Sustainable development has become an arena where people bring already existing political and philosophical outlooks to a debate characterized by fundamental dichotomies. This paper presents an analysis of ten Australian Aboriginal law stories to derive a range of principles for how the Nhunggabarra people of Australia sustained their society against three such dichotomies: holism versus fragmentation, ‘strong’ versus ‘weak’ SD and growth versus no‐growth economy. The Aboriginal sustainability model is possibly the oldest we have some evidence of, with a successful track record of several tens of thousands of years. It is a surprisingly ‘realistic’ model: neither representative of strong SD, nor giving arguments to no‐growth proponents. The paper argues against a common perception that modern industrialized societies cannot learn from indigenous societies: it is a matter of perspective. Although many practices and solutions are not viable for our time, we can learn from the principles and the governance models as a whole. The Nhunggabarra society model provides a set of such principles, with a sustainability track record. Australia, therefore, has two models, the Aboriginal and the industrial, both implemented on a continent, which can be seen as a bellwether for the planet as a whole – a unique learning opportunity for the discourse on sustainable development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karl‐Erik Sveiby (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: