How do our choices and political decisions affect the balance of nature? What does sustainable development mean in practice – and are we prepared to make the choices and sacrifices required to save our planet? Soly Erlandsson discusses our contemporary relationship to the environment, drawing on George Henrik von Wright’s eco-philosophy.
By Soly Erlandsson
Things that concern ecology, the vulnerability of humans and animals have long attracted my attention. I find it difficult to defend myself against alarming messages, and sorting through the multitude of them requires patience. Almost 15 years ago, I listened to a radio program about the extraction of crude oil from shale and sand in northeastern Alberta, Canada, an area nearly as large as Norrland (Sweden). The population there had no other option but to move from their homes because the processing of the oil sands released chemical and carcinogenic substances. A pungent smell reminded them of what was going on near their homes. Two days later, a letter from the World Wildlife Fund landed in my mailbox, appealing for assistance for endangered species, including the polar bear, which is at risk of losing its natural habitat as ice melts rapidly. Should the extraction of crude oil be allowed, which releases carcinogenic substances, but also requires much more energy to extract compared to the oil extracted from the sea or in the oil-producing Arab countries? This is even though oil, gas, and coal must be phased out to slow global warming. We are asked to donate money to save plants and animal species that are affected and dying out as ecosystems change at an ever-increasing pace worldwide. This is done, among other things, by the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere and by the cutting of forests necessary for maintaining ecological balance. We are offered the opportunity to stifle our conscience through donations that will make us feel that we are contributing to the survival of some individuals of a species.
At about the same time, the then Norwegian Statoil acquired shares in the oil sands industry with the intention of participating in the exploitation of Canada, where nature, plants, animals, and people are forced to pay the price for the profits oil companies make. Some of this Norwegian oil money was probably put aside to secure the future pensions of its citizens, and perhaps it became a life-saving resource for the polar bears that live on the last remaining Arctic ice floes. That was the last straw; I cut my Statoil card in half and promised myself never to fill up at their gas stations, which today go by the name Circle K. We have consumer power, but we use it too rarely. I see the fact that companies are permitted to search for and extract valuable minerals and other deposits outside their own country’s borders as a modern form of colonialism. The nations of the ”third world” have long been exploited by taking raw materials, such as diamonds, out of the country to provide large profits for the colonisers. Even today, natural resources are sold off to wealthy nations and companies, with serious consequences for people living in areas with abundant supplies of the sought-after minerals. The development is driven by multinational companies based in countries where per capita wealth far exceeds what we need for our survival. People living in mining areas everywhere on earth, as well as future generations, are expected to take care of the sludge and pollution, and are forced to see irreplaceable values lost. Who has the right to intervene when the environment is poisoned, leading to air and water pollution and forcing residents to leave their homes? It’s not just polar bears at stake; it’s people of flesh and blood. By that, I don’t mean to belittle polar bears – they are also part of our rich nature.
Respect nature or take control of it?
George Henrik von Wright, a Finnish philosopher who lived and worked in the 20th century, writes in Humanism as a Way of Life (1979) about the essence of nature and how it was perceived across different eras, sometimes dethroned and at other times restored. In Greek antiquity, nature was seen mainly as a teacher, whereas in the Middle Ages, it was given far less importance. According to the medieval view of nature as dethroned, there was, according to von Wright, no longer any reason to respect and look up to it. People could behave in two ways: to turn away from nature towards a higher and better world (God’s) or to take control of it; the latter characteristic of a technocratic lifestyle. When Darwin presented his theory of the origin of species and placed homo sapiens among the species, the church and the clergy protested against the degradation of man. In a technocratic society where economics and technology have controlled mainly development, a similar theory is also inconvenient. The Christian attitude, to turn towards higher values, started, according to von Wright, from the same point – that is, that man can and should rule over nature. This makes me reflect on the Forest Inquiry commissioned by the Church of Sweden and presented in June 2025. The investigation, conducted by Göran Enander, emphasises that the church should manage its forests in an ”ecological, economic, social, spiritual and existentially sustainable manner”. According to the Church of Sweden website, consultation responses strongly support the highest decision-making body, the Church Council, saying yes to sustainable forestry in Sweden. The question is, then, how do the people of the Church perceive the value of nature in relation to ecology and their faith in God? Are we one of the species, or are humans above nature and allowed to use the forest’s resources in a way that best benefits the church’s stock market? Shortly before this article was published in Swedish on November 18, we learned that the Church Council had rejected the forest inquiry’s proposal. Sustainable forestry in Sweden has been estimated to cost 100 million per year. The church thus chooses mammon over protecting the wealth of the forest (and creation) in the form of the animal and plant species that are the very core of the biosphere.
The image of the rational man who has nature in his power stands in contrast to the image of man as dependent on living in interaction with nature. Francis Bacon (1561–1626) expressed his view of how this should be done in an aphorism: ”To conquer nature we must obey it”, and with von Wright’s interpretation of Bacon’s view of man’s relationship to nature: ”This is necessary, if man wants to live sensibly”. But how are we who live in the rich countries to be induced or forced to live a sensible life? The goal of living sensibly in harmony with nature should correspond to the individual goals we wish to achieve. The causal connections, that is, whether the goal can be fulfilled or not, depend on the objective reality, which requires us to follow the order of nature. But what happens if we fail to live according to the order of nature and therefore do violence to reality? Have we not, then, been unable to realise our goal? We could measure individual goals and analyse the extent to which they are compliant with nature on a scale of 1 to 10. Although this would probably be perceived as a restriction on our civil rights and freedoms, such an analysis could be a first step toward influencing people’s attitudes and increasing knowledge about why environmental concerns and the survival of species hinge on how we, as private individuals, use nature’s resources. If each of us understands how large our own climate footprint is, it may increase our motivation to reduce it. A restriction of freedom of choice may ultimately become necessary as a last hope for preserving species richness and for humans to continue to populate the earth. The message is repeated again and again, and I admit that it sounds tired, but those who dare to look into the future with open eyes do not become climate deniers.
Lost years for Swedish environmental work?
Today, I am concerned by the current government’s lukewarm attitude and low commitment to ensuring a sustainable, Swedish environmental policy with an eye on the future. Even though the 1,5-degree target now seems to be fading into the distance, and global warming is approaching 2,5 degrees, the government continues to downplay the importance of implementing measures to reduce emissions at a rate that aligns with the environmental goals until 2030. It has been 10 years since countries around the world signed the Paris Agreement, and the 30th UN climate change conference is currently underway in Brazil. The increase in greenhouse gas emissions is currently four times higher than the average during the 2010s. The six largest emitters are China, the USA, India, the EU, Russia, and Indonesia. Of these, only the EU managed to reduce emissions in 2024 (Sverker Lenas, Dagens Nyheter 4 November 2025). In her defence speeches, Sweden’s Minister for Climate Change, Romina Pourmokhtari (L), usually emphasises that Swedish environmental policy stands firm behind the EU target to reduce emissions by 90 per cent by 2040. When asked by the journalist how she views her government assignment, Pourmokhtari says that she is ”proud of what she has achieved as Minister for Climate” (Dagens Nyheter 16 November 2025). Pourmokhtari sees it as a loss for the EU that she cannot participate in the climate summit in Brazil, since she considers herself the most experienced Minister for the Environment in the EU delegation. Despite that, her legacy as the responsible minister in the Tidö government is that Sweden risks missing all environmental goals. The poor result is not due to strong economic growth but to the climate policy pursued, which has led to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. What Sweden’s climate minister has to be proud of, I, an environmentally committed Swedish citizen, can hardly understand. Being well-read and able to ruminate on her homework like Romina Pourmokhtari, unfortunately, leaves no positive ecological traces. The climate minister’s unconcerned attitude toward the three lost years in Swedish environmental work is provocative.
In the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation’s yearbook ”Circuit” from 1993, the author Nils Tiberg described the problems with private, as well as collective, economic and ecological overconsumption: ”Messages that an increasingly rapid embezzlement of resources and living conditions is making us increasingly poorer, on a growing garbage dump, have been called doomsday prophecies”. Citizens and representatives of the Green Party who devote time, energy and money to working to reduce the negative environmental footprint are also today questioned and downplayed in the debate, by our government, which wants to see a reduced commitment to the environment by attracting voters with their populist: ”lower prices at the pump”. Tiberg, for his part, argued that the ecological debt is significantly more serious than the economic one, a view that few in the political elite today seem to share. The goal is still to encourage growth through increased consumption, though the result is ever-larger landfills and increased strain on an already severely damaged ”patient” (the earth). Although the parties disagree on the goals of the green transition, the view that economic growth can save the climate is shared by a majority of them. According to the World Wildlife Fund’s Climate Barometer 2025, seven out of ten Swedes are worried that climate change will affect future generations. The politicians’ betrayal thus involves not only their voters, but above all future generations, who are forced to adapt to a life in which natural disasters are returning more and more frequently, and the ecological debt risks becoming far more noticeable than today. The Green Party (Miljöpartiet), which should be an alternative for these worried Swedish citizens, had 5,1 percent voter support in November 2025, according to a NOVUS survey. Let me speculate on the reasons behind the relatively low figure. Drastically reducing immigration, which is the present Swedish government’s symbolic issue, has spread to both the right and the left in Swedish politics. The party most often portrayed as immigrant-friendly today is the Green Party, which may not benefit from its growth. Despite many voters’ concerns about the future and climate change, the issue of immigration and remigration still seems to be driving the NOVUS election forecast.
The material success of the individual over the collective good
The pendulum has swung far – we have left behind many of the values that rested on the idea of the collective good and have moved closer to an ideology that encourages and admires the success of the individual, preferably in economic terms. Materially, there are, of course, winners in this shift from the collective to the individual, but it affects our common heritage, the inherited earth with its resources. An article published in Dagens Nyheter on October 29, 2025, is headlined ”Emissions from the super-rich Swedes are increasing the most”. The richest share (0,1 percent) of the population has 45 times greater emissions compared to the 50 per cent of Swedes with the lowest income. The richest have also increased their emissions by 44 per cent from 1990 to 2022, while the poorest have reduced theirs by 39 per cent over the same period. This clearly shows that democratically governed industrial countries must take responsibility for social development, ensuring that economic gaps decrease, not increase, each year, if the ecologically sustainable society is to have a chance. At the same time, consumption patterns must change. An extroverted, exhibitionist ideal self needs to make way for generosity, humility, and self-awareness. Is it perhaps the adaptation required to be able to live in a system like ours, where consumption is the only prerequisite for growth? In the 1960s, Sweden was honoured with a visit from the philosopher and author Susanne Sontag, who subsequently wrote about her impressions of our country (”Letter to Sweden”). Something that stuck in my memory was Sontag’s remark about the Swedes’ supposed great interest in economics. She contrasted this with the diminished importance of culture in a country where people place such a high value on money.
Susanne Sontag’s observations made an impression on me, and I still see Sweden as a fundamentally materialistic country, where we constantly relate to the economy, money and the value of money. In that respect, we follow the USA. As far as I can remember, we have been fed stock market listings on the radio, on TV and on the websites of newspapers. It is, of course, in the interests of listed companies, shareholders, large and small, or of financial journalists that the ups and downs of the stock market reach everyone. Is this perhaps a sign that, as citizens, we have a responsibility for the Swedish stock market to do well, and if it does not, should we share the concern for the value of the stock market and the Swedish crown with politicians, listed company managers and boards? This goes on year after year, and no one seems to ask whether anything else could compete for the space. Why not tell us how many kilos of ice have melted in Antarctica overnight, or how many children have been born – something that is real and means something. Anyone who has shares and is interested in following developments on the stock market and their shareholdings has every opportunity to do so in other ways. What should be valuable to us is how the earth is doing and how we can take care of it. Now, at the eleventh hour, headlines about the ups and downs of environmental issues have broken through the wall of economic reporting. Despite this, there is still too little space for the group of researchers who dedicate their lives to studying Earth’s climate and what is happening in the wake of increased global warming. Where are the long-term, political goals, the visions of a better world for future generations? Unfortunately, many of the world’s influential countries are today governed by outdated, patriarchal hierarchies of power that do not see the need to address today’s significant and decisive challenges, in which climate change plays an increasingly important role.
For as long as I can remember, the message has been: with markets and growth, we will be able to afford to correct all the mistakes that have been made, such as failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions in time and to invest enough in alternative energy sources. The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise provides its picture of markets and growth for sustainable development: ”Recent developments in Sweden show that trade can lead to increased prosperity while emissions actually decrease. The connection is crucial for a future where concern for the environment goes hand in hand with job creation and growing prosperity” (Trade’s role in the climate and environmental transition, www.svensktnaringsliv.se). Today, the reality does not quite look like that. Unemployment is high, and the prosperity of the part of the population living on the verge of poverty is further reduced in the wake of jobs being lost and maintenance allowances being eroded. The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise further writes that an environmental impact may initially increase with economic growth, but ”that it decreases later, as growth progresses. Important in this context are the institutions and politicians who shape economic systems and integrate environmental considerations”. The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise certainly has a point there, but I lack suggestions for which political goals and decisions would promote a positive environmental impact alongside economic growth.
What are the conditions for creating sustainable development in a multicultural society like Sweden? I would also like to ask that question to a multidisciplinary group of researchers in subjects related to the environment and climate, ecology, sociology and economics. But first, we must clarify: What is a sustainable society? And is it even possible to talk about a society that is sustainable for everyone? What role does the environment play in a sustainable society? Can a popular movement contribute to a change that leads to a more sustainable society? And finally, when the ”Swedish model” was established, was it perhaps the beginning of the end for a sustainable society?
Is sustainable development an abandoned goal in Swedish politics?
25 years ago, the Ministry of Finance presented the report: ”What is sustainable development?” (Appendix 7 to the Long-Term Report 1999/2000). A solid report comprising 157 pages, including appendices, written by the ministry secretaries Cecilia Fegler and Lena Unemo. Anders Körling contributed to the cover design. The foreword states that the purpose of Appendix 7 is to identify the factors that are of importance in assessing whether a country has sustainable development. The first part of the appendix highlights what is included in the concept of sustainable development, and the second part, ”whether development in Sweden can be described as sustainable”. Government power at this time was in the hands of the Social Democrats with Göran Persson as Minister of State (1996–2006). The broad definition of sustainable development includes three components: ecological, social and economic. When the report was presented in 2000, carbon dioxide emissions were increasing in most countries, a trend explained by the lack of purification technology for emissions, which led to a demand for societal change that would require significant financing. Environmental problems caused by deforestation are currently more common in developing countries than in developed ones. The authors write that ecological development worldwide is not as negative as it is sometimes portrayed. To make the value of the environment visible, they believe it needs to be priced, citing the introduction of environmental taxes and regulations as an example. Savings are also a prerequisite for sustainable development, as they can be transferred to the welfare of future generations, which is also an example of an attempt to maintain sustainable development. Whether development in Sweden is sustainable depends on a calculation of the ”environmentally adjusted net national product (NNP)”. At the time of the report (2000), Sweden was considered to have sustainable development, even though some environmental threats, such as climate change and ozone layer depletion, were not included in the calculations. Finally, some key points and conclusions from the report:
- The environment should be priced to ensure sustainable development.
- Utiliseexisting valuation methods for improved decision-making.
- To maintain sustainable development, the focus should be on specificcentral environmental values. Global problems require global solutions, including collaboration to achieve ecologicalgoals.
- Strive to reduce uncertainty in determining which resources are essentialto preserve.
In von Wright’s intellectual autobiography, The Myth of Progress, the essay ”A Provocative Pessimism” is included, in which the author criticises the Brundtland Report (1987) for contradictory messages about what is required for future sustainable development to see the light of day. At the same time that consumption in rich countries must be reduced, it is proposed that growth in the industrialised countries should continue to be allowed, meaning that the standard of living increases rather than decreases. von Wright’s view on sustainable development is that we in the rich parts of the world need to change our lifestyles, which means we risk becoming poorer on average. The socio-economic gaps between developed and developing countries can thus be reduced, which is also a prerequisite for future sustainable social development. I am struck by the foresight that characterises von Wright’s analysis of the fateful issues that are even more critical today than when the text was written. In the picture of the future, the author sees how resolutions from international conferences and symposia, as well as reports from various committees, succeed one another, aiming to reduce climate emissions by attempting to recreate a nature already devastated. The picture is consistent with today’s situation, where countries’ differing demands for measures to reduce the effects of global warming are often in the spotlight. Yet, the critical decisions are not being implemented. I note at the same time that von Wright also doubted that technology and free-market forces would ultimately be the answer to man’s abuse of the earth’s valuable resources. He stated that development is difficult to predict because it takes different, unpredictable directions, which means the irrational gets more space. Isn’t this precisely the kind of development we see today, where unpredictability has become the normal state. At the same time, the risks of various catastrophic consequences increase as growth in the rich world accelerates?
According to Freud, an advance for society was the individual’s need for sublimation in the sense that the sexual drive could be used for a socially beneficial purpose. But I don’t know if Freud ever perceived sublimation as a threat, in that it could involve the exploitation of people and nature. In other words, that strong drives and sublimation were not only devoted to the benefit of good forces. It would perhaps be healthier for our earth after all if we lived out our sexual desire and sublimated less. To be affirmed in a narcissistically characterised culture means a denial of the primitive drives in the human psyche.
In analogy with Freud’s view of the psyche, and our need to defend ourselves against various forms of anxiety, a denial that the responsibility for a sustainable environment rests with each one of us can be interpreted as a form of repression. We get rid of the anxiety about animal species going extinct, ice caps melting, forests being devastated, and seas and lakes flooding through psychological defence mechanisms such as repression or rationalisation. We turn to technology for help, trusting that it will save both us and future generations. For almost my entire life, I have heard how misery, war and severe infectious diseases have plagued the countries of Africa and Asia, but thinking globally can be threatening, as it means that care for people/the environment must be extended to nations and peoples that are furthest from us. Thinking globally is nevertheless necessary, since there is a connection between survival in our part of the world and survival in countries far away. ”I live well here and now” has consequences for people in parts of the world where environmental impacts force them to move. But if more and more countries in Europe and the USA, like Sweden, choose to close their borders, who or what will receive the environmental refugees who are expected to increase in number? Will they be forced to return to a home that no longer exists?
In the wake of civilisation, care for the Earth’s biodiversity is lacking
Species come and go – it is part of natural selection, and the strongest species will survive. This is what Darwin taught us. His thesis naturally contains a cynicism that is at odds with an empathetic attitude towards the Earth and its inhabitants (regardless of species). But why should nature be allowed to take its course if it means that the fragile and difficult-to-adapt species become extinct, even though these contribute the most to our survival and are therefore the worthiest of protection? When they die out, we will be hit harder than if some of the well-adapted species were to be lost. We must perceive the contribution of the fragile individuals to our civilisation in a similar way. By protecting vulnerable populations, we can save the environment and our future on Earth. Since they depend on human kindness for their survival, we also have the opportunity to develop as individuals. Empathy is not innate, even though it sometimes seems so when we talk about the opposite; that is, the lack of empathy. The insight into what modern humans expose the environment and biodiversity to must increase, but also the sadness over lost values, such as species disappearing from our planet. It is only when we realise the extent of environmental destruction without blinders and without being paralysed by feelings of guilt that we can be persuaded to act. Ecological movements are examples of just such active commitment, where participants sacrifice their own comfort for an important cause: the survival of the species.
Once upon a time – it feels like a very long time ago – we discussed a new economic world order. That debate gave hope. Perhaps now is the time to ”dig it up” and come to terms with decades of growth hysteria, which, at the expense of a sustainable society, both socially, morally and ecologically, can most of all be likened to – precisely that – a form of ”hysteria.” On a general human level, the condition can be diagnosed as a psychological inflation – a form of hubris, something that, in ancient Greek culture, meant that man set himself against the gods, and, in von Wright’s words, ”elevated himself against the order of nature”. It was Nemesis, the goddess of balance, who punished the guilty. With us, the punishment for hubris is meted out by the god or goddess we worship most – the free market – a kind of up-to-date order of nature.
A quote from von Wright’s Humanism as a Way of Life may serve as a final reminder of our shared responsibility: ”To exploit nature’s resources and direct its forces for various human goals is to intervene in isolated parts of the natural process. But nature is a whole, a system whose different parts influence each other. Man himself is part of the whole. His life in the biological sense of the word is dependent on certain states of equilibrium in his physical environment, the so-called biosphere. If man, by intervening in the system’s details, upsets the equilibrium of the whole, this can have harmful consequences for the life of the species. Nature, so to speak, strikes back, takes revenge on man for daring to upset the order that prevails in the cosmos” (p. 168).
Soly Erlandsson is professor emeritus of psychology, a licensed psychologist, and a regular contributor to Critical Point.
Literature
Susanne Sontag: ”Brev till Sverige” (Letter to Sweden), Kritiker 22/23, 2012.
Nils Tiberg: Kretsloppet (The Circuit). The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation’s yearbook, 1993.
George Henrik von Wright: Humanismen som livshållning och andra essäer (Humanism as a way of life and other essays). Rabén & Sjögren, 1979.
George Henrik von Wright: Myten om framsteget. Tankar 1987–1992 med en intellektuell självbiografi (The myth of progress. Thoughts 1987–1992 with an intellectual autobiography), Bonniers, 1993.
LÄS FLER ARTIKLAR I DETTA NUMMER
Sonia Engström: En rova i kokboken – borsjtjens spridning i söderled och österled
Petra Werner: Make it New – Eric M. Nilssons dokumentära värld
Simon Carlfjord: Är sten som medium budskapet? Kan en alternativ modernitet sammanföra hållbarhet och skönhet?
José Miguel Tur: De osynliga balanskonstnärerna – museivärdarna och deras inflytande på besökarens museiupplevelse
José Miguel Tur: Museivärden som performativ skådespelare i den teater-museologiska upplevelsen
Andreas Engström: Ständigt på andra sidan gränsen – Lars Fredrikson i utställning och bokform
Maud Häger: Folkdräkter och hembygdsdräkter
Mira Horovitz: Kärlekens irrgångar – en betraktelse över samtidssynen på sexualitet och relationer
Eli Getreu: Dagbok del V – julen 1938
Ursula Le Guin: Tre dikter – Fladdermöss, Förfäder & Blickar Bakåt
Rebecca Kjelland: Rebecca Kjelland ”Vinterkorn og vårtunger”
Sigurd Helseth: Sigurd Helseth ”Skuggar av glas”
Kjell Heggelund: Kjell Heggelund ”Samlede dikt” – ”2 dikter”
Andreas Engström: Årets gång – Klassiska verk i kyrkorummet:
Del 1. Johann Sebastian Bach: Juloratoriet