if we discovered one. Thus, mankind is facing extinction because of the increasingly dwindling resources which are due to its exploitation of nature. Unless different, less wasteful lifestyles are promoted and implemented through education to avoid becoming an endangered species, we will be choosing extinction out of sheer ignorance, folly and raw greed. The implementation of this new definition must be established through education with an open mind for establishing new lifestyles, which are designed to nurture nature and address human intergenerational communication. By doing so, it becomes more feasible for humanity to last longer. Mankind needs to be in harmony with the nature. Further, human must replicate the way nature evolves and heals over its history through critical thinking on the various issues of sustainability in order to formulate a mechanism and methodology to assure the mutual survivability with the nature as a resource provider. Finally, it is time to hold candid discussions on the issues of what the sustainability is and how it can be implemented. IMPACTS OF THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABILITY While there is the UN definition of sustainability, nature continues to suffer due to human exploitations. In 1987, the United Nations nominated the Brundtland commission, which was created to address the growing concern about the accelerating deterioration of the human environment and natural resources and the consequences of that deterioration for economic and social development. In doing this task, the UN recognized that environmental problems were global in nature and determined that it was in the common interest of all nations to establish policies for sustainable development from the human perspectives. The UN definition of sustainability is: sustainable development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [1]. While this definition is good, in general, as it includes the welfare of future generations in this critical and forward thinking of sustainability, it is defective, because the care and concern of the nature was not specifically addressed and it gave only the lip service to the issues of interest to the future generations. See UN definition in Fig.2.
Figure 2. UN Sustainability Definition, 1987. Any assimilated interpretation of the UN sustainability definition will result in impacts of human behavior on the planet. Sustainable development as stated in the UN definition, covers only the present human view in terms of the physical development and lacks in consideration for the mental development. A healthy definition or interpretation must consider the difference between physical development and mental development. The UN definition focuses only on the physical development, which has a limit, while the mental development is ongoing. At some point, the present form of physical development must be curtailed because of the limited nature of planet earth. Therefore, the UN statement, the development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to their own needs, is nearly impossible to accomplish without an objective consideration for the future generations and periodic sunset review for continual enhancement to meet the contemporary needs of both human and nature. To achieve a balance of nature requires an authentic new definition inclusive of nature and future generation in its formulation. While the UN definition is a good start and in the right direction, it has been misinterpreted in many ways. Consequently, the perspectives of nature and future generations are missing in its formulation. In other words, the contemporary sustainability definition has only given lip service to true sustainability, intentionally or unintentionally, as reflected in the lack of effort in transforming the contemporary to the true sustainability. Essentially, the impact of the UN definition and the interpretations that followed reflect only the anthropogenic activities with no ongoing sunset review of their relevancy to true sustainability. So, the word sustainability became just a new, popular expression in the scientific and management communities lexicon. The survivability and prosperity under its established business management practices is still the main goal of all businesses, because it is the path of least effort and sacrifice. To protect nature and care for the welfare of future generations will simply take too many resources, too much effort, commitment and sacrifice for the current generations. Thus, businesses based the vitality of their future development solely on economic goals rather than the goals of protecting nature and prevent its destruction. The current practice is a complete illusion because, without the health of nature, the company obviously would not even exist. The contemporary economic drivers in practice are totally out of synch with nature, because they are guided strictly by human considerations. New drivers based on the new sustainability definition are needed. Further, a new business mindset, which formulates the new drivers, is needed to achieve the balance of nature with the implementation of nature friendly sustainability concept. By so doing, the whole society will transform itself into a practice that will prolong the existence and prosperity of mankind in nature. The current UN definition of sustainability and its associated interpretations not only have not resolved the problems of endangering sustainability, but worsened the situation and revved up the race toward pending destruction and extinction. So after two and half decades, the initial concerns of environmental depredation addressed in the UN definition have not been improved, because it has made neither direct impacts on human over-population nor on the demands of growing industry. The ill effects still stubbornly persist in the formulation for implementation of the concept of sustainable development because of the lack of a true sustainability concept from the leaders responsible for its formulation. Thus, the current sustainability concept does not improve the humanitys and natures survivability. It limits the opportunity for education which could entice the creative spirit toward the development of the true sustainability concept and its implementation mechanisms that are needed. Without that, there will be continual depredation and depletion of resources, contamination of the natural environment, generation of waste and emissions of pollutants as by-products of production, due entirely to the persistent use of an unsustainable model. Eradication of the unsustainable does not produce sustainability. Instead, the new sustainability concept that is friendly to nature to be presented later in this article is needed with the total eradication of the all ill effects of the current definition. This means that the total house cleaning is needed to address a true sustainability inclusive of the mutual long term SME Annual Meeting Feb. 24 - 27, 2013, Denver, CO
3 Copyright 2013 by SME survival of both nature and humans. Science and technology are good for temporary prosperity, but without appropriate perspective of nature, they can lead to further irreversible destruction of nature and race toward the extinction of mankind. The life cycle for a new technology is it is invented, it thrives, it tapers out, and eventually it dies, and a new is invented and the life goes on. Mankind and nature are on the receiving end of these ups and downs of the so called new technologies and the waste produced along the way. The Bottom line is that the technology commercializes science without considering the survivability of nature and human, without properly harnessing technology, we have a rampant, systematic rush to the destruction of nature and the extinction of mankind. In other words, the technology needs to be nature friendly under the guidance of the new sustainability concept for the continuing survival of nature and mankind. First, nature is created, the evolution process improves it, and nature seems to survive forever. Nature follows the principles of balance and equilibrium, physical, chemical and biological, and it is good model for us to replicate. It is amazing to observe condors and eagles effortlessly soaring through the blue sky with wingtips raised to aerodynamically control the flight. Mankind wishes that it can do the same, to sunbathe in the sky while flying. It comes close if you notice the wingtips of advanced jet planes replicated via the benefit of the natures evolutionary process. Those who can, do; those who cannot replicate. Since the publication of the 1987 UN sustainability definition, two and a half decades has gone by while still trying to formulate a nature- friendly sustainability concept, without a good report card. The compunction to modify the definition should not be wasted on inert arguments in the procurement of nature-friendly definition of sustainability, but rather real actions are needed to show the practicality and feasibility of the human effort in defining sustainability. In all, the impact of the UN sustainability concept reflects a huge progression in the right direction, but it has been misused and misinterpreted to reflect only human selfishness for its own temporary interest. All too commonly, the definition is linked to the economic, social and environmental pillars, which are mistakenly treated equally as was demonstrated in Fig. 2. The definition, however, contributed a new lexicon prevailing in business, political and scientific communities. While claiming to be sustainable, business is usually self-serving, for its business management model seldom addresses the interest of future generations and of nature. In sum, the contemporary sustainability model provides the ground for business to justify its nature-unfriendly behavior. This further confuses the real meaning of sustainability. Sustainability is not an opportunity or a condition for progress; it is an obligation to long-term human survival. NATURE-FRIENDLY SUSTAINABILITY DEFINITION The main requirement to define sustainability is in the meaningful understanding of the only players: Mankind and Nature. In the part of Human, from the last 50 years, population has increasing drastically to now 7 billion; this growing population translates into growing demand of natural resources and more anthropogenic activities evolve to provide the need. Overpopulation is a reversible trend and one which weighs heavily on the irreversible damage to nature with a question on- how many people the earth is designed to have. The intervention and remediation by actual human models in nature domains characteristics that nature has not a limit in its capacity, has a lacking of intergenerational communication to persist in future of humanity and those models in time are lacking of appropriated design, compromising astonishing in: overcrowded cities, lifestyle, greed, ethics (genetically, human is not an ethical being) and mindset. The wrongness is in place in any human activities, because it is not designed to satisfy nature (Geommic); it is obvious. Human in order to survive its longevity in nature must deal with mindset and behavior in this finite planet. The take-what-you-need lifestyle is still in practice among tribes in the Amazon jungle. In the history of mankind, however, as civilization progresses, the human demand for a better living standard continues to evolve to such an extent that is beyond the capability of nature to provide. Human is trapped in the irreversibility of habit by mind-set which is difficult to transform. In the part of nature, nature is nature. This new concept of sustainability is supported by the following principles: Nature has its own rules and principles. Nature is always in balance and equilibrium, when is undisturbed Nature develops its remediation ability in its own timeframe. Nature has depletion and limited capability. Unperturbed, nature will forever survive under its own principles of balance and equilibrium. Perturbed and exploited, nature and mankind are surely heading toward mutual destruction and disappearance and a lifeless earth. So for human longevity, human is compelled to respect nature and to give it time to restore its health, to regenerate resources to continue to support mankind. With present human model at some point, nature will be exhausted and unable to replenish in time to further fulfill the human needs because of the exponentially increasing demand. In the end both nature and human will suffer. Natures suffering will lead to its destruction by human desperation, wars, diseases and death, unless solutions are formulated soon. To survive in nature, human must understand the characteristics of nature in order to avoid over-consumption, overharvesting and rapid exhaustion of resources and to assist nature in re-establishing its equilibrium. The irony is humanity is a subset of nature. Nature can survive alone, but humanity cannot and needs the natures bounty for survival. Once nature dies, human becomes extinct. So, mankind does not have other options, but to devise corrective actions for nature unfriendly, anthropogenic activities, including change in lifestyles and population control. The contemporary lifestyles and increasing population have burdened nature with increasing demand for resources beyond its capacity to provide. In contrast, a sustainable lifestyle is demonstrated by native people of the Amazon, who for many years have lived a lifestyle in equilibrium with nature with minimal disturbance. It is not realistic to re-live the lifestyle of our early ancestors or Amazons native people, but curbing our contemporary desire is within our reach and within our capabilities. To maintain its health nature follows the rules and principles of energy conservation and dynamic equilibrium to internal or external interference, the correction of wasteful lifestyle is within our reach, if we are willing to sacrifice. We cannot afford to delay this option. The definition of sustainability must be formulated in line with natures perspectives. Nature-Friendly Sustainability for longevity of humanity, briefed as NFS, is defined as: the sustainability that promotes the harmonic coexistence of humanity and nature for longevity through the efficient use of the limited nature resources via nature-friendly production mechanism. Harmonic coexistence leads to longevity; efficient use implies taking only what you need for survival, recycling, future-generations friendly, etc.; recovery is the effective extraction of all usable resources in a single operation, minimize the destruction of nature, utilize waste, reinstate nature, design product to nurture nature, etc. The successful implementation of the above-mentioned NFS is extremely difficult. It requires tremendous human determination and perseverance to do all that it is required to protect nature. Trial and error methods have no place in an NFS design. Without human, nature evolves; without nature human extinct. So, the effort of protecting nature is equivalent to the effort in protecting mankind, an integral part of the nature. Time should be provided to allow nature to rejuvenate after the impact of each anthropogenic activity, aiming at achieving a new equilibrium by Geommic activity in the intervention. Education will serve as the pillar of this human attempt to maintain the health of the nature and the longevity of the human on the Planet Earth. The human needs to realize also that Sustainability is a human wisdom in exercising the ethics and morality to preserve equilibrium in nature. It is also a new philosophy of living on earth with the ultimate respect for natures laws for the preservation of nature and the longevity of humanity. This nature friendly sustainability is explained and shown in Fig # 3. CASE STUDY: GOLD MINING Of course, natural resources are limited in a finite planet, Earth. Mining makes our civilization possible because it gives us so many resources to use to become a civilized society. Humans are extremely SME Annual Meeting Feb. 24 - 27, 2013, Denver, CO
4 Copyright 2013 by SME dependent on the activity of mining as there are hardly any aspects of modern life which do not require mined resources. Mining deals with these traits of mineral resources: that they are finite, non-renewable, exhaustible, unsustainable, non-abundant, eternally recyclable, and pay only once. Then, the understanding of mining would be essential to define sustainability for being involved directly to nature.
Figure 3. Nature-Friendly Sustainability Definition. The mining was established to obtain concentrated minerals from the earth, which are not in abundance. In the majority of mines, the concentration of gold is one ounce from 20 tons of unwanted materials. In reality, many veins with high gold grade have disappeared from nature. Gold has limited uses in the basic need of humanity. The criterion of abundance in the market is a myth to support and develop the supply-demand curve at the lowest price and onetime payment for this finite mineral resource which eventually will be recycled in perpetuity. The mining industry has an invisible mind acceptance over the scale of dimension, which is totally disparaged because of the mineral occurrence, particularly precious metal like gold, in nature are on a micro scale (gold occurs in nature in ppb), and its extraction is based solely upon economic justification. This micro condition and the markets macro expectations are typical. This characteristic is in the volume of the macro scale on an infinite mineral resource on a limited planet. Through deduction, mining has a micro scale reality, but the thinking is in the macro scale exploitation. This is part of why we have many liabilities with pending remediation which occur as soon as there is mining closure, or established as mining open-closure at same time. Mostly, mine remediation is assumed by society as externalities of the process of mining, where the unwanted materials or waste are part of the process or a consequence of the process. By principle of nature, it is necessary to recover these resources proceeding from the waste of process. In nature, waste does not exist because there is no such thing as waste in nature, i.e., even the synthesis of oxygen is a by- product of the trees, which is a waste product of the tree but is essential to humans. Mining although it does it, really does not have the luxury or privilege of creating waste. The current methods of extracting gold are contrary in dimension because the method of extraction is macro and the ratio of gold to waste is micro. Therefore, the extraction must be micro as well. Lately, the mining industry is looking for efficiencies in order to keep an obsolete system in place. As we know, efficiency has its own destinyafter reaching the highest point of efficiency, it starts to develop inefficiency. It is remarkable that the extraction of natural resource regimes is involved in different concepts than the manufacturer of business, but its copy/paste mode over natural resources business has been accepted in spite of the core difference. There is a big difference between the management of extractive industries and the manufacturing industries because both employ totally different processes and create different wastes and by- products. This pattern of register business in traditional scheme must be rethinking due to this explanation. Also, mining is still set up in an economic system where there exists only one payment for the metal product that is recycled many times, even though recycling affects the survival of the primary metal producer. Mining is trapped in its own mindset. On the other hand, mining has a significant mechanism to detect those impacts by the accepted definition of sustainability created by the UN in 1987, for the reasons elucidated above. To accomplish that reasoning, mining is well-attached to nature which those effects and impacts of the UN sustainability definition would be able to deprecate as soon as presented in nature, which still is an issue; therefore, it is undetectable, as well. Any disturbance from mining in nature requires compensating its equilibrium. Here nature implicitly demands the new definition of sustainability. Now, if the design in mining were different, it would yield different results pledging to friendlier effects to environment with minor social conflicts. In this new millennium, the design of an intelligent mine challenges society, where technology can only persist under the principles of sustainability, management under balanced waste, water and energy at the process of minerals beneficiation and establishment of an industry that is responsive and autoregulated. In this manner, the extant of preventive culture will perform the correction of mining by design, as a path to the future. This may seem like a dream, but it has a reasonable application for a better world to leave to our children and to the generational legacy. In summary, what has happened in mining is about direct impact to nature. First, the incorrect and outdated mind-set that there are infinite resources and unlimited profit as the main driver; Second, the mathematical phenomenon 2+2= 5, which expects more results with fewer assets (more with less); Third, mining externalizes the cost and internalizes the profit or in the view of apolitical people permits socializing at the cost and privatization of profit. Fourth, mining embraces high production to infinity while idling the capacity of utilization of the design of the mine. Fifth, mining expects the highest return in the shortest amount of time possible (Net Present Value, NPV), money in time rather than resources in time, with fewer people in employment (intense automation and high volume equipment), and maximize waste as a consequence of the beneficial process of the profit oriented. How can high productivity be acceptable when it depletes the ability of future generations to be benefitted from the resource as well? Sixth, there is an accumulation of accidents as part of business as usual with as little regulation as possible, or none at all. Simple fines and penalties allow for the proliferation of socio- environmental crimes. Fines and penalties are kept for the record but without actionable accountability. Seventh, the industry is also well- established in the civilization of mankind for giving promising development and progress to society, but in actuality, damages society in the long run. Who put this condition in mining? Or how was this condition matured as a standard in mining? Eighth, the Newtonian current is importunity under its inertia from 200 years since its industrial inception; preserving the same objectives is homage to the past without transformation in spite of a new calendar. Ninth, this static organization becomes a pusher of efficiency achieving result of inefficiency in short term, while technology and energy still are based on fossil fuels. Tenth, society only has sparking critics against mining when social events with high publicity are spotlighted without any mention of the accumulated liabilities extending to the mining industry as a whole. Also, society must have a responsible market where at least paying liabilities and only accepting mineral products that were not compromised in violation of social-environmental issues. Doing this is a real conviction of fairness and ethical consciousness because society must be clear that the mentality of cheap minerals is non- existent. These topics can be packaged under the critical thinking in order to re-establish balance in nature with a mineral process that is without social and environmental liabilities, as legacy to the next generations. Therefore, the ideal mining practices with Nature Friendly Sustainability will enounce the requirement for excel formation of practices in the extraction of resources from nature, and for sure that NFS will promote the next industrial revolution, which will be taken a place when the principles of nature create a sustainable enterprise. Contemporary Practice with Unsustainable Practices in Gold Recovery created great misfortunes which are being experienced during this renewed rush to satisfy the human craving for gold. In February 2012 issue of Smithsonian Magazine, the article on Gold Fever by Donovan Webster deserves a special attention [2]. It depicts how the human craving for gold leads to the severest destruction of pristine Peruvian rainforest near Huepetuhe, Madre de Dios. Sad to say, it is beyond repair since huge, ancient trees were felled, ground jetted to loosen soils, ground collapsed, people died, mercury used in gold recovery loosed in the ground or evaporated into the air, SME Annual Meeting Feb. 24 - 27, 2013, Denver, CO
5 Copyright 2013 by SME environment contaminated with mercury, fish and human mercury poisoning, and much more. To solve these problems requires all parties involved to collectively exercising their ingenuity and creativity aiming at improving and sustaining human survival due to the lack of effort thus devoted to the health of environment and nature. Questions in place are: Where did mercury come from? What are the effects of mercury poisoning in people and other living beings? How does the rainforest clearing affect the global meteorological conditions? If the human crave has such a detrimental effects on its own health and the health of nature, then what can we do to curb the intense desire for gold? What can the industry do to promote the sustainability of both the nature and mankind? The questions only partially address the anthropogenic activities in conflict with the health of mankind and nature, involving social, economic, environmental, engineering issues to support sustainability enterprises for sustainable societies. Without serious review and change, the eventual destruction of nature, beyond repair, is imminent. DESIGN AND IMPACTS UNDER THE NEW DEFINITION OF NATURE-FRIENDLY SUSTAINABILITY Compelling to nature, it takes tremendous commitment and sacrifice. Strengthening and replicating natures capability to reproduce are necessary for continual human survival after so many decades of exploitation and destruction. To achieve these difficult tasks (replicate nature, Geommic), we need to learn: how nature works; how it revitalizes itself; how we can participate in this task of revitalization and healing; how we can design nature. To answer these questions will be challenging, but not unachievable. With constant focus we can find the answers to bring about a world of possibilities. Of course, humans cannot design nature, but we can certainly assist in its recovery from the past abuses and to regain its ability to reproduce for the sake of survival. The impact to the health of nature must be taken into account when designing and producing products for human consumption. We hopes that one day we can produce such products, meanwhile nurture nature. We need to listen to natures cry for help and observe, when undisturbed, how it recharges itself and reaches equilibrium. With the aid of modern technologies, it is possible for industry to Geommic (listen and simulate) nature in order to design effective strategies for such nature revitalization efforts. This concept of nature-friendly designs will be a tremendous challenge for people to refocus commitments and duty to nature and the concept should be implemented at all levels of product design processes in order to achieve the goals and objectives of nature friendly sustainability (NFS). In other words, we need to redesign the products and processes for production that accommodate this new NFS spirit, which embraces the tasks of recycling, efficiency, nature-friendly, use of mine waste, intelligent mining, and connect technology of compensation in nature and nothing is wasted. This new definition of sustainability demands human commitment and sacrifice. We need to curb our bottomless appetite for great prosperity and luxurious living standard fuelled by the exploitation of nature and its resources. Unchecked, nature and humanity are headed toward mutual destruction; tamed, they peacefully coexist and enjoy longevity. To accomplish the objective of NFS require the promulgation of the NFS concept in business community through education, and, thus, the academic community will play a critical role in educating the general public and businessmen. For the success of NFS mission, the business will have to redirect its mindset from maximizing profit to maintaining reasonable profit under the rule of equilibrium of nature (rationalization of resources, Deproduction). This vision requires a revolutionary revision of the business college curriculum to herald this new NFS concept. When the NFS concept is implemented in the business management practices, the health of both nature and mankind will be maintained, and chances for mutual longevity is enhanced. Thus, a meaningful deliberation of all issues concerning the implementation of NFS concept will necessarily require full understanding of both major players: nature and human. The US higher education system needs to play a leadership role in promulgating this new NFS concept and promoting its implementation. The university, traditionally serves as an intellectual center for dissemination, transfer and creation of new concept and knowledge, must be ready to serve the society and the world in this effort of researching, promulgation and implementation of the NFS concept. To this aim we need to develop and implement global educational programs aiming at educating the current and future generations of students, our future leaders, engineers, business executives, politicians, and others. To achieve this educational mission, first concept must be proclaimed and debated in conferences and journals to formulate a new healthy concept and vision aiming at designing a new order of society for healthy and peaceful coexistence with nature. When academia and researchers are convinced, the implementation of the new sustainability concept becomes possible through teaching and research, but they will also be challenged, eventually, to consider the following questions: How can people will it take to manage the future for the longevity of humanity? What curriculum revision will achieve this objective? Given the production capacity of nature and contemporary high tech, what is a sustainable size of world population? What is an appropriate distribution of such targeted and limited population? Whatever laws and regulations formulated for the mutual survival of humans and nature must be subjected to a sunset review intermittently to assure the proper communication with the future generations. Humanity must control its own destiny, control population and maintain natures healthy reproductive capacity as an effective provider for human survival. Business management must recognize the limited resources nature has or can produce on finite planet. The rosy assumption of unlimited resources and profit is no longer valid, particularly with ever increasing world population. Universities including the best in the world continue to teach on the basis of unlimited resources and gratification that encourage greed for unlimited personal gain. This outmoded educational mindset is certainly responsible for the exploitation of nature and its resources and the accelerated pace toward human extinction. Some significant adjustment to educational philosophy encouraging reasonable living standard, recycling, renewable resource development, professional ethical, honesty and fairness, etc. to enhance the prospect human longevity. The essence of the above concept can be achieved via minimizing losses rather maximizing profit (M. Javier, 2006 [3]), maximizing the one-time extraction of resources (M. Javier, 2007) and restoring equilibrium in nature (M. Javier, 2008) in Fig. 4. Promulgation of the new healthy concept of sustainability through the educational system should begin with K-12 and then be reinforced in post K-12 education. The future prospect of humanity will look much better with the acceptance and implementation of the new Nature Friendly Sustainability. Procrastination in the implementation of this new sustainability concept can certainly make us end up in the endangered species by choice category through loss of resources, wars or diseases. NATURE DIMENSION: MACRO MICRO NANO TIME MASS,ENERGY,WATER,SOIL,AIR
Figure 4. Model of Nature.
CHEMICAL PHYSIC BIOLOGICAL COSMIC Evolution&DynamicBalance:EQUILIBRIUM SME Annual Meeting Feb. 24 - 27, 2013, Denver, CO
6 Copyright 2013 by SME CONCLUSIONS Sustainability is the management of the future of both mankind and nature. This new concept of nature friendly sustainability will transform the way businesses are conducted. Human cannot make sustainable Earth but only sustainable society. Human is only capable of sustaining a society that lasts as long as the human dictates. To assure human longevity our habits must change to conform to the need to maintain a healthy provider, nature. Education will play a major role in the promulgation and implementation of NFS. Sustainable mankind and sustainable industries need sustainable nature. To achieve this requires intense collaborative efforts from all parts of society: people, businesses and government aiming at correcting the mistakes resulted from the past anthropogenic activities. If no action is taken now, the humankind is destined to extinction. So, Lets do it! REFERENCES [1] Brundtland Commission, Definition of Sustainability, United Nations 1987, www.un.org [2] Webster, Donovan , Gold Fever, Smithsonian Magazine, pp 38 to 51, Volume 42, No. 10, February 2012. www.smithonia.com [3] Javier, Mauro, Management by loss SME 2008, www.smenet.org