Sustainability 12 02590 v2 PDF

sustainability
Article
Comparing Religious Environmental Ethics to
Support Efforts to Achieve Local and Global
Sustainability: Empirical Insights Based on a
Theoretical Framework
Fabio Zagonari
Dipartimento di Scienze per la Qualità della Vita, Università di Bologna, C.so d’Augusto 237, 47921 Rimini, Italy;
fabio.zagonari@unibo.it; Tel.: +39-054-143-4135; Fax: +39-054-143-4120

Received: 7 February 2020; Accepted: 21 March 2020; Published: 25 March 2020
Abstract: This paper develops a theoretical framework to assess the feasibility of environmental
sustainability solutions, at local and global levels, based on the religious environmental ethics of
several key religions: Hinduism (including Jainism), Buddhism (including Confucianism and Daoism),
Judaism, Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism), and Islam. Solutions are
defined in terms of consumption (measured by GDP), environment use (measured by the ecological
footprint), and welfare for representative individuals. Empirical insights for alternative religious
environmental ethics focus on the relative importance attached to the consumption of goods (α)
vs. involvement in a (local/global) community, and on the importance attached to the environment
within the (local/global) community (µ). In terms of feasibility for national environmental problems
(i.e., pairs of α and µ achieving sustainability, in countries where the religion is a majority) and
consistency (i.e., coherence with the religion’s precepts) of policies for national environmental
problems: Hinduism = Buddhism > Islam > Judaism. Christianity produced no feasible solutions.
In terms of effectiveness for global environmental problems (i.e., pairs of α and µ achieving global
sustainability, if inequalities among nations are reduced in the future) and replicability for local
environmental problems (i.e., pairs of α and µ achieving sustainability in countries where the religion
is a minority): Hinduism = Buddhism > Judaism > Islam.
Keywords: environmental ethics; religion; sustainability; mathematical model; statistical analysis
1. Introduction
Researchers have described environmental sustainability in diverse ways [1–3]. To investigate a
national-level sustainability model that relies on quantitative data as a proxy for reality, it’s necessary
to choose a sustainability model that can be calibrated using empirical data at a country level.
The ecological footprint (EF) is a suitable choice because it measures the direct and indirect impacts of
humans on their environment, and thereby makes it possible to assess a representative individual’s
environmental impacts. To allow a quantitative analysis, I have defined EF as the land area required to
sustain that representative individual, based on current ecological conditions and consumption.
Sustainability is likely to require a combination of improved technology and changes in ethical
values [4]. However, changes in consumption or in the individual’s perceived responsibilities to nature,
the current generation, and future generations, whether simultaneously or separately, might lead to
policy decisions that are unable to solve the problem of excess assumption or that are unfeasible [5].
National-scale environmental ethics arise from diverse cultural factors that affect an individual’s
perceived responsibilities [6]. Due to how strongly religion has shaped and continues to shape culture,
it is helpful to consider how the ethical characteristics of the world’s main religions have defined the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2590; doi:10.3390/su12072590 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 2590 2 of 36
conditions that constrain sustainability. To choose religions at least somewhat objectively, I used the
following criterion—the religion’s self-defined adherents must account for at least 20% of the world’s
population. Judaism does not meet this criterion, but I included it in my analysis for two reasons.
First, Judaism suggests an approach that achieves sustainability by maximizing the welfare of current
and future generations subject to sustainable use of the available resources; as such, it lies between
a-growth, whose goal is to maximize current welfare without compromising a sustainable use of
resources, and strong sustainability, whose goal is to maximize both current and future welfare, while
maintaining inter-generational equity in resource use [7]. Second, Judaism’s approach to sustainability
resembles the lifestyles in most secular Western countries, which have increasingly become a goal for
citizens of countries around the world [8].
In the present study, my goal was to develop a framework for considering the impact of the
dominant religious ethical principles on sustainability that accounts for differences in the relative
importance of consumption of environmental resources and differences in how the environment
can provide bonding social capital [9]. That is, I compare the instrumental value (meeting human
needs) with the intrinsic value of nature. The framework accounts for differences between an
anthropocentric approach that emphasizes the importance of humans and a biocentric approach that
assigns value to both human life and non-human life by considering the “dignity” of non-humans
and the environment [10]. It also accounts for intragenerational equity (equity among members of the
current generation in terms of fair distribution of environmental resources, welfare, and of consumption
goods) and inter-generational equity (equity between the present generation and future generations),
for population dynamics, and for the individual’s perception of their needs for consumption goods,
their desired welfare, and the associated use of the environment. The analysis has three main goals:
1. To empirically assess whether sustainability solutions based on religious environmental ethics

are feasible (i.e., whether there are realistic parameter values such that ethics can achieve its
goal) and reliable (i.e., whether there is a strong relationship between ethics and its goal) at a
national level. For example, could a Muslim country achieve sustainability based on Islamic
environmental ethics?
2. To theoretically discuss whether certain aspects of a religion’s environmental ethics are consistent
with the need for sustainability. For example, could a Buddhist country rely on the high
importance of the environment as bonding social capital and the dignity of non-human lives to
achieve sustainability in the context of increasing consumption?
3. To empirically assess the global-scale effectiveness of religious environmental ethics for achieving
solutions to sustainability problems. For example, which combination of values for religious
environmental ethics is most likely to achieve sustainability if countries converge on similarly
unsustainable conditions?
Note that in this analysis, I shift the focus from the suggestions provided by secular environmental
ethics to the prescriptions and proscriptions of each religion’s ethical code. To define this guidance,
I consulted English translations of religious texts from Hinduism (the Veda, Purana, and Mahabarata),
from Buddhism (the Tipitaka), from Judaism (the Old Testament), from Christianity (the New Testament),
and from Islam (the Qur’an) to identify clear, authoritative statements that describe each religion’s
environmental ethics. My interpretation of Genesis Sections 1 and 2 is based on the Cartesian distinction
between the worlds of humans and nature [11]. This choice has two main justifications. First, this
dichotomy distinguishes Judaism, in which Genesis 2 describes humans as “stewards” for future
generations, from Christianity, in which Genesis 1 describes humans as “dominators” or “masters”
over other forms of life. This, in turn, permits a quantitative test of White’s statement that “Christianity
made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects”, based on
the separation of humans from nature, creation of humans in the image of God, and ranking of humans
as dominators of nature. This dichotomy also distinguishes between the rights of human generations,
whether current and future, and the rights of non-human lives [12]; intra- and intergenerational
equity from interspecies equity (i.e., whether Earth’s resources should be shared by humans and
non-humans) [13]; and altruism focused on humans vs. biosphere-focused altruism [14].
The dichotomy, therefore, lets us examine how differences in rights within and between generations,
differences in equity within and between generations, and human-focused altruism affect our ability
to achieve global sustainability. It also lets us consider how differences in the rights of non-humans,
the resulting interspecies equity, and biosphere-focused altruism can be combined in a way that
acknowledges nature’s intrinsic value and how this shapes the individual’s perception of their duty to
nature [5]. By consulting the above-mentioned primary texts rather than relying on secondary sources,
I have tried to avoid the need to settle centuries of debate over religious precepts and over the relative
authority of competing interpretations of different versions of a given sacred text [15]. To constrain my
analysis to a manageable level, I have excluded the indigenous religions of Africa and other continents
that are based on oral traditions, as they provide no canonical texts for me to analyze in an effort to
infer appropriate parameter values. Nonetheless, future researchers could certainly extend my analysis
to include such traditions. Finally, by considering religious principles, I avoided the need to rank
national-scale secular environmental policies; instead, I focus on how insights from each religion’s
sacred texts affect attitudes towards sustainability.
Specifically, this paper provides numerical, analytical solutions that start by characterizing
religious environmental ethics. I continue by contrasting two extremes: An individual perspective
in which the environment should be preserved to support the greatest possible consumption for
individuals in current and future generations, and a communal perspective in which the environment
should be preserved to support the happiness individuals receive from belonging to a local or global
community. To support this analysis, I have relied on the following definitions and assumptions:
• Efficiency means achieving the maximum output per unit consumption of an environmental
resource or the minimum consumption for a given output. I take this as given, and measure
efficiency based on current technology rather than extrapolating future technology. However,
I will also explore whether improved technology could mitigate the environmental impact
of consumption.
• Equity is based on fairly distributing a good or service, and applies to current and future generations
but not to non-humans. Although applying equity to all generations (both current and future)
can solve a sustainability problem, it can instead prevent sustainability when applied only to the
current generation. That is, global sustainability can be achieved if all countries except the United
States decrease per capita consumption to the level in Bangladesh, but cannot be achieved if all
countries try to achieve the same per capita consumption as the United States.
• Justice means positive or negative rights to support actions or interests, and applies only to current
humans. It does not apply to future humans or non-humans, although we can also consider
the effects of a sense of duty towards future generations, consider the inherent worth of the
environment, or accept the dignity of non-human lives. That is, different rights equate to different
perceptions of dignity, but not vice-versa.
Finally, the analytical and numerical solutions developed in this study depend on current and
future populations and their perceived needs, in terms of both (current) welfare and (current) use of
the environment. This is because both parameters are likely to change temporally and spatially.
These formalizations reveal the aspects that are shared by pairs of religions. For example,
Catholicism’s recent extension of dignity from humans to all of creation approaches the Hindu
perspective. Moreover, trying to apply the same approach to everyone (universalism) may postpone
cooperation until a consensus is achieved about the most appropriate worldview, whereas basing
the approach on each religion’s ethical code can be implemented at a community level, since each
religion can rely on its own principles rather than waiting for a global consensus [16]. Finally, these
formalizations reveal differences among religious ethics. For example, Judaism defines an imperfect,
created sacred nature that has the consequence of assigning small importance to the environment
as a form of bonding social capital; in contrast, the perfect and uncreated sacred nature defined by
Buddhism has the consequence of assigning the same dignity to humans and non-humans.
There is no mathematical literature on the feasibility of religious environmental precepts, whereas
the statistical literature on reliability of religious beliefs and/or communities [17] is often based on
pro-environmental concerns, attitudes, intentions or self-stated environmental behaviors rather than on
observed environmental behaviors (see Supplementary Materials I). By taking a national perspective
(see Supplementary Materials II), which accounts for both religious beliefs and communities, the present
study relies on an original panel dataset on majority religions (to avoid problems in identifying people
belonging to a specified religion based on self-stated attendance at religious ceremonies, adherence
to religious precepts, or private prayer activity) and observed ecological footprints at a country level
(to avoid the gap between an individual’s expressed beliefs and their actions, to elicit persistent rather
than situational influences on behavior, and to minimize the gap between reality and the simulation).
This paper’s main contributions lie in how the approach represents religious environmental ethics
from the analyzed religions within a single mathematical framework (to achieve insights about feasibility
based on numerical analyses), and in how the framework is based on variables that can be quantified
(to achieve insights about reliability based on statistical analyses). This also supports comparisons
of feasibility, effectiveness, and replicability of each religion’s environmental ethics to achieve local
and global sustainability, by considering religious environmental precepts as a policy rather than as
personal traits, learning styles, and values. This analysis can be applied in similar contexts, such as
whether a more equal income distribution can be achieved in the future, or in contrasting contexts, such
as the distinct contexts of pre-industrial, industrial, and post-industrial economies. The advantage of a
mathematical approach is that the analysis becomes more objective because the underlying assumptions
are clearly defined. Future researchers can modify the assumptions based on empirical data or can
explore the effects of alternative assumptions. This approach permits more objective comparisons
among alternatives, and it can be expanded in future research to account for different schools of
thought within a religion or different cultures. Finally, quantification mitigates subjectivity and provides
new insights by taking advantage of the ability of mathematics and statistics to detect key factors that
might otherwise be missed.
It’s important to emphasize that this paper is not intended to be a deterministic model that will
accurately predict the ecological fate of different religious groups based solely on a simplified depiction
of their religious precepts; rather, the goal is to use mathematics to obtain a more rigorous description
of the selected religious precepts and use that description to seek insights into their implications for
ecological sustainability. Without a theoretical model that can be supported by empirical data, it is
difficult and may be impossible to explore whether a country can rely on the precepts of its dominant
religion, which precepts are most important, and which religions are most likely to support ecological
sustainability. The goal of the present study was to develop a theoretical model to support such
discussions, and then use empirical data to demonstrate how the model can generate novel insights
from real-world data to support such discussions. In other words, the goal of this paper is not to
propose a deterministic model of human behavior that predicts inevitable outcomes; rather, it is to
provide insights that might otherwise be missed by alternative methods, and insights that can be
subjected to a reality check.
2. The Theoretical Framework

The mathematical model to depict pro-environmental behaviors of a representative individual at
a national level is described in Appendix A. Note here that formalizing parameter values based on the
sacred texts of each religion requires precision, to ensure that the results are reliable, and simplification,
so that it is not necessary to consider doctrinal differences within a religion. I have, therefore, grouped
some religions based on philosophical factors that make them more similar than different in the context
of the analytical framework. This let me provide examples (quotations) from the sacred texts that will
let readers assess the consistency of my simplifications with these texts (see Appendix B). Moreover,
I have represented some religious moral precepts related to nature as objectives. For example, human
dominion over non-humans in Jewish texts becomes the objective of maximizing inter-generational
welfare. In contrast, I have depicted some religious moral precepts related to nature as constraints.
For example, the Islamic trusteeship of the environment to preserve it for future generations becomes a
sustainability condition that must be met. Finally, I have represented some religious moral precepts
related to nature as parameters. For example, the sacred creation of nature described in the Eastern
Orthodox texts of Christianity can be represented by a large value of µ.
I have not considered the relationships between divine precepts and natural laws (i.e., the extent
to which divine laws are translated into the natural order); I have not considered the relationships
between religions and politics (i.e., the extent to which divine moral norms should be translated into
secular behavior or order); I have quantified sustainability based on the EF for the world population
(θ) in a given year, and have assumed that the future welfare will be at least as high as W C . We can,
therefore, simplify the notation by replacing W C with w, and use w as a reference for future generations.
In summary, I have represented feasibility using pairs of α and µ values that meet sustainability
condition θ (i.e., the maximum global EF that permits sustainability) for alternative values of m, n, ε,
and ζ in alternative contexts. I do this for a given level of w, with λ quantified as the current national or
mean global level of environmental technology. Increasing α means increasing the importance attached
to individual consumption, while decreasing the importance attached to community involvement,
whereas increasing µ means increasing the importance attached by the community to the environment,
while decreasing the importance attached to consumption.
2.1. Hinduism (Including Jainism)

Hinduism emphasizes stewardship, an extended family of Mother Earth (i.e., one that includes all
living beings), respect (based on the birth and rebirth cycle) up to reverence (based on the supreme
being’s incarnation) for non-human species, harmony with all of divine creation, and ensured wealth
(greater than some minimum) for everybody. Hinduism combines this with spirituality related to the
environment and a belief in punishment in future reincarnations for acts that contravene the rules of
dharma [18–21]. Mathematically (where HIN represents the value for Hinduism):
Wi = (λHIN Ei )α (µ/Ei )1−α s.t. Ei ≤ θ/m and Wi ≥ wHIN
With m ≥ 1. Thus, solutions can be represented as follows:
ln[wHIN ] − ln[(µ m)/θ]

αHIN ≤ , αHIN ≥ 0, αHIN ≤ 1, µ ≥ 0
ln[(θ λHIN )/m] − ln[(µ m)/θ]
Jainism provides precepts on non-violence, not-stealing, and non-possession.

In summary, this proposed lifestyle goes beyond that of the deepest ecologists [22]. Mathematically,
Ei ≤ s < θ, where s is the subsistence-level use of the environment. However, I have not included
this minority religion (i.e., 0.3% of the world’s population in 2012) in the rest of my analysis because
it would be infeasible to extend it to a large population. Similar formalizations can be made for
Sikhism [23].
2.2. Buddhism (Including Confucianism and Daoism)

Buddhism focuses on harmony with nature’s laws, extends compassion and loving-kindness to
all beings, preserves nature for its aesthetic value, and predicts both individual and social punishment
as a consequence of detrimental actions [24,25]. Mathematically (where BUD represents the value
for Buddhism):
Wi = (λBUD Ei )α (µ/Ei )ν s.t. Ei ≤ θ/m, Ei ≤ eBUD , Wi ≥ wBUD

where m > 1, and where eBUD and wBUD represent needs in terms of the use of the environment (e.g.,
human waste) and in terms of welfare (e.g., human and non-human pain), respectively. The desire
to escape from the world’s temptations implies a small α. Thus, Buddhism and Hinduism have
similar precepts related to environmental actions, although they sometimes have different foundations.
For example, Hindu respect for animals derives from animals having been human in a previous
life or humans becoming animals in a subsequent life; in contrast, Buddhism’s respect for animals
is based on the belief that animal suffering is equivalent to human suffering. This suggests that
Hinduism’s equilibrium environmental solution (Section 2.1) could also be used for Buddhism. Here,
I have used equilibrium for the result after simultaneously accounting for the offsetting effects of all
variables, with sustainability maintained for both current and future generations (i.e., a steady-state or
static equilibrium).
Confucianism can be seen as a secular rather than a religious code of ethics (i.e., rules for
harmonious co-existence with other humans) because it lacks a strong sense of transcendence in an
afterlife. Nonetheless, it is strongly concerned with human well-being. In summary, nature ultimately
comprises a single energy source (Qi); harmony arises from the ongoing generative actions of Yin and
Yang; and social order and balance in large ecological systems arise between humanity and nature,
accompanied by love for natural beauty [26,27]. Mathematically:
X
Wi = (λ Ei )α (µ/Ei )ν s.t. ri Ei ≤ θ
where the weighted sum refers to the relevant (local) community, with ri as the relative weight for
individual i. Thus, Buddhism (for individuals) and Confucianism (for a community) rely on similar
precepts related to environmental actions. This suggests that Buddhism’s equilibrium environmental
solution can be used for Confucianism in a national-scale analysis.
Daoism focuses on harmony with nature, with nature perceived as a flux. It also focuses on
human health, which is perceived as an equilibrium between the body and its environment [28,29].
Note that Daoism is consistent with Darwin’s theory of evolution and with an ecosystem approach
to sustainability. Mathematically, Ei ≤ s < θ, where s is the subsistence-level use of the environment.
However, I have not considered this minority religion (i.e., 0.1% of the world’s population in 2012)
further because it is infeasible to extend it to a large population. Similar formalizations are possible for
Shinto [30].
2.3. Judaism
In Judaism, humans are “stewards” for future generations, and nature is not, itself, an end; instead,
it hints at the existence of the divine creator who governs and sustains it. God is the rightful owner
of Israel’s land, and Israelites are God’s tenants. Punishment is provided for sins; preservation of
vegetation is emphasized, such as conservation of fruit trees, as is biodiversity and limited consumption
of some animals, for unspecified reasons; and fallow agriculture is recommended to restore soil nutrients
and maintain vigorous plants [31]. Mathematically (where JUD refers to the value in Judaism):
Max W s.t. Wi ≥ wJUD and Ei ≤ θ with ζ = 1 and ε = 0
Thus: α
WC = λJUD θ (µ/θ)1−α = wJUD = n WF s.t. Wi ≥ wJUD and Ei ≤ θ

The solutions can be represented as follows:

h i
ln wJUD /n − ln[µ/θ ]
αJUD ≤ h i , αJUD ≥ 0 , αJUD ≤ 1, µ ≥ 0
ln λJUD θ − ln[µ/θ]
Note that with an increasing population (i.e., n > 1), sustainability conditions become stricter (i.e.,
a lower αJUD for each µ). Note, however, that the concern seems to focus on future Jewish generations,
not all future generations. Moreover, the formalized rules prescribe or proscribe inter-temporal optimal
use of natural resources by current and future generations rather than prescribing preservation of
nature, although Deuteronomy describes how to manage soil, animals, and vegetation to maintain their
productivity. The second creation story in Genesis (2:7-15) may have been introduced when the Jewish
people replaced a nomadic lifestyle with a sedentary agricultural lifestyle to solve problems, such as
land degradation and desertification. Unlike the situation for nomadic peoples, sedentary peoples
cannot spread their food risk over large areas. In contrast, the first creation narrative (Genesis 1:1-23)
describes creation of the material world as the imposition of order on chaos and provides a rationale for
distinguishing between the sacred and the profane. Finally, nature (i.e., God’s creation) is imperfect (i.e.,
it must be redeemed together with the redemption of the people of Israel), and human management
and care are essential, following God’s divine commands to sanctify nature. In other words, nature is
not inherently sacred. However, in terms of the dignity of non-human life, domestic animals are also
granted the Sabbath day of rest (Deuteronomy 5:13-14). In addition, rabbinic Judaism called on Jews to
strive to transcend nature. Thus, it is difficult to achieve a large commitment to nature (µ) to create a
form of social bonding capital.
2.4. Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestantism)

In Christianity, humans are seen to dominate or serve as masters of non-humans, with no
constraints, so that all needs are satisfied [32]. Mathematically:
Max WC s.t. Wi ≥ w
In other words, Christians adopted the first creation story (Genesis 1:26-28).
For Catholics, St. Augustine tells us, “Though not required for furnishing of our house, these
things [all creatures] are necessary for the perfection of the universe” (De Ordine). Similarly, St. Thomas
tells us, “As those creatures that are less noble than man exist for the sake of man, whilst each
and every creature exists for the perfection of the entire universe” (Summa Theologica). In summary,
Catholics should admire nature, as God provides nature as a common good to meet human needs (i.e.,
instrumental values), and imperfect nature must be altered by humans [33–35]. Mathematically:
Max WC s.t. Wi ≥ w with ε = 0
The first Catholic mention of “social injustice” appears in Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum,
and supports ε = 0. In contrast, more recent theology prioritizes caring for the community (e.g., in
Latin America) before caring for creation. Moreover, m = 1 represents the belief that humans and
non-humans must be judged by different standards. Indeed, Pope John Paul II wrote, in Peace with God
the Creator, Peace with all of creation, that “respect for life and for the dignity of the human person extends
also to the rest of creation” and that “Christians realise(sic) that their responsibility within creation
and their duty toward nature and the Creator are an essential part of their faith”. In other words,
Catholicism resembles Hinduism (i.e., 1 < m < ∞), without mentioning sustainability, although human
morality depends on divine grace and on faith. For example, early settlers of North America treated
indigenous peoples as non-human because they had not yet been “saved”. However, Darwin’s theory
of evolution does not support the use of different standards for humans and non-humans, unless “God
is love” (John 4:16) and creation is not a one-time event, but rather a continuous giving of life by the
Holy Spirit. Finally, Catholicism’s treatment of non-humans and Earth’s goods as “resources”, as in
the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), reveals the absence of any sustainability concept, and suggests
that Earth should be subdued to meet human needs (i.e., Wi ≥ w for each individual i).
Note that in the Life of St. Francis, by St. Bonaventure, St. Francis says “Lord, I thank thee for the
sufferings thou art sending me. Send me more, if it be thy good pleasure. My pleasure is that you afflict
me and spare me not, for the fulfilment of thy holy will is the greatest consolation of my life states”.
In other words, we achieve happiness by complying with God’s will (i.e., α ≈ 0), which is represented
by creation and by natural events, such as disease and other trials of the flesh (infirmitate et tribulationes).
Only humans have freedom. St. Francis refers to water, sun, wind, and land as brothers and sisters,
thereby suggesting that creation has the same dignity as humans (i.e., m > 1). This resembles Hinduism.
However, non-humans are not mentioned, which is consistent with the belief that humans and animals
are fundamentally different: St. Francis’ speeches to animals (e.g., birds, wolves) are instead aimed
at specific human social categories (e.g., poor people, pagans). St. Francis states that we should use
nature only enough to achieve a subsistence life (i.e., E ≤ s). Mathematically:
θ/Ei s.t. Ei ≤ s and Wi ≥ w
Thus, sustainability is achieved if s ≤ θ.

In the Eastern Orthodox religion, one should live in faith and love by following the contemplative
life (vita contemplativa) and withdrawing from the created world; God is omnipotent and independent,
whereas the world is limited, dependent, and incomplete without God. Despite this, the Holy Spirit
lets us combine the divine unity, divine transcendence, and God into creation [36]. Mathematically:
Wi = (λ Ei )α (µ/Ei )1−α and Ei ≤ e and Wi ≥ w
with a large µ and a small α. Thus, sustainability is achieved if e ≤ θ.

Protestantism focuses on nature as a manifestation of God, on anthropocentrism, on an active
life (vita activa) rather than a contemplative life (vita contemplativa), and on nature’s beauty [37–39].
Mathematically:
Max WC s.t. Wi ≥ w with ε > 0
Note that Protestantism’s approach to social justice (e.g., the “two Kingdoms” doctrine) supports
a positive ε, although the ethics of ecological justice are too recent to fix ε = 1. In any event, this would
not ensure sustainability.
In summary, Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestantism) cannot achieve
sustainability. Indeed, Christian principles of “equal dignity of humans”, which treats all humans as
children of the same God, and “love of neighbor”, which asks us to love each other as God loves us, do
not imply sustainability.
2.5. Islam
Islam sees humans as trustees for future generations and requires moderation in the use of
natural resources, with the goal of minimizing the environmental impact to the smallest level possible,
while still meeting human needs [40–43]. Mathematically (where ISL represents the parameter value
for Islam):
Min Ei s.t. Wi ≥ wISL and Ei ≥ eISL and Ei ≤ θ with ζ = 0 and ε = 0
Thus, solutions can be represented as follows:
ln[wISL ] − ln[µ/θ]
αISL ≤ , αISL ≥ 0 , αISL ≤ 1, µ ≥ 0
ln[θ λISL ] − ln[µ/θ]
Note that women’s role in historical Muslim societies suggests ε = 0. Moreover, the Qur’an’s
prohibition against charging interest on loans (4:161, 30:39, 2:275-278; 3:130) suggests preservation of
renewable resources at a level close to the maximum sustainable yield. Finally, we can justify m = 1.
Muslims must be compassionate towards non-humans, including plants. However, humans alone are
gifted with eternal life, and our aims differ from those of non-humans. In other words, all of creation is
subject to Allah’s natural laws, but non-humans have a lower dignity than humans.
2.6. Summary of Religious Environmental Ethics

Table 1 summarizes the objectives, constraints, and environmental ethics of the five religions
based on the preceding analyses.
Table 1. Objectives, constraints, and parameters that characterize the main religious
environmental ethics.
Religion Objectives Constraints Parameters

α 1−α
Hinduism Wi = (λHIN Ei ) (µ/Ei ) Ei ≤ θ/m, Wi ≥ wHIN Large µ
α 1−α
Jainism Wi = (λ Ei ) (µ/Ei ) Ei ≤ s
α 1−α
Buddhism Wi = (λBUD Ei ) (µ/Ei ) Ei ≤ θ/m, Ei ≤ eBUD , Wi ≥ wBUD
α 1−α P
Confucianism Wi = (λ Ei ) (µ/Ei ) ri Ei ≤ θ, Wi ≥ w
Daoism Wi = (λ Ei )α (µ/Ei )1−α Ei ≤ s
Judaism Max W Wi ≥ wJUD , Ei ≤ θ n , 1, ζ = 1, ε = 0
Christian Catholicism Max WC Wi ≥ w ε=0
Christian Eastern
Wi = (λ Ei )α (µ/Ei )1−α Ei ≤ e, Wi ≥ w Large µ
Orthodoxy
Christian Protestantism Max WC Wi ≥ w ε>0
α 1−α
Wi = (λISL Ei ) (µ/Ei ) ≥ wISL
Islam Min Ei ζ = 0, ε = 0
Ei ≥ eISL , eISL ≤ θ
Notation: α = relative importance attached to consumption; Ei = the use of the environment by individual I;
e = needs in terms of the use of the environment for Buddhism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Islam; ε = aversion to
intra-generation inequalities, λ = the level of environmental technology (gross domestic product, GDP, per unit of
ecological footprint, EF); m = number of human and non-human beings with the same dignity as human beings
divided by the number of human beings (i.e., m ≥ 1); θ = the sustainable use of the environment based on EF; µ = the
importance attached to the environment within a community; n = the number of people in the future divided by the
number in the current generation (i.e., n > 1 if population increases); s = use of the environment to provide the bare
necessities of life for Jainism and Daoism; W = welfare of current (W C ) and future (W F ) generations; w = needs in
terms of welfare for all religions apart from Jainism and Daoism; W C = welfare of current generation; Wi = welfare
of a representative individual i in the current generation; ri = relative weight attached to individual i in a Confucian
community; ζ = aversion to inter-generation inequality.
Daoism emphasizes non-action and depicts nature as a series of flows through bodies,
which implies that environmental equilibrium is sustained by human health; this resembles a
more dynamic version of Jainism’s emphasis on asceticism. Moreover, I have depicted all religions
as concerned only with the current population (i.e., by normalizing θ with respect to the current
generation). The exception is Judaism, which also considers population dynamics (i.e., n , 1). Finally,
I depict Islam and Catholicism as lacking in concern about social inequalities (i.e., ε = 0), although
Catholicism’s recent emphasis on labor rights and Islam’s recent emphasis on women’s rights should
be noted. Appendix C highlights how each religion’s solutions (e.g., whether α increases or decreases
with increasing µ) depend on the current values of λ0 and w0 .
My analysis reveals four novel results. First, all religions that I have analyzed share an inconsistency:
They strongly value each individual, both for humans and for non-humans, but when they consider
animal lives, their approach to sustainability focuses on the species, not individuals. Indeed: Judaism
says “O Lord, all eyes hope in you, and you provide their food in due time. You open your hand,
and you fill every kind of animal with a blessing” (Psalms 144:15-16, and similarly, in Psalms 103:2728);
Christianity says “Father feedeth them” (Matthew 6:26); Islam says “There is no creature that moves in
the Earth but it is for Allah to provide it with sustenance” (11:6); and Hinduism says “Mother Earth,
like a Cosmic Cow, gives us the thousand-fold prosperity without hesitation without being outraged
by our destructive actions” (Atharva Veda, Mantras 45 and 59).
Second, although the minimum environmental resources required for survival can be used
as a target to achieve sustainability by some religions (i.e., Daoism, Jainism), the concepts of the
environment’s inherent needs that are shared by many religions (i.e., Buddhism, Eastern Orthodoxy,
Islam) do not necessarily represent a consistent standard of comparison; that is, they are an unreliable
precept because the concept of needs changes temporally and spatially.
Third, even though belief in nature’s beauty and sacred characteristics, or in nature’s harmony, is
supported by each religion, though in different ways, this is not sufficient to achieve sustainability,
even if adherents combine this belief with a belief in punishment for violating the rules (e.g., Eastern
Orthodoxy, Buddhism) or combine it with cooperation within an extended community (e.g., Hinduism).
This is because they are not objective behavioral rules. In particular, sacred nature is a subjective
feeling (i.e., here, quantified as µ), and is, therefore, similar to a subjective preference for goods (i.e.,
here, quantified as α) rather than a prescribed action. If we believe that nature was created by a deity
or provided as that deity’s gift, then nature has intrinsic value, and we must be perceived as a part
of nature. However, unless we use the environment only at a subsistence level (i.e., E = s, and we,
therefore, live like many animals), and accept the huge associated opportunity costs for the current
generation, belief in sacred nature does not become a beneficial rule of action to achieve sustainability
unless we couple it with (current or future) individual or social punishments by the deity. Thus, this
approach is increasingly unlikely to be implemented. For example, if a river is considered sacred
despite being polluted, as in the case of the Ganges River in Hinduism, it’s possible to ignore the health
risk from bathing in the river; similarly, if the world is an impermanent phenomenon that was created
to serve the deity’s purpose, as in Islam, it’s possible to ignore conservation of nature because that
deity’s purpose will be fulfilled whether or not we conserve nature [44].
Fourth, the simplicity recommended by Christianity’s St. Francis, the frugality associated
with Eastern Orthodoxy, the parsimony associated with Islam, and the abundance associated with
Protestantism could be ordered in terms of decreasing replicability in a world that is increasingly
adopting the modern Western lifestyle.
Four methodological remarks are noteworthy here. First, I treated uncertainty as irrelevant
because I adopted a deontological approach (i.e., based on actions) rather than a consequentialist
approach (i.e., based on consequences). In other words, if actions are chosen because of their (future)
consequences, the analysis should be revised to account for uncertainty related to its effectiveness,
whereas if actions are taken because they are prescribed by sacred texts, the (uncertain) consequences
can be ignored.
Second, the social interactions that underlie the choice of actions must be considered [45].
In particular, religious precepts are likely to reduce the likelihood of a prisoner’s dilemma scenario,
since they make people choose among potential partners to shun defectors and thereby favors
reciprocators; and they are likely to favor cooperation, by presenting punishment, misfortune included,
as a way to restore fairness rather than a way to deter cheating. In other words, religious precepts
are likely to lead to a coordinated equilibrium (i.e., either all individuals behave pro-environmentally,
or all individuals do not); or they are likely to lead to a cooperative equilibrium (i.e., all individuals
behave pro-environmentally).
Third, I did not account for the relationships between institutions and economic growth or
between economic growth and environmental sustainability, as these are irrelevant in the static
context assumed by the present analysis (i.e., each country is assumed to belong to the group of
pre-industrial, industrial, or post-industrial countries, without movement over time from one group
to another). I made this choice because global sustainability is an urgent problem that must be
solved now, before any country can significantly change its economic structure: The cross-country
statistical analysis performed in Appendix D determined the environmental Kuznets curve for the
sample of 145 countries. In contrast, the relationship between religious institutions and environmental
sustainability might be crucial, since the institutions that have developed in many religions turn out
to be complementary to secular institutions so that both support the achievement of sustainable use
of some resource (e.g., [46–49]). For example, Adriance et al. [50] describe the practical measures
that religious leaders and their followers could take to foster sustainability in Canada and the United
States. Alonso et al. [51] describe the co-existence of secular institutions and traditional Voodoo-based
institutions for fisheries management in Benin. Gupta et al. [52] describe the role of Hindu temple
sanctuaries on the conservation of freshwater fish species in India.
Fourth, this study refers to the environment as a form of binding social capital rather than as a
public good (i.e., as a non-rivalrous and non-excludable good) or a collective good (i.e., a rivalrous
but non-excludable good), by assuming that welfare is inversely related to the use of resources (i.e.,
Y = µ/E, where E is the ecological footprint). Indeed, referring to the environment as a form of binding
social capital implies that the individual is concerned about damaging the environment, and that their
concern increases with increasing µ, whereas referring to the environment as a non-excludable good
(i.e., for both public and collective goods) would imply that the individual is concerned about the free
use of the resource (i.e., requiring payment for using the environment reduces the consumption of
good X, thereby improving welfare). In the end, all religious environmental precepts aim to solve the
free-rider problem (i.e., this feature of the model does not distinguish among religions), whereas the
environmental community exists to different degrees in different religions (i.e., this feature characterizes
and distinguishes among religions).
3. Data and Standardizations

In this section, I provide empirical values for the parameters introduced in Section 2 that
characterise each religion at a national level. In particular, I identified all countries for which more than
50% of the 2010 population claimed to belong to a given religion based on data from the CIA World
FactBook (www.cia.gov); hereafter, I refer to these as countries for which the religion is a majority.
I have not included Christianity in the present analysis, since Part 1 of this paper demonstrated that it
could not achieve sustainability without following the philosophy of St. Francis; because the use of
environmental resources in the Franciscan philosophy is based on subsistence-level consumption, this
would not be feasible. Of the remaining 62 countries, I identified 52 Muslim countries (i.e., Afghanistan,
Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Chad,
Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,
Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives,
Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Somalia, Syria, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan,
Yemen), 9 Hindu or Buddhist countries (i.e., Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Laos, Myanmar,
Sri Lanka, Thailand), and 1 Jewish country (i.e., Israel). Note that although Hinduism and Buddhism
are clearly different religions, I have combined them in this paper based on the similarity of their
parameter values in Part 1 of this paper.
The World Bank’s development indicators database (http://data.worldbank.org) provided per
capita GDP (on a purchasing power parity basis, PPP) and population data for 2012. The per capita
use of environmental resources for representative individuals equaled the ecological footprint (E0 )
obtained from the Global Footprint Network (http://www.footprintnetwork.org). Here, θ represented
the sustainable biologically productive area needed for a representative individual of the world at
the current population level, which was 1.7 ha. I then calculated the population-weighted mean GDP
(in USD) and EF (in ha) for a representative individual of each nation. For the 49 countries with
available data, this amounted to USD7903 and 1.65 ha, respectively, in 40 Muslim countries, versus
USD9380 and 2.45 ha in 8 Hindu or Buddhist countries and USD30 879 and 6.20 ha in the Jewish
country. Supplementary Materials III provide the data used in this analysis.
To avoid the need to perform discounting or other estimates for postponed consumption, even
though postponing consumption (e.g., saving, investment) could potentially improve welfare for
future generations, I used income as a proxy for consumption. Similarly, I assumed that consuming
imported goods increases welfare at the time of consumption, even though production of these goods
might increase consumption of environmental resources and thereby reduce future welfare in the
country where they are produced to support this export. I then calculated the current technology
level (λ0 ) based on these assumptions (i.e., the current use of environmental resources for each unit of
consumption): λ0 equaled 4.98, 4.78, and 3.83 ha, respectively, for the Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu or
Buddhist countries.
It’s important to understand the relative frequency of variable α in a population, as well as
the current mean value for variable µ, are unknown. In the absence of such data, I assumed that a
representative individual’s current welfare (w0 ) depended on individuals attaching the maximum
value to consumption (i.e., α = 1). Thus, the current welfare for the representative individual is w0 = λ0
E0 . This let me approximate the current welfare values as w0 = 7.903, 9.380, and 30.879, respectively, for
Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, and Jewish countries. I also assumed that people who place no value
on consumption (i.e., α = 0) achieve welfare level w0 : Thus, w0 = µ0 /E0 or µ0 = w0 E0 . This let me
approximate the current levels of µ0 at 21.51, 56.30, and 1186.99, respectively, for Muslim, Hindu or
Buddhist, and Jewish countries. Finally, I multiplied the current public and direct environmental
conservation expenditures (obtained from unstats.un.org, and expressed as a percentage of GDP)
by 4 to estimate both the public and private expenditures and the direct and indirect expenditures
(i.e., I assumed approximately equal values for each of the four categories of spending rather than
calculating different proportions for each one). Future researchers should repeat this calculation with
actual spending in each category when comparable data for each category becomes available for all
countries in the analysis. To perform this calculation, I estimated the complementary to 1 of the current
α; that is, I calculated 1 – α0 . Little data was available in the United Nations statistical database.
Based on the available data, which suggested values of 1.5% of GDP in China, versus 1.2% in Japan,
0.5% in Israel, and 0.4% in Turkey, I assumed the corresponding proportions of GDP were 2, 4, and 2%,
respectively, for Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, and Jewish countries.
If we combined these percentages with each country’s per capita GDP, we would obtain
an environmental Kuznets curve (i.e., a curve that is shaped like an inverted U). In this curve,
which progresses from pre-industrial to post-industrial stages of development, pre-industrial economies
have small environmental expenditures because they have smaller environmental problems, whereas
industrial economies have large expenditures because they have correspondingly large environmental
problems, and expenditures are small again in post-industrial economies because they have higher
per capita incomes and import a greater proportion of their goods and services from other countries,
which take on the environmental burden on behalf of the importer countries.
This approach leads to current welfare levels consistent with all parameter values: w0 = 7.903,
9.380, and 30.879, respectively, for Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, and Jewish countries. Note that the
similar welfare values I obtained from each of the analyses described in this section suggest that the
standardizations applied to µ0 did not greatly affect the results of this analysis.
These calculations are valid for members of each religion, but it’s also interesting to learn how
these apply to a globally representative individual. To estimate this, I used the population-weighted
mean values for GDP PPP (i.e., USD13 348) and EF (i.e., 2.79 ha) for a globally representative individual
(Zagonari, 2018). The result was values of λ0 = 4.78 and µ0 = 37.24. On this basis, I then obtained
u0 = 13.348 based on global average expenditures on environmental conservation as a percentage of
GDP (i.e., 3%).
4. Empirical Results
In this section, I apply the parameter values estimated in Section 4 to the solutions presented in
Section 2. In particular, I will check for the sustainability conditions presented in Section 2 in contexts
identified by the parameter values estimated in Section 4.
4.1. Sustainability at Current National GDP and EF Levels in Countries with a Given Majority Religion
Figure 1 illustrates the regions within the solution space where sustainability can be feasibly
achieved by each religion or group of religions if their religious environmental ethics (defined in
Section 2 of Part 1 of this paper) are applied in countries where these religions are followed by at least
50% of the population.
Figure 1. Comparison of the feasibility of religious environmental ethics for achieving sustainability,
with the future population set at n = 1.1 and the dignity of non-human beings set at m = 10. For Judaism
(small light blue area at the bottom right side of the figure), µ ≥ 47.7; for Islam (yellow and light yellow),
µ ≤ 13.3; and for Hinduism or Buddhism (light yellow, white area under the increasing curve, and light
blue), µ ≥ 1.6.
I obtained the following main insights:
• Hinduism and Buddhism (40.1% of the global population) are not constrained by µ, although
α must be small for a feasible solution: In other words, high consumption levels would
prevent sustainability.
• Judaism probably cannot promote sustainability in Israel, since α would need to decrease greatly
compared with the current level, and it would be necessary to reject the belief that personal wealth
is a reward from God. In addition, µ would be quite large too large (in contrast with the value
expected either under a scientific belief system, such as evolution, or a religious belief system,
such as pantheism or nature worship). However, because Judaism represents only 0.2% of the
world’s population, this would not affect overall global sustainability.
• Islam (22.8% of the global population) has a high α and a low µ if w is sufficiently small (i.e.,
parsimony). In other words, high consumption is feasible if it can be coupled with a small use of
environmental resources.
Note that α increases with increasing µ for Hinduism and Buddhism and for Judaism, but
decreases for Islam.
In terms of feasibility (i.e., solutions for α–µ pairs with µ ranging from its minimum value to
50 inclusive), Hinduism or Buddhism > Islam > Judaism. The feasible areas of the solution space
amount to 23.00, 11.91, and 0.04% of the total solution space, respectively. However, to obtain the
proportion of the total graph area that is feasible, these values should be multiplied by 100 / 50 = 2,
because 50 × 1 is the size of the whole feasible area. Appendix D presents a statistical analysis that
confirms this ranking in terms of the significance and size of the parameters attached to religious
environmental ethics, by achieving the following insights about levels and dynamics of impacts:
Buddhism and Islam show negative and decreasing impacts on EF; Christianity and Judaism show
positive, but decreasing impacts; Hinduism shows a negative, but increasing impact on EF. Note that
if we instead define feasible areas in the solution space within the range from the minimum µ to
100 inclusive, this would increase the feasibility for Hinduism or Buddhism and for Judaism (i.e., to
52.45 and 12.74% of the solution space, respectively), although this would represent an unrealistically
large involvement in sacred nature for Judaism.
The sensitivity analysis in Appendix E illustrates the consequences of modifying the parameter
values. Figure A1 provides the solution space if the future population decreases and low dignity
is assigned to non-human lives (i.e., n = 0.9 and m = 5). The feasible area disappears for Judaism,
which has infeasible values of µ in this scenario. Indeed, combining a reduced future population
with inter-generational equity means that the current generation must belong more strongly to an
environmental community (i.e., µ > 50).
Consistency defines whether a sustainability solution is feasible based on the religious
environmental ethics in Section 2 of Part 1 of this paper. In this context, Hinduism or Buddhism >
Islam > Judaism. Indeed, it’s easier to stress the intrinsic value of nature for Hindus or Buddhists (i.e.,
m > 1) than it would be to ensure moderate use of environmental resources by Muslims (i.e., small w),
and this, in turn, is easier than asking the Jewish country (Israel) to reduce its future population (i.e.,
n < 1).
If we allow the possibility of greener technology, resource consumption could increase for
Hinduism or Buddhism, but consumption would decrease for Islam, as a result of decreasing the
feasibility for Muslim countries and increasing it for Hindu or Buddhist countries (i.e., the feasible
areas with λ = 1.1 would be 10.19 and 23.38% of the solution space, respectively). Indeed, solutions
for Islamic countries are constrained by e; that is, it’s necessary to minimize the use of environmental
resources to sustain the current welfare level. In contrast, solutions for Hindu or Buddhist countries are
constrained by θ (i.e., by a welfare level consistent with sustainable use of environmental resources).
This logic also applies to Jewish countries, since welfare is not constrained, and is instead maximized.
Moreover, allowing an increased emphasis on consumption (α) in Muslim countries would favor
economic growth, due to the increased domestic demand. Finally, the calculated feasibility rankings of
the religions based on their current use of environmental resources differ from the order for countries
where the religion is a majority.
4.2. Sustainability at Average World Levels of GDP and EF

Figure 2 compares the proportions of the solution space in which sustainability is feasible for
Hinduism or Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam if we apply their religious environmental ethics to
a globally representative (average) country (e.g., if more equal income distribution is achieved).
Note that comparing alternative environmental religious precepts applied to the average representative
individual in a world which could be characterized by more equal countries and similar lifestyles in
the future does not imply that the most suitable religion should be adopted worldwide. In contrast, it
highlights which environmental religious precepts which could be suitable to help countries achieve
sustainability for the current lifestyle and economic development might not be suitable for a higher
economic development level and a western lifestyle.
Figure 2. Comparison of the effectiveness of achieving sustainability based on religious environmental

ethics, with the future population set at n = 1.1 and with the dignity of non-human beings set at m = 10.
For Judaism (blue and light blue, green, and light green areas), µ ≥ 20.6; for Islam (green and light
green areas), µ ≥ 22.7; and for Hinduism or Buddhism (white area under the first increasing curve from
the left, light blue and light green), µ ≥ 2.3.
Since I applied the environmental ethics that characterize the analyzed religions to the same
potentially unsustainable scenario, the feasibility ranking can represent an effectiveness ranking; here,
that means each religion’s potential to achieve sustainability.
In terms of effectiveness, Hinduism or Buddhism > Judaism > Islam, with feasible areas of 20.53,
15.12, and 11.95, respectively. Judaism, which currently has the largest α, is most suited to the
hyper-inflated Western lifestyle that is based on high consumption of energy and goods [53], although
Israel’s α still turns out to be much smaller than 1 (i.e., α ≤ 0.69), and must be coupled with a sufficiently
large µ. Note that this is due to the theoretical relationship (i.e., the property of weak duality) between
the primal problem (i.e., maximize utility subject to resource constraints) and the dual problem (i.e.,
minimize resource use subject to utility constraints) combined with the positive impact of α on welfare.
Figure A2 in Appendix E illustrates the solution space if n = 0.9 and m = 5. In this context, Judaism
is less effective than Islam if the population decreases. Indeed, the future generation would require
higher per capita use of the environment, while achieving lower total welfare, and this would require a
decreased focus on consumption by the current generation to maintain inter-generational equity.
I obtained the following main insights from this analysis:
• Hindu and Buddhist countries are slightly constrained by µ (i.e., µ ≥ 4) for m ≥ 5, and they do not
permit the same degree of consumerism as Judaism and Islam (i.e., they have a smaller α),
• Judaism allows the strongest consumerism (i.e., the largest α) if the degree of involvement in a
local or global environmental community is sufficiently high (i.e., µ ≥ 26).
• Islam allows a smaller degree of consumerism than Judaism (i.e., a smaller α for each µ),
and requires a larger µ than Hinduism or Buddhism and Judaism.
Note that for Islam, applying the solutions to a representative country implies increasing α with
increasing µ.
4.3. Sustainability at Current National GDP and EF for Countries in which Each Religion Is a Minority
Figures 3–5 compare the proportions of the solution space in which sustainability is feasible for
Hindu or Buddhist, Jewish, and Muslim countries if their religious environmental ethics are applied in
countries where they represent minority religions (i.e., where <50% of the population belongs to these
religions).
Figure 3. Comparison of the replicability of religious environmental ethics for achieving sustainability
in pre-industrial economies, with n = 1.1 and m = 10. For Judaism (green and light green areas), µ ≤ 12.1;
for Islam (yellow and light yellow, green and light green areas), µ ≤ 13.3; and for Hinduism or Buddhism
(light green, light yellow, white area under the increasing curve), µ ≥ 1.3.
in industrial economies, with n = 1.1 and m = 10. For Judaism (blue and light blue, green and light
green areas), µ ≥ 14.5; for Islam (green and light green areas), µ ≥ 15.9; and for Hinduism or Buddhism
(white area under the increasing curve, light blue and light green), µ ≥ 1.6.
in post-industrial economies, with n = 1.1 and m = 10. For Judaism (small light blue area at the bottom
right side of figure), µ ≥ 47.7; for Islam, µ ≥ 52.5 (i.e., there are no feasible µ); and for Hinduism or
Buddhism (white area under the increasing curve, and light blue), µ ≥ 5.2.
Since I applied the parameter values that I derived from each religion’s environmental ethics to the
same currently unsustainable scenarios for countries in which the religion is a minority, the effectiveness
ranking represents a replicability ranking (i.e., the potential of each religion to achieve sustainability
even in countries dominated by one or more other religions).
To obtain additional insights for current and future sustainability, let us make a simplifying
assumption: That Muslim countries provide an example of pre-industrial economies, that Hindu
or Buddhist countries provide an example of industrial economies, and that Israel provides an
example of a post-industrial economy. This is clearly an oversimplification, with many exceptions.
For example, Muslim Turkey is an industrial economy, whereas Buddhist Japan is a post-industrial
economy. This assumption is nonetheless acceptable based on population-weighted average GDP
and EF (www.worldbank.org) for pre-industrial countries, where agriculture accounts for more than
16% of GDP; for industrial societies, where industry accounts for more than 32% of GDP; and for
post-industrial societies, where the services sector accounts for more than 64% of GDP. Supplementary
Materials III provide the data used in this analysis.
These assumptions produce the same ranking for countries in which Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism,
and Judaism are the majority of religions. Specifically, the population-weighted GDP was highest for
post-industrial economies (32 488 US$), followed by industrial economies (10 324 US$), and was lowest
for pre-industrial economies (3358 US$). These values are similar to the population-weighted GDP
for Israel (30 879 US$), Hindu or Buddhist countries (9380 US$), and Muslim countries (7903 US$).
Similarly, the rankings of EF for pre-industrial, industrial, and post-industrial economies were similar to
those for majority Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, and Jewish countries. The population-weighted EF were
5.21 ha for post-industrial economies, 2.52 ha for industrial economies, and 1.16 ha for pre-industrial
economies, which compare with values of 6.20 ha for Israel, 2.45 ha for Hindu or Buddhist countries,
and 1.65 for Muslim countries.
The thresholds I chose for each type of economy (i.e., 16, 32, and 64% of GDP) resulted in an unclear
development level for some countries, which exceeded none of the thresholds (in 11 of 145 cases) or
in which two thresholds were exceeded, and two development levels were, therefore, possible (in
4 out of 133 cases). In these 15 cases, I allocated the country to a development category based on
the threshold closest to its actual percentage of the economy from below and the threshold farthest
from this percentage from above. For example, Ukraine was 7, 4, and 1 percentage points below the
thresholds for pre-industrial, industrial, and post-industrial countries; as a result, I allocated Ukraine
to the post-industrial development level. In contrast, Uzbekistan had values 3 and 1 percentage
points above and 16 points below the respective thresholds, so I allocated it to the pre-industrial
development level.
These identifications permit a comparison of how a religion’s environmental ethics affect countries
with the same and different levels of development where most of the population belongs to the religion.
For example, it lets me apply Judaism’s principles to post-industrial, industrial, or pre-industrial
countries dominated by Judaism rather than only to Israel.
The results based on data for different religions will obviously differ quantitatively from results
based on data for different development stages. However, the insights obtained from this approach were
qualitatively similar.
If we do not account for the impacts of the current and future global level of imports and exports
on sustainability, we obtain the following main insights:
• Hinduism and Buddhism are feasible in pre-industrial, industrial, and post-industrial countries,
but less effective in post-industrial countries;
• Judaism is feasible to pre-industrial countries, but less effective than Islam, and is the most effective
religion for industrial countries;
• Islam is not feasible in post-industrial countries, and less effective than Judaism for
industrial countries.
Note that α decreases with increasing µ when Judaism’s ethics are applied to
pre-industrial economies.
In terms of replicability, which I define here as the effectiveness for also achieving sustainability in
countries where the religion is a minority, Hinduism or Buddhism > Judaism > Islam. For pre-industrial
economies, Hinduism or Buddhism > Islam > Judaism, with feasible areas amounting to 25.81, 11.91,
and 9.23% of the solution space, respectively). For industrial economies, Judaism ≈ Hinduism or
Buddhism > Islam, with feasible areas amounting to 24.24, 23.00, and 20.49% of the solution space,
respectively. Finally, for post-industrial economies, Hinduism or Buddhism > Judaism, and Islam is
infeasible, with feasible areas amounting to 12.83 and 0.04% of the solution space, respectively.
Note that if Islamic principles permit sustainability in pre-industrial countries when welfare
and the use of environmental resources are small, they can also be sustainable when these countries
develop industrial economies if µ increases and α decreases. That is, Islamic principles are ineffective,
but feasible for industrial economies. Similarly, if Hindu or Buddhist principles permit sustainability
in industrial countries when α is small, they can also be sustainable when these countries develop
post-industrial economies, provided that µ increases. That is, Hindu or Buddhist principles are feasible,
but ineffective.
Figures A3–A5 in Appendix E provide solution spaces for n = 0.9 and m = 5, whereas Figures A6–A8
for n = 1.1 and m = 10. Note that for pre-industrial economies, Judaism becomes the most effective set
of religious ethics if the population decreases.
5. Discussion
The overall insights obtained from the analytical analysis model developed in Section 2 and applied
to data presented in Section 4 can be summarized as follows: In terms of feasibility, Hinduism’s and
Buddhism’s recognition of equilibrium provides the most reliable way to achieve sustainability, although
this requires a weaker emphasis on consumption. Islam’s principles of parsimony and trusteeship are
most effective for pre-industrial economies, which are the conditions currently prevailing in many
Muslim countries, but they are least effective at achieving sustainability at higher development stages.
Indeed, minimizing a country’s consumption of environmental resources subject to a maximum welfare
level w represents less of a constraint if w is small. Judaism’s principles of stewardship are inadequate
for achieving sustainability given the country’s currently unsustainable post-industrial consumption
levels, though they are potentially the most effective way to achieve sustainability for an industrial
society. In other words, it’s more effective to maximize welfare subject to sustainability constraints
than it is to minimize consumption of environmental resources subject to welfare constraints (the
solution suggested by the Islamic precepts), and is more effective than adapting welfare to sustainability
conditions (the solution suggested by Hindu and Buddhist precepts).
Note that the stress on the descendants of decision-makers in the present generation rather than
on all future generations in Judaism (e.g., [54]) does not have significant implications under the present
study’s assumption that each religion relies on its own code of ethics; indeed, each community will be
concerned about its future.
For consistency with Jewish religious principles, it would be difficult for Israel to promote the
sanctity of nature because a larger µ is inconsistent with the precepts from the Old Testament that I cited
in Part 1 of this paper, although Israel could rely on a reduced population (i.e., a smaller n). Hindu
and Buddhist countries can easily emphasize the dignity of non-humans (i.e., a large m), but could
have problems maintaining a small relative value attached to consumption (i.e., a small α). Finally,
Muslim countries could have problems achieving satisfaction at low consumption of environmental
resources (i.e., a small w is consistent with the Qur’an), but could rely on technological improvements
to accomplish this (i.e., a larger λ).
Adopting greener technology (i.e., a larger λ) might be detrimental for pre-industrial Islamic
economies (i.e., decreasing α with increasing µ), since this would require decreased domestic demand
(i.e., a larger λ implies a smaller equilibrium α). In contrast, a larger λ would benefit industrial
and post-industrial economies that adopt Judaism (i.e., increasing α with increasing µ), as it would
increase domestic demand; that is, a larger λ implies a higher equilibrium α. Indeed, in a country that
adopts Islamic principles, any increase in consumption permitted by improved technology (higher
λ) is constrained by fixed needs in terms of welfare (w), and must, therefore, be counteracted by
a decrease in the relative importance of consumption (α). In contrast, if a country adopts Jewish
principles, an increase in consumption permitted by improved technology must not be counteracted by
a decrease in the relative importance of consumption, since the use of environmental resources is fixed
at its sustainability level (θ). This logic also applies to Hinduism and Buddhism, since welfare is not
constrained, whereas Judaism maximizes welfare.
The main weaknesses of the present study are that:
• It does not account for differences among nations in a religion’s precepts (e.g., Chinese versus
Japanese Confucianism) or differences within a country for a given religion (e.g., Christian
Evangelists versus Baptists or Sunni vs. Shiite Islam) [55]. However, because I focused on each
religion’s main shared precepts in Part 1 of this paper, this represents an opportunity for future
researchers to refine my analysis by accounting for these differences rather than a major problem
for the present analysis.
• By parameterizing my model for countries in which most of the people belong to a single religion,
the analysis fails to account for variations in environmental practices among countries dominated
by a given religion, or for cases in which people who belong to a given religion live in countries
where they are not the religious majority [41]. However, because my analysis stresses each
religion’s main precepts, the overall insights can be interpreted as being dependent on individual
income levels. For example, Islam’s precepts make it easiest to achieve sustainability at a low
per capita income, although attaining a higher income requires a larger µ than in Hinduism or
Buddhism and a smaller α than in Judaism.
• My analysis neglects indigenous African religions [56], Native American religions [57], and other
groups of religions that are based on an oral tradition. This is a consequence of my decision in
Part 1 of this paper to focus on religions with canonical texts that could be used as a consistent
source of the inferred parameter values. However, although religions based on an oral tradition
have many differences in their features, they suggest similar pathways for achieving personal
maturity, a communal identity, a spiritual component of ecology, and contemplation of the world.
As a result, they are consistent with sustainability based on oral transmission of their precepts from
generation to generation and could be included in future analyses based on the present framework.
• I did not account for the recent evolution of religious beliefs in response to the growing recognition
of the global environmental crisis [58]. However, each religion’s shared main precepts are highly
resistant to such external changes, so this should not be a major problem for the framework.
There are many similarities between the most popular sustainability paradigms and the religious
environmental ethics I focused on in this paper. For example, weak sustainability, in which maximizing
an individual’s welfare subject to the constraint that welfare must be greater for future generations than
for current generations (i.e., Max Wi s.t. WF ≥ WC ), resembles Judaism. Similarly, a-growth, in which
the use of environmental resources must be minimized subject to the constraint that welfare must be
greater for future generations than for current generations (i.e., Min Ei s.t. WF ≥ WC ), is close to Islam.
Again, de-growth, in which minimizing consumption subject to the constraint that welfare must be
greater than a minimum level (i.e., Min Xi s.t. Wi ≥ w), evokes the approach in Christianity (although
Max W is replaced by Min X). Finally, strong sustainability, in which welfare must be maximized
subject to the constraint that EF does not differ among individuals (i.e., Max W s.t. Ei = E j ), resembles
the precepts of Hinduism or Buddhism (although W ≥ w is replaced by Max W).
My method has the following strengths:
• It is based on a simple but comprehensive analytical model that includes all essential features,
and is realistic because it can be validated using empirical data. Thus, its insights depend on
the application of equations that were inferred from each religion’s core religious texts using
parameter values based on real-world data. For example, following Islamic principles results in
different feasibility, consistency, and effectiveness for current-day Muslim countries, which are
most similar to pre-industrial economies, but could be modified to characterize future Muslim
industrial economies.
• The framework is based on each religion’s original core precepts rather than on subsequent
alternative interpretations and rather than requiring accounting for any future interactions among
religions. In other words, to permit a realistic analysis, sustainability achievements should be
avoided if they rely on impossible short-run compromises and implausible long-run compromises
between religions. However, my analysis does not preclude fruitful dialog between religions
because some parts of the overall solution space are shared by two or more religions. For example,
both Judaism and Islam should increase community involvement to achieve µ ≥ 30, whereas
Hinduism or Buddhism and Judaism should both decrease the relative importance of consumption,
to achieve α ≤ 0.5. The framework also suggests potential directions for unfruitful dialog between
religions by identifying principles from one religion that another religion should not adopt (e.g.,
during development to a higher economic stage). For example, Hinduism should not increase α,
and Islam should not increase µ). In contrast, Judaism could learn to increase µ and decrease α
from Hinduism or Buddhism, and neither Hinduism or Buddhism nor Islam should increase the
relative importance of consumption by learning from Judaism.
• The framework’s characterization of community involvement does not rely on the extension of
religious principles to other communities. That is, if the goal is to avoid unproductive debate
that would delay achieving sustainability, differences among the subdivisions of a given religion
(e.g., the dozens of Christian denominations), members of a religion should resist the temptation
to impose different interpretations of environmental ethics on the same sacred text. However,
the framework suggests which of each religion’s beliefs should be changed to achieve sustainability.
For example, Christianity as a whole should adopt the precepts of its Eastern Orthodox sect by
replacing the use of environmental resources with θ as the constraint.
• My analysis identified both the potential and the difficulties in achieving sustainability for the
studied religions, without requiring an extension of precepts and proscriptions from one religion
to the other religions. This is an important way to avoid violent conflicts among religions.
Given the complexity of modern multicultural societies, the framework also offers the possibility
of characterizing the interaction between a religion and its host country’s level of industrial
development. This provided insights, such as the fact that in its present form, Islam is not feasible
in post-industrial economies, whereas Judaism is ineffective in pre-industrial economies.
Note that future technological developments, such as genetic engineering might challenge some
religious environmental principles, such as the precept that prescribes stewardship of past or current
biodiversity. This might also affect species conservation, as in the example of a technology that could
record the genetic map of a species and let us regenerate that species whenever we desire. In such
a context, conservation of that species becomes less important. In addition, believing in nature’s
intrinsic value does not mean that nature has a fixed value. For example, a static perspective based on
resistance to change could produce different values than a dynamic perspective based on resilience
against change, increased fitness, or greater diversity. However, considering the environment as a form
of bonding social capital (i.e., a high µ) is sufficiently broad that it can include both a static perspective
(e.g., Judaism) and a dynamic perspective (e.g., Daoism). Finally, acceptance of scientific findings, such
as evolution by members of a religion might lead to changes of some religious principles, such as the
sanctity of nature.
6. Conclusions
Many ineffective examples of past local-scale environmental management exist. However, we
now face a growing environmental crisis. The main question underlying this paper is whether each
religion can respond in a way that will promote global sustainability based on the application of its
ethical precepts at a community level. The particular problem is that there seems to be no precept that
all religions should adopt a common code of religious environmental ethics that could be universally
applied to achieve global sustainability. This is surprising given that my analysis identified a few
precepts that are unique to each religion that could motivate action by individual members. Moreover,
although religion might not be the optimal solution for global environmental issues, sacred texts,
whether or not they were divinely inspired, represent a major source of the values that individuals and
societies use to rank possible outcomes and decide how to achieve them. On this basis, all religions
could adopt the shared principle of educating children to be better environmentalists and to reduce
the emphasis on consumption. Although secular sources, such as public school teachers can provide
this education, religions can use additional tools, such as the fear of punishment (the concept of sin)
or the prospect of a reward (an afterlife) to mould behavior, and can also apply social sanctions (i.e.,
peer pressure) within a religious community. It’s also important to note that it’s unnecessary for
religious ethics to intrude on secular politics for a country to achieve global sustainability, since around
85% of the world’s people claim to believe in the principles of some religion (www.adherents.com).
In other words, although the main religions in the present study have only recently begun to deal
explicitly with environmental issues (e.g., the first Christian symposium on the environment occurred
in 2002), religions can continue to promote the transformation of beliefs and attitudes to produce
values and practices that are more likely to lead to sustainability. Such an approach will support the
decision-making under uncertainty that characterizes environmental issues when secular principles,
such as justice or responsibility are inadequate or not feasible.
One main insight from this study is that the Islamic principles of parsimony and trusteeship and
the Hindu or Buddhist principle of equilibrium can promote sustainability among most of the world’s
population (i.e., because 62.9% of the population belong to these religions). However, to achieve
this goal, Muslim countries must reduce their use of environmental resources, Hindu or Buddhist
countries must maintain the small relative value they attach to consumption, and Judaism must reduce
its emphasis on consumption. Note that the increased dignity afforded to non-humans in Hinduism or
Buddhism and the adoption of greener technology by Muslim countries could strengthen the stability
of these solutions.
My analysis also identified three unfortunate negative consequences of the religious precepts.
First, Judaism’s principle of stewardship is ineffective at Israel’s currently unsustainable consumption
of environmental resources. Achieving sustainability would require Israelis to decrease the importance
they attach to consumption, which is the opposite of the attitude promoted by the modern Western
lifestyle, and to increase their perception of the sanctity of nature rather than relying solely on secular
precepts, such as a belief in evolution or other precepts that might conflict with Jewish religious
precepts. It might also require a significantly decreased population to reduce the overall EF, and this
is a very sensitive point to people who have been repeatedly threatened with extinction. However,
Judaism accounts for only 0.2% of the global population, so its overall impact on global sustainability
is small.
Second, I found no feasible solutions for Christians, which is consistent with the seminal paper by
White [59]. In other words, Christians (31.3% of the global population) will need to rely on secular
principles, such as justice and responsibility towards nature and future generations, since Christian
precepts (e.g., love of neighbors) seem to provide weak support for sustainability. However, this
problem may be less serious than it appears, since faith in the mostly high-income Christian-dominated
countries is decreasing, and is increasingly being replaced by secular principles, such as an aversion to
intra- and intergenerational inequity.
Third, Islam (22.8% of the global population) can achieve sustainability under pre-industrial
conditions if it is coupled with a small use of environmental resources, but will be ineffective at
the higher future income levels targeted by governments of these countries. Even so, technological
improvements could be coupled with a stable and low level of consumption to achieve sustainability.
Note that my model does not account for people who claim to belong to a given religion but who
behave in ways that contradict that religion’s prescriptions and proscriptions. Because sustainability is
always an opportunity cost (and often a monetary cost), this contradiction may have less impact if
behavior must change in directions that are embodied in principles that have arisen from prevailing
social values, such as growing recognition of the need for inter-generational equity. It seems unlikely
that a new global religion will arise based on a compromise between existing religions to cope with
urgent environmental issues, or that if such a religion arose, that it would combine the most effective
environmental ethics or parameter values from existing religions. However, if we combine the impacts
of a country’s dominant religion’s precepts with those of the country’s minority religions, which often
account for a large proportion of the population, the cumulative effect may help modern multi-cultural
societies achieve sustainability. Finally, the model does not directly account for self-declared atheists
and agnostics, who may or may not follow the principles of some religion. However, since religious
principles have become strongly embedded in the laws of many countries, as in the example of
how Catholic thinking shapes the approaches of most Italian political parties, and since individual
behavior is directly or indirectly affected by the attitudes of other citizens of a society, religious
principles are likely to be consciously or unconsciously implemented by most citizens of a nation with
a dominant religion.
The present study identifies three main positive consequences of studying religious precepts.
First, it appears that belief in the sanctity of nature is not crucial for achieving sustainability. Second,
principles that potentially lead to sustainability exist in all of the studied religions (e.g., stewardship
in Judaism, trusteeship and parsimony in Islam, equilibrium in Hinduism or Buddhism), and these
are independent of scientific findings, such as evolutionary theory. Indeed, for religious ethics to
promote sustainability, they must affect the behaviors of the religion’s members independently of
any changes in response to scientific breakthroughs. For example, Buddhism supports recycling, but
does not specify the means. In consequence, religious ethics cannot represent the only source of an
effective environmental policy, but can certainly support such a policy. This is fortunate, since religions
respond slowly, often over periods of centuries, to scientific breakthroughs. However, science and
religion can work together to achieve results that neither could achieve alone: Science lacks an inherent
code of ethics, which religion can provide, whereas religion has no modern framework for preserving
nature, which is something that science can provide. In other words, religion can define goals, such
as minimizing consumption of environmental resources, maximizing human welfare, and achieving
ecological equilibrium, and science can suggest how to achieve those goals. Third, it is not necessary
to alter the dynamics of populations to achieve sustainability.
Note that I based my analysis on current national-scale data and relied on static analytical results.
Future research should apply the present framework to smaller scales (e.g., communities or religious
sects), to account for differences within countries or religions. It should also be modified to permit
analyses of the dynamics of a religion over time. Research should also account for independent
dynamics, such as the fact that Islam and Christianity are evangelical religions, whereas Judaism,
Hinduism, and Buddhism are not, as well as dependent dynamics, such as the fact that Islam and
Christianity are less likely to coexist, whereas Hinduism or Buddhism and Christianity are more likely
to coexist.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2590/s1.

Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. The Mathematical Model

This section will present the mathematical model which depicts the pro-environmental behaviors
of a representative individual at a country level. Theoretical. Let us start by characterizing the main
religious environmental ethics. All alternative environmental ethics are based on the welfare function
(Wi ) for representative individual i:
Wi [Xi (Ei ), Yi (Ei )] = Xi α Yi ν
This function is a Cobb-Douglas (CD) utility function in which Xi represents the consumption
of goods, Ei represents the use of the environment (i.e., EF), Yi represents the involvement in an
individual’s community, α represents the importance attached to consumption, and ν represents the
importance attached to the community. Since this analysis focuses on the environmental impacts and
on constraints from the environment, X is positively correlated, and Y is negatively correlated with
E. That is, increasing consumption requires increasing use of the environment, whereas increasing
community involvement requires decreasing use or increasing conservation of the environment:
X = λ E and Y = (µ/E)
where λ (GDP per unit EF) represents the level of environmental technology (i.e., the extent to which
consumption affects the environment), and µ represents the importance the community attaches
to the environment. That is, µ represents the extent to which the community considers itself to be
represented by the environment, given that a community could be based on alternative combinations of
values, such as preservation of a dynasty, faith, justice, or solidarity. Note that all alternative religious
environmental ethics are based on the normalization α + ν = 1 so that α and ν represent the relative
importance of consumption vs. community.
My use of a CD utility function assumes that individuals cannot survive without consuming
goods or services directly or indirectly obtained from the environment (e.g., eating fish or enjoying
a landscape). I chose not to define the environment as a neo-classical collective good to ensure that
rivalry in consumption would exist, and that there is no excludability from consumption. Instead,
I have defined the environment as a form of neo-institutional social capital. Thus, a community’s
feeling towards the environment can both complement and substitute for this social capital. Finally,
using a CD utility function lets me estimate α as a function of the proportion of the total budget that is
allocated to consumption.
The religious environmental ethics I have considered will sometimes refer to a welfare function
for the current generation (W C ), where C in this and subsequent variable names refers to the value for
representative individuals i and j in the current generation:
h i1/(1−ε)
WC = Wi 1−ε + Wj 1−ε
This utility function represents constant elasticity of substitution (CES), with W representing an
individual’s welfare and ε representing the individual’s aversion to intra-generation inequality.
For other religious environmental ethics, I will refer to the welfare function W for representative
individuals of both current and future generations, where F in this and subsequent variable names
refers to the value for future generations:
i1/(1−ζ)
W = (nC WC )1−ζ + (nF WF )1−ζ
h
W represents a CES utility function in which nC represents the number of people in the current
generation, ζ depicts the aversion to inter-generation inequality, and nF represents the number of
people in the future generation. Using a CES utility function allows estimation of ε and ζ in terms of
the Atkinson inequality measure. If we normalize nC to 1, we can simplify the notation by replacing nF
with n, where n , 1 if the population changes. We can also introduce the normalized term mC , with
mC ≥ 1 representing the number of humans plus non-humans who are considered to have the same
dignity in the current generation. This lets us simplify the notation by replacing mC with m.
The model I have used (i.e., the utility functions that represent preferences) is both theoretically
and empirically justifiable. From a theoretical perspective, a CD utility function should be used when the
preferences for a set of items are relatively constant. This agrees with the study context because values,
such as the relative importance of consumption (α) vs. community (ν) are likely to change slowly, if at
all. This means that a roughly constant proportion of the total budget will be allocated to consumption
goods. When items for which preferences are expressed, such as the welfare of current and future
generations, can be considered to be pure substitutes, pure complements, or mixed substitutes and
complements, a CES utility function should be used. From an empirical perspective, the proportions of
the total budget allocated to environmental conservation (based on national statistics and expressed as a
percentage of GDP) can be used to estimate the α and ν parameters of the CD utility function once their
values have been normalized so that α + ν = 1. For a CD utility function, this can be achieved using
the optimal solution of the utility maximization problem subject to an income constraint (available
income y). The optimal expenditure for a consumption item in the CD utility function is [α/(α + ν)] y.
The aversion to intra- and inter-generational inequality can be used to estimate the ε and ζ parameters
of the CES utility function based on the one-to-one relationship between the Atkinson inequality
measure and a CES utility function. In this relationship, welfare increases if inequality decreases.
The Atkinson inequality measure is given by 1 − [(1/k) (xi /x*)1−ε ]1/(1−ε) , where xi represents the value
P
of item i, x* represents the mean of the total of k items, and ε represents the inequality aversion.
Appendix B. Some Sacred Statements

In the Hindu sacred texts, the following statements let us identify the religious precepts that are
most relevant to the present study:
• Bhagavad-Gita of the Mahabharata (5:18): “See the presence of God in all, and treat all species
with respect”;
• Vishnu Purana (3:8:15): “God, Kesava, is pleased with a person who does not harm or destroy
other non-speaking creatures or animals”;
• Atharva Veda (mantras 23 and 25): “Preserve the original fragrance of Earth”;
• Atharva Veda (mantra 45): “Mother Earth, like a Cosmic Cow, gives us the thousand-fold prosperity
without hesitation without being outraged by our destructive actions”;
• Vanaparva of the Mahabharata (25:16): “All creatures act according to the laws of their specific
species-behavior as laid down by the creator. Therefore, none should act in the adharmic way”;
• Shantiparva of the Mahabharata (109:10): “Dharma exists for the general welfare of all living beings”;
• Shantiparva (139:22): “An action which has been committed by a human being in this life follows
him again and again”;
• Shantiparva (129:21): “Although a particular person may not be seen suffering the results of his
evil actions, yet his children and grandchildren, as well as great-grandchildren, will have to
suffer them”.
In the scared texts of Jainism, the Yoga Sutras, we can read the following precepts, which are based
on the five vows that define Jain practice and that are taken up in the exact same order in the Yoga
Sutras: “[vow I] non-violence: [A]bstaining from harm to any being that possesses more than one
sense, requiring a strict vegetarian diet; [vow III] not-stealing: [N]ot only to not take more than is
offered, but also not to take more than is needed; [vow V] non-possession: [O]ne owns only the bare
necessities of life”.
In the Buddhist sacred texts, the following statements let us identify the religious precepts that
are most relevant to the present study:
• Sutta Pitaka of the Tipitaka: One of the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths explain that human suffering
results from desire and attachment, and that this suffering can be avoided by practicing compassion
and loving-kindness. These practices, included in the Buddha’s Eightfold Path, suggest that basic
Buddhist principles represent a core foundation of environmental concern. Non-harming means
the absence of desire to kill or harm, and applies to all beings;
• Veludvareyya Sutta: “If one eats the meat of beasts that one has killed, or one has caused another to
kill, one must spend a hundred thousand kalpas in hell” (i.e., 100 000 lifetimes);
• Adhammika Sutta: “If people err (i.e., greed, hate, ignorance) in their ways, the richness of the Earth
declines, whereas moral virtues (i.e., generosity, compassion, wisdom) are able to reverse the
environmental decline”. Specifically, nobody should put human waste into or spit into the water;
• Arahatta Bhikkhu: “Who has no attachment towards anything, therefore, he loves the environment”.
Specifically, Buddhists should seek calm places in forests where they can meditate and distance
themselves from their desires.
If we focus on the 13 classical canons of Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi, in the Analects (a discussion
of ethics), we can read “A youth, when at home, should be filial, and abroad, respectful to his elders”.
In addition, “In serving his parents, a virtuous man can exert his utmost strength; in serving his
prince, he can devote his life”. In the Yijing (a discussion of cosmology), we see “Yin and yang are the
underlying principles of heaven and Earth; they are the web that holds all ten thousand things secure;
they are father and mother to all transformations and alterations; they are the source and beginning of
all creating and killing”.
Daoism’s Hua Hu Ching discusses ethics and provides the following: “These time-honoured(sic)
disciplines calm the mind and bring one into harmony with all things; Acceptance is the very essence
of the Tao; Foregoing antagonism and separation, one enters in the harmonious oneness of all things;
The universe as a harmonious oneness; Simply be aware of the oneness of things”. In The Way and Its
Power (a discussion of cosmology), “[the Universe is a complex of] ways [that] take as their model their
own capacity for self-generation”.
In the Jewish sacred texts, the following statements let us identify the religious precepts that are
most relevant to the present study:
• Genesis (2:15): “And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to
keep it”;
• Leviticus (25:3-5): “3. For six years you shall sow your field, and for six years you shall care for
your vineyard, and you shall gather its fruits. 4. But in the seventh year, there shall be a Sabbath
of the land, a resting of the Lord. You shall not sow your field, and you shall not care for your
vineyard. 5. What the soil shall spontaneously produce, you shall not harvest. And you shall not
gather the grapes of the first fruits as a crop. For it is a year of rest for the land to care for the land”;
• Deuteronomy (25:4): “You shall not muzzle an ox as it is treading out your crops in the field”.
• Psalms (19:1): “The heavens are telling the glory of God/and the firmament proclaims
his handiwork”;
• Deuteronomy (11:17): “And the Lord, becoming angry, might close up heaven, so that the rain
would not descend, nor would the Earth produce her seedlings, and then you would quickly
perish from the excellent land, which the Lord will give you”;
• Deuteronomy (20:19): “When you will have besieged a city for a long time, and you will have
encircled it with fortifications, so that you may fight against it, you shall not cut down trees from
which one is able to eat, neither shall you cause devastation with axes to the surrounding region”;
• Leviticus (19:19), and similarly in Leviticus 10:10-11 and Deuteronomy 22:11: “[Y]ou shall not let
your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seeds”.
• Leviticus (27:27): “The firstborn, which belongs to the Lord, no one is able to sanctify or vow,
whether it is an ox, or a sheep, they are for the Lord;
• Leviticus (27:30): “All the tithes of the land, whether from grain, or from the fruits of trees, are for
the Lord and are sanctified to him”;
• Deuteronomy (14:3-6), and similarly in Leviticus 11: “3. You shall not eat the things that are
unclean. 4. These are the animals which you ought to eat: [T]he ox, and the sheep, and the goat,
5. the stag and the roe deer, the gazelle, the wild goat, the addax, the antelope, the giraffe. 6. Every
beast which has a hoof divided into two parts and which also chews the cud, you shall eat”;
• Psalms (144:15-16), and similarly in Psalms 147:9: “O Lord, all eyes hope in you, and you provide
their food in due time. You open your hand, and you fill every kind of animal with a blessing”.
Note that I returned to the original texts in order to identify the main ethical principles, although I
am aware that Jewish practical ethics rely on the Halakhah, which is derived from the Torah through
years of debate among senior rabbis.
In Deuteronomy (14:21) one can read “But whatsoever [animal] is dead of itself, eat not thereof.
Give it to the stranger, that is within thy gates, to eat, or sell it to him”. Similarly, on the 7th year, debts
contracted by fellow Israelites are to be remitted (Deuteronomy 15:3). Deuteronomy (22:6-7) states “6 If
thou find as thou walkest by the way, a bird’s nest in a tree, or on the ground, and the dam sitting
upon the young or upon the eggs: [T]hou shalt not take her with her young: 7 But shalt let her go,
keeping the young which thou hast caught: [T]hat it may be well with thee, and thou mayst live a long
time”. Similarly, “during the first three years of growth, the fruits of newly planted trees or vineyards
are not to be eaten” (Leviticus 19:23).
In the Christian sacred texts, the following statements let us identify the religious precepts that
are most relevant to the present study:
• Matthew (6:26), and similarly in Luke (12:24): “Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor
do they reap, nor gather into barns: [A]nd your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of
much more value than they?”;
• Matthew (6:32): “For after all these things do the heathens seek. For your Father knoweth that you
have need of all these things”;
• Corinthians (7:31), “And they that use this world, as if they used it not: [F]or the fashion of this
world passeth away”;
• Book of James (3:7): “For every nature of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of the rest, is
tamed, and hath been tamed, by the nature of man”.
In other words, Christians adopted the first creation story: “28 And God blessed them, saying:
Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the
fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the Earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28) Note that in Luke’s
Old Syriac Gospel, Jesus says “Now beware in yourselves that your hearts do not become heavy with
the eating of flesh and with the intoxication of wine and with the anxiety of the world, and that day
come up upon you suddenly; for like a snare it will come upon all them that sit on the surface of the
earth”. This is equivalent to saying that humans and non-humans have equal dignity or moral value,
and suggests the virtue of a vegetarian diet, which resembles the Hindu perspective.
In the Eastern Orthodox religion, St. Gregory of Nyssa states that “The conclusive harmony in the
world has not yet been revealed (On the Creation of Man). St. John Chrysostom states that “Creation is
beautiful and harmonious, and God has made it all just for your sake. He has made it beautiful, grand,
varied, and rich” (On Providence); “For our sake the Earth was subjected to corruption” (On Isaiah).
St. Symeon of Thessalonika states that “The Divine Liturgy [celebrating the perception and the very
presence of heaven on Earth] constitutes the holy of holies” (On the Holy Liturgy). St. Gregory of Nyssa
states that “Christ emptied himself, so that nature might receive as much of him as it could hold” (On
the Psalms).
For Protestantism, Martin Luther depicts God as being “with all creatures, flowing, and pouring
into them, filling all things” (Weimar Ausbage); “When I truly grasp the significance of the incarnation
of the Son of God in this world, all creatures will appear a hundred times more beautiful to me than
before (Weimar Ausbage). Calvin expresses similar feelings in the Institutes, and states that “The end
for which all things were created was that none of the conveniences and necessities of life might be
wanting to men” (Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis). Martin Luther expresses similar
sentiments in Lectures on Genesis.
In the Muslim sacred text (the Qur’an), the following statements let us identify the religious
precepts that are most relevant to the present study:
• Qur’an (2:31): “I am setting on the Earth a vice-regent”;
• Qur’an (6:165): “It is He who has made you his vice-successors of others on Earth”;
• Qur’an (2:205): “Allah loves not mischief”; thus (7:86), “Do not mischief on the Earth after it has
been set in order”;
• Qur’an (7:31): “O Children of Adam! Look to your adornment at every place of worship, and eat
and drink, but be not wasteful. Lo! He loves not the wasteful”;
• Qur’an (11:6): “There is no creature that moves in the Earth but it is for Allah to provide it
with sustenance”;
• Qur’an (54:49): “Verily, all things have We created in proportion and measure”;
• Qur’an (2:27): “Those who break His Covenant (after it is ratified), and who sunder what He Has
ordered to be joined, and corrupt the earth; for they cause loss (only) to themselves”;
• Qur’an (43:11): “And Who sends down rain from the sky in due measure, and We revive thereby a
dead land”;
Francis, in which use of the environment the main textshould suggests beFrancis,
at a it
that subsistence
can in never whichlevel. use ofMoreover,
achieve the environment
sustainability I will unless combine
should it followsbe at a the subsistence
philosophy lev
α >possibility
0 ⇿ μ < 𝑤of sustainability (θ⁄𝑚)Therefore, and μ < in (θ for
order⁄𝑚Hinduism ) to λ characterize
; α or
possibility α Buddhism,
<1 >the
of ⇿ 0sustainability
⇿ 𝑤 <<𝑤(θα
μ either
constraints ⁄(θ 𝑚 is)⁄decreasing
introduced
in λ ) andtoμcharacterize
𝑚 <in (θresponse
⁄𝑚) λ2 in to
;termsαincreasing < 1 ⇿μ: 𝑤
Hinduism and Buddhism, since Francis, theirinprecepts which use largely ofHinduism
thehave environment the
and same Buddhism, should consequences, be since at aorder their although
subsistence in
precepts Section
the
level. largely the
Moreover, haveconstraints the
I will same int
com
of observable parameters. α > 0 ⇿ μ < 𝑤 (θ ⁄ 𝑚 ) and μ < (θ ⁄ 𝑚 ) λ ; α < 1 ⇿ 𝑤
(1) < (θ ⁄ 𝑚 ) λ
precepts are differently justified. Hinduism 𝜕α ⁄In
Finally, and𝜕μIparticular,
<Buddhism,
will 0 neglect
⇿𝑤 of
I will
precepts observable
<
Jainism
since λneglect
are (θ
and
their ⁄Christianity,
𝑚 parameters.
differently )
Daoism,
precepts justified.
since
largely In
since particular,
they the𝜕α
Finally,
have both analysis
the II will
⁄achieve
𝜕μ will
same <in 0neglect
Section
⇿
neglect 𝑤 Christianity,
consequences, 2.4
< λof and
Jainism (θ ⁄𝑚
althoug sinc
Dao)
the
Sustainability main
2017, text
9,
sustainability by referring to precepts x FORsuggests
PEER
use of theare that
REVIEW it can
environment never
differentlysustainability achieve
the
Sustainability
at main
a subsistence
justified. sustainability
text
𝜕α by⁄referring
2017,
Finally, suggests
9, 𝜕μ
x
level.FOR
I will < 0 neglectunless
PEER that
⇿to𝑤useJainism it
REVIEW itcan follows
of< the never
λ environment (θthe
and achieve philosophy
⁄𝑚Daoism, ) 27 sustainability
of 36
atsince of St.
a subsistence
they bothlevunless aci
Or α is increasing
Francis, in inwhich
response use to increasing
of the environment μ: Francis, should Or αinis be increasing
which
at a subsistence
use ofin the response environment
level. to increasing
Moreover, should I μ:becombine
will at a subsistence le
Therefore, for Hinduismsustainability or Sustainability
Buddhism,by either
2017, 9, x α
referring FOR is decreasing
toTherefore,
PEER use REVIEW of the infor response
Hinduism
environment to increasing or
at aBuddhism, subsistence μ: either level.α is decreasing in res
α
Appendix >Hinduism
Sustainability 0 2020,
⇿C:μAnalytical
> 2590
12, 𝑤and (θ ⁄𝑚
Buddhism, ) and
Or
Results α isμ since > (θ⁄their
increasing 𝑚) λin ; α α<
response
Appendix
precepts
Hinduism C:
largely 1to>⇿
and 0𝑤
increasing
Analytical ⇿
Buddhism,
have μ> >the 𝑤(θ μ:⁄
Resultssame 𝑚 (θ
since )⁄λ𝑚consequences,
)their
and μprecepts > (θ⁄𝑚 27)largely
ofλ36 ; αhave <the 1⇿𝑤
α > 0 ⇿ μ < 𝑤 (θ⁄𝑚)Therefore, and μ < (θfor ⁄𝑚Hinduism ) λ ; α αor Buddhism, <>1 0⇿⇿𝑤μ < <𝑤 (θα
either ⁄(θ 𝑚 is⁄)𝑚 λ) and μ < (θ
decreasing 𝑚)although
in⁄response λ ; toαincreasing the< 1 ⇿sam 𝑤
μ:
precepts are differently α > C: 0⇿ μ > 𝑤precepts (θ ⁄ 𝑚are ) and μJainism
> (θ ⁄ 𝑚 ) λ Daoism, ; αFinally, <1⇿ 𝑤 both
(2) (θ
> achieve ⁄ )
𝑚 λ and Da
In this section, I will𝜕αanalyze
Appendix α justified.⁄𝜕μ >0 >0⇿𝑤
the⇿ Finally,
Analytical
μ
three < 𝑤 I will
main >λ
Results
(θ
In ⁄ 𝑚neglect
this )
religious(θ
and ⁄ differently
𝑚
section, μ ) < (θ
environmental I⁄ 𝑚 and
will
justified.
) λ analyze ; α 𝜕α
ethics
since
the< ⁄ 1 I⇿
𝜕μ > 0 ⇿ 𝑤
that
three
they
will 𝑤
(1)
offer
neglect
main < the (θ Jainism
⁄
religious>λ 𝑚 ) λ (θ ⁄ 𝑚)
environ
sustainability by referring 𝜕α ⁄to𝜕μuse < 0of⇿ the𝑤environment <λ
sustainability (θ⁄at𝑚 by a) subsistence
referring to level.
use 𝜕α of the ⁄𝜕μ environment< 0 ⇿ 𝑤 at<a subsistence λ (θ⁄𝑚) le
possibility
•Sustainability
Qur’an 2017, of sustainability
(23:18): “And WeREVIEW in In
have order thistodown
sent characterize
section, frompossibility
I will thethe skyanalyze𝜕αconstraints
of
water ⁄the
sustainability𝜕μ
in >three
measured0 ⇿ main
introduced 𝑤 in amount order >religious
inλ Section
toand (θ⁄settled
characterize 𝑚 2) in terms
environmental it in the constraints ethics that intr
where: 9, x FOR for
Therefore, PEER Hinduism or Buddhism, where:
Sustainability either
Therefore, 𝜕α
2017,
α ⁄for
is9,decreasingx𝜕μ FOR < PEER
Hinduism0 ⇿ in 𝑤 response
REVIEW or<Buddhism, λ to (θincreasing
⁄𝑚either ) 27 ofαμ: 36is decreasing in re
Orofαobservable
is
theincreasing
earth”; parameters. in response Intoparticular,
possibility increasing of μ: of
I will
sustainability neglect Or
observable αin isorder increasing
Christianity, parameters. to in response
since
characterize In
theparticular, analysis
the toconstraints
increasing
inI willSection μ:2.4 of
neglect
introduced Christianity, in Section since 2
α > 0 where:
⇿ μ < 𝑤
Sustainability (θ ⁄ 𝑚
2017, ) 9,and x FOR μ < PEER (θ ⁄ 𝑚α
REVIEW ) λ > 0 ; ⇿α μ < < 𝑤 1 ⇿ (θ 𝑤 ⁄ 𝑚 ) < and (θ μ⁄ 𝑚< ) (θλ ⁄ 𝑚 ) λ ; α < 1 ⇿ 𝑤
α main
the
Appendix >0⇿ 𝜕α ⁄ 𝜕𝑚
> 𝑤 (θthat
C:μAnalytical
text suggests > 0 ⇿ 𝑚 μ
⁄Results
of)it
Or < and 𝑤
canμ never
α
observable is ⁄ λ
> (θ⁄parameters.
increasing ;
achieve 𝜕α
𝑚) λ Appendix ⁄ 𝜕λ
the;sustainability
in α In
response
main α particular,
<text >
C:> 0
1 Analytical
to ⇿0 𝜕α
⇿ ⇿
increasing
suggests 𝑤 μ
unless >
μI>will ⁄ 𝜕𝑚
𝑤
>𝑤 it(θ
that μ:> (θ
⁄(θ
follows
neglect
Results 0 ⁄
it𝑚can ⇿
𝑚
⁄) 𝑚 ) μ <
λ )Christianity, 𝑤
andphilosophy
never
the > (θ⁄𝑚
μ achieve ⁄ λ since ; of𝜕α
)sustainability
λ the St.; α ⁄ 𝜕λ
analysis <unless>
1 in0
⇿Sect⇿ 𝑤itμ
Similar reasoning can be found in𝜕α the Sunna. ⁄> For example, “Live ⁄achieve in this world as if you will live (1)
Francis, in which use of the α
theenvironment
main >text 0⇿ suggestsμshould 𝜕𝑚 𝑤𝜕μ >that
Francis, 0
be(θ⇿ ⁄it𝑚
0at inμacan < 𝑤⁄𝑤
)which
and
subsistence
never μ<> use λ(θλ of ⁄level.
𝑚 ;)⁄𝜕α
the λ𝑚 environment
Moreover,;⁄α𝜕λ
sustainability <>⁄1 I 𝜕μ 0⇿
will
should
unless⇿ 𝑤 μ0 >
(2)
combine be
it 𝑤
> 𝑤at(θifa>
follows (θ 𝑚 ⁄ the
<λ)𝑚
⁄subsistence ) philosop
λλlarge lev
Note that
in it forever, theand
In this second live set
section, for theAppendix
of
I will 𝜕α
conditions
next
analyze ⁄𝜕μ C:
world (2)
the
𝜕α
>asAnalytical
0applies
⇿you
ifthree 𝑤⁄will if >
main m<Results
Note
In λis
die this
⇿
large
religious (θ
that
tomorrow” 𝑚(i.e.,
section, the ) environmental
second
if Ihumanity’s
(θ
willset
(Musnad, )of
analyze 𝜕α 𝜕α However,
conditions
5:440). natural
ethics the ⁄𝜕μ family
that
three >(2)<0 ⇿ I⇿
applies
offer main refer𝑤the religious m is (θ (θ
⁄𝑚 ⁄(i.e.,
environ
𝑚))
Hinduism and Buddhism,
Sustainability 2017, 9,Francis, since
x FOR PEER their
in which precepts
REVIEWSustainability Hinduism largely
use of the environment have
and
2017, 9, x FOR PEER Buddhism,
the sameshould REVIEWconsequences,
since their precepts
be at a subsistence level. Moreover, although largely the have the
27 of 36 I will same
is extended
here only to non-human
to ofthe αQur’an
Ordifferently beings),
is increasingbecause inifin
Note λresponse
the that isto
deeds small
the second
andto isI extended
(i.e.,
words
increasing the
set use
of
of
Or the
αμ: 𝜕αisto
of
conditions the
Prophet
increasing⁄environment
non-human 𝜕μ (2) >Muhammad
0applies
in⇿response 𝑤
beings), > λif
isif technologically
m is
(i.e.,to λlarge (θ⁄is𝑚
rather
increasing )than
2small
(i.e., ifterms
μ:the(i.e.,
thethe
humanity’s use of the
natural enf
where:possibility sustainability order characterize possibility the constraints
of sustainability introduced in order in Section
to characterize inachieve constraints intr
HIN HIN
precepts are justified.
Hinduism In this
Finally,
and section, I will
Buddhism, where:
precepts will
neglect analyze
sinceareJainism differently
their the
and preceptsthree
Daoism,justified. main largely since religious
Finally, they
have Ithe
both environmental
will same neglect Jainism
consequences, ethics andthat Da
alth
inefficient), or if 𝑤 is large (e.g.,
is extended in an industrial
to(θ non-human
⁄𝑚 I)will inefficient),
economy). beings),
(θ⁄at αC:)aorder or
if λ if 𝑤 is smallis large (i.e., (θ (e.g.,
the
⁄the in
use an of industrial
the environment economy). is technolog
αbyofreferring
> of)> (θ I⁄μnot𝑚>)and (θ ⁄introduced ) by
his0 actions)
⇿ possibility
μInto>particular,
𝑤 and μSunnis
> 𝑚 λ> 0;80% ⇿
α characterize
μsince
of>
I<
all𝑤 1 In ⇿ 𝑤 𝑚 and λneglect 𝑚2.4 λof a; since
α in Section < 1 since
⇿ le𝑤
Sunna’s
of examples
observable HINparameters. are accepted of sustainability byof neglectobservable (around
Christianity,
in parameters.
HIN
to HIN Muslims),
the particular,
analysis but in
constraints will
Section totally Christianity, 2
sustainability Appendix C:where:
Analytical
precepts use of the
Results
are environment
differently sustainability
Appendix justified. subsistence
by
Analytical
Finally, referring level.
Results
will toneglect use the
Jainism environment Daoism, at subsistence they both
For
theJudaism,
Shi’ites,
main 𝜕α
who text ⁄𝜕𝑚compiled
either
have
suggests α>is0decreasing
⇿of
that μit
inefficient), <
their can 𝑤
observable with
own or
never ⁄ λ
if 𝑤
increasing
collection.
achieve
HIN;
parameters. 𝜕αis thelarge ⁄ μ:𝜕λ
For (e.g.,
sustainability
main >
Judaism,
text in 0 𝜕α
an ⇿
suggests μeither
industrial
unless >⁄ 𝜕𝑚 𝑤 that
it α> (θ
is
follows0it ⁄⇿ 𝑚
decreasing
economy).
can )
μ <
the
never 𝑤 philosophywith
achieve ⁄ λ ;
increasing 𝜕α
sustainability
of St. ⁄ 𝜕λ
μ: (2) >
unless0 ⇿ μ
it
Therefore, for Hinduism sustainabilityor Buddhism, by either
referring
⁄the αIn
Therefore,
0is<
to particular,
decreasing
use of the for Iin
Hinduism will
environment responseneglect Christianity,
or Buddhism,
to
at aincreasing
subsistence eithersince
μ: level. α𝑤 the analysis ininSect
is decreasing res
The
Francis, in>which
α Qur’an 0⇿ μthis
In(6:38) < states
use 𝑤 the
section,
of the⁄For
𝑛environment
“there
mainIθJudaism,
and
will istext𝜕α
μnot
analyze 𝜕α
<suggestsθshould
either
an ⁄λanimal
𝜕𝑚 α𝜕μ
;>
Francis, α
In
isbe
that
>
0 ⇿
three
this
decreasing
in at it
⇿
aμcan
the
in <α𝑤⇿𝑤
1section,
main
Earth,
which
subsistence
never𝑤> > 0I⁄λ⁄achieve
religious
with
usenor λ𝑛
⇿ will <μ(θ
increasing
of alevel. ;<
flying
the ⁄𝜕α
θanalyzeλ𝑚 𝑤) creature
environmental
environment
Moreover,
sustainability⁄μ: ⁄𝜕λ 𝜕α
𝑛theθ three I⁄will
>
and
on 𝜕μ0unless
μ⇿ >main
ethics
two
should μ0
<combineθ>
wings, ⇿be
it 𝑤
λthat at; aoffer
religious
follows (θ
α > ⁄𝑚 λ<
subsistence
thethe (θ
⇿⁄𝑤
)environm
1philosop 𝑚lev)
Note thatαthe second >0⇿μ set<of 𝑤 conditions (θTherefore,
⁄𝑚) and (2)μapplies for(θHinduism
< ⁄𝑚if)Note mλ is α large orα>Buddhism,
;that 0(i.e.,
the ⇿ <second 1μif⇿ < 𝑤 𝑤
humanity’s set(θ
either <⁄αconditions
of 𝑚(θ )⁄decreasing
isnatural 𝑚) λμ <
and family (θ⁄applies
(2) in ) λ if; mαto
𝑚response <1⇿
increasing
is large (i.e., 𝑤
but they areand
Hinduism possibility
peoples Buddhism, of sustainability
like unto since you”, αin which
their in >
which 0⇿
order
precepts μwhere:
possibility
to
suggests <
Hinduism largely 𝑤 that
characterize of ⁄have
𝑛 animals
and θ Buddhism,
sustainability and
the μsame
the <
constraints
have θ consequences,
inλan sinceorder ;existence
αattheir
introducedto < precepts
1 and
characterize ⇿ in
although 𝑤purpose
Section ⁄level.
(3)largely 𝑛 the
the < θ 2 λ
constraints
in
have terms introd
the Isame
is extended towhere: non-human beings), Francis,
𝜕α
Note if λHIN α⁄𝜕μ
that isthe <
>
small 0second⇿use 𝑤is
(i.e., <
of
μobservable 𝑤
extended
the
set⁄the
𝑛of <(θ
use environment
λ⁄of 𝑚
to
conditions θand
)non-human
the μ(2)
environment should
< (θ applies⁄beings),
𝑚
be
) since m𝜕α aλ
λif technologically
is if
; is
subsistence
αIlarge
HIN ⁄𝜕μ is<(i.e., 1<⇿
small 0 if ⇿ 𝑤(i.e.,𝑤(1)the
humanity’s Moreover,
<⁄(θ 𝑛use <
⁄𝑚λof ) λsince
of the
natural θwillenf
independent of observable
of their
precepts are differently justified. parameters.
usefulness Hinduism to 𝜕α
us.In
Finally, and particular,
The ⁄ 𝜕μ of<
Qur’an
IBuddhism,
will 0
precepts ⇿ I will
also
neglectsince 𝑤 neglect
states
are
Jainism< parameters.
λ
differently
their that Christianity,
(θ
and ⁄ 𝑚
cattle
precepts )
Daoism, In particular,
and
justified. largely beasts
since 𝜕α
Finally,the of will
they Iboth
have ⁄analysis
𝜕μ
burden
the neglect
<
willsame 0 in
⇿were
achieve
neglect Section
𝑤Christianity,
consequences, 2.4
Jainism and𝑚
< λ (θ ⁄ ) th
Dao
alth
inefficient), or if 𝑤HIN is large 𝜕α (e.g.,
is extended⁄ in
𝜕𝑚 an > industrial
to
0 ⇿non-humanμ < 𝑤 inefficient),
economy). ⁄
beings),
λ ; 𝜕α
or
𝜕α if if
λ 𝜕α
HIN𝑤⁄⁄ 𝜕μ
𝜕λ
HINis < ⁄
is
small 𝜕𝑚0 large
> ⇿ 0 > 𝑤
(i.e.,⇿ 0(e.g., ⇿
μ ⁄
the> 𝑛
μ in𝑤 <
use
< an λ
𝑤 (θ
of ⁄
industrial
the θ𝑚 ⁄ λ) environment ; economy).
𝜕α ⁄ 𝜕λ is technolog
> 0 ⇿
Or α is the
increasing main with text suggests
increasing that
μ: it can never
the main achieve
Or text
α is suggests
sustainability
increasing
𝜕α ⁄𝜕μ that with
< itunlesscan
0toneglect
⇿ increasing never
𝑤 of it follows achieve
μ: the
kill,(θkill sustainability
philosophy
⁄𝑚Daoism, )well,at a since of unless
St. it fo
to<increasing
λenvironment
created to serveby
sustainability usreferring
(26:133 and to use 36:72). ofare the Similarly,
environment sustainabilitytheatSunna,
in justified. a subsistence by Muhammadreferring level. says
use “IfJainismyou
the subsistence lev
Or α iseither
For Judaism, increasing in precepts
α is decreasing response
inefficient), with differently
𝑤HIN is large
ortoifincreasing
increasing μ:μ: Or
For (e.g., α isin
Judaism, Finally,
increasing
an industrial either I willin α response
is decreasing
economy). withand increasing μ: μ: they both
αyou Francis,
and ifTherefore, > 0 ⇿for
slaughter, μ in> 𝑤 second
which
slaughter
Hinduism ⁄Or𝑛 or
use αθofis
well.
sustainability and the μenvironment
increasing
Buddhism,Let > each
by θ referring
λFrancis,
ofwith
either ; α (2)
you should
in
increasing
sharpen
Therefore,
α <which
isapplies
to 1α⇿
decreasing
use behis
of 𝑤 use
μ:
for
the>m
at blade ⁄is
a0Hinduism
of ⇿
in 𝑛large
the
environment >μand
subsistence
response >θenvironment
λ(i.e.,
𝑤or
let ⁄𝑛
level.
him
to
Buddhism,
at aspare θMoreover,
increasing and
should
subsistence μeither
suffering > beθ
μ:natural Iλat
level.αwilla ;subsistence
tois α is
combine
decreasing < large
1 ⇿in 𝑤res
level
>Note
α α Hinduism 0>⇿ 0μ that
⇿ <μand the
> 𝑛(θOr
⁄For
𝑤 𝑤Buddhism, ⁄𝑚 set
θJudaism,
and isof
α) and μsince<conditions
μeither
increasing θ>their (θ⁄α;𝑚precepts
λHinduism α
is
in λNote
) decreasing
α<and
response ;1αthat
α⇿ >Buddhism,
0𝑤
toif
>< ⇿
with01second⁄have
μ
⇿
increasing ⇿ 𝑛> μ<𝑤 θ set
𝑤<since
increasing λ𝑤(θ >same
μ: of 𝑚if
⁄their
(θ⁄
μ: conditions
)humanity’s
⁄
𝑛 𝑚and ) and
λμ >μ(θ
θprecepts (2)
<⁄largely
θ𝑚 applies
λ) although
λ ; have family
α ;ifαm < <
1⇿ 1⇿ 𝑤(i.e𝑤co
the animal α extended
is he > 0 ⇿ to
slaughters” μ< 𝑤 (θand
non-human ⁄Therefore,
“Some αand>
𝑚)beings), trees μ0 0
<for
are
if⇿⇿ (θ ⁄
asμis
𝑚>)is
λHinduism blessed 𝑤α ; orα
λsmall
extended ⁄
as 𝑛 to)θ
largely
>Buddhism,
the
(i.e., and
0θnon-human
<
⇿1μuse
Muslim
the μ⇿ <>𝑤 θeither
of λthe
the
himself, (θ ⁄;α𝑚
<environment
beings), αis)⁄and
(θ 𝑚
especiallyif<) λλμ1HIN
consequences,
decreasing < ⇿is (θ 𝑤small
the
is (4)
inpalm”.⁄ 𝑛λ(i.e.,
⁄technologically
𝑚0)⁄response > ;θ the λα touse the
the<λ ofsame
1⇿
increasing the 𝑤e
precepts are differently 𝜕α αα ⁄ 𝜕μ
justified. >> 0 ⇿ Finally,μ𝑤
μ
HIN
precepts >< 𝑤 ⁄ 𝑤
I 𝑛 will
are > (θ ⁄λ ⁄𝑛 𝑚 θ
differently
neglect and
and μ μ
Jainism >< θ
(θ
justified. ⁄ λ 𝑚
and ) ; λ α
Finally,
Daoism, 𝜕α
; α< 1I ⁄ ⇿<
since
will 𝜕μ 𝑤
1 > ⇿
(3)
neglect
they 𝑤⇿ 𝑛 < 𝑤
both
(2) >θ
Jainism λ ⁄
(θ 𝑛
achieve ⁄ >𝑚 and) λ θ
Daois
inefficient), or if 𝑤HIN is large 𝜕α ⁄ 𝜕μ
𝜕α
α (e.g., <
> 0 in ⁄0 𝜕μ ⇿
⇿an >𝑤 0 ⇿ ⁄
μ inefficient),
< 𝑤
industrial 𝑛 𝑤 < (θ λ ⁄ >𝑚 λ)θ
or and
economy). if ⁄𝑤 (θ μHIN⁄ 𝑚 )
(θ
<>is0large ⁄ )
𝑚 𝑤 λ(e.g., 𝜕α
𝜕α ; in α an ⁄⁄ 𝜕μ
𝜕μ <> 00
<θ1 ⇿ 𝑤 economy). ⇿⇿ 𝑤
𝑤 (1) < ⁄ >𝑛 (θ <
λ ⁄ λ
𝑚 λ ) (θ θ
⁄ 𝑚 )
⁄𝜕μofsustainability 𝜕α (θ 𝜕μ ⁄subsistence
)0to ⇿ ⁄ 𝑛 > λ industrial
where:Appendix sustainability
C. Analytical by
For Judaism,
Resultsreferring
either α
𝜕αto use
is decreasing
<the 0⇿
where:
with
𝑤
environment
For
increasing
<𝜕α
Judaism,by λ referring
𝜕α ⁄at
μ:𝜕μ aeither
⁄ <𝑚
𝜕μ > ⇿ α 0 use
is 𝑤decreasing
⇿ of
𝑤
𝜕α
level.
⁄ the
𝑛< > λλ⁄𝜕μ
environment with
< 0 ⇿ at
θ(θ ⁄ 𝑚 )
increasing
𝑤 a subsistence<λ
μ:
(θ⁄𝑚 leve)
Orwhere:
α is increasing with
Therefore, increasing
for Hinduism μ: ormain Buddhism, where: Or
Therefore, α is
either increasing
𝜕α
for
α isHinduism ⁄𝜕μin
decreasing with <response
0 or increasing
⇿in 𝑤response
Buddhism, μ:
<increasing
λ to either(θ ⁄𝑚α
increasing ) is decreasing μ: in respo
where: ⁄θ𝑛 λ⁄θ𝜕λ
InOrthis
α 𝜕α
α is
>0⇿
increasing
⁄𝜕𝑛μαI<
section,
>
will
0𝑤 in
>
⇿ 0response
analyze
μ ⇿<
⁄Or
where:𝑛 θμαθthe<λis
and
to
𝑤 ;μincreasing
three 𝜕α
increasing > and μ:μOr
religious
with ; α ><0α
increasing<θ⇿ isλ increasing
α >;𝜕α
environmental
1 α μ
⇿ 𝑤 >μ:α> 𝑤0 0⇿
⁄ ⁄𝑛<⇿ ⁄μ>
𝜕𝑛 𝑛1μ ⇿ θ<0λ𝑤
ethics
> < θ 𝑤⇿ 𝑤that μ⁄⁄𝑛𝑛 ⁄ to𝑛<
<offer θθ θand λθthe
and
λ μ;possibility
μ>𝜕α <θ θ μ:
λ ⁄λ𝜕λ; α ; α> < 0<⇿ 1 1⇿μ⇿ >𝑤 𝑤𝑤
α
of sustainability > 0𝜕α inα
⇿order μ ⁄>>𝜕𝑚 0
𝑤to⇿ > 0μ ⇿
(θ
characterize <
⁄
Or 𝑚𝑤 μ)αand<is𝜕α(θ
𝑤 μ⁄𝑚
increasing
the )⁄(θand
λ⁄𝑚μ;)in<
>constraints α
𝜕α (θ ⁄;>𝑚
αintroduced
λresponse ⁄α𝜕λ 0
>)⇿ λ0𝜕αto <⇿ μincreasing
1;<
> μin
⇿0α⁄𝑤>𝜕𝑚
⇿ 𝑤𝑤μ<
Section (θ
> >1⁄ 0(θ
>μ:𝑤𝑚 ⇿2⇿ )in
⁄(θ𝑚and
𝑤μ⁄)(θ𝑚< ⁄)μ𝑚
and
terms 𝑤λ<< )μof (θ ⁄⁄(θ
>observableλ𝑚⁄)𝑚λλ;) 𝜕α λ ; α; ⁄α𝜕λ(3) << 1> ⇿0
1 ⇿ 𝑤⇿ 𝑤μ
α (4)>applies ⁄
0 ⇿ μ⁄if 𝜕𝑛 <> 0 ⇿
𝑤 0is⇿ μ <
⁄small θ
𝑛𝑤θthe λ and ; 𝜕α
μ<the >λ θuse ⁄
λθ of 𝜕λ ; the >
αconditions 0 ⇿
< 1 ⁄⇿ μ > 𝑤<(4) 𝑤 ⁄⇿ ⁄ 𝑛
𝑛 >𝑤ifθ λλ⁄JUD θ
Note that the second set of conditions 𝜕α ⇿ μ𝑤⁄> 𝜕μ λ <
Note that ⁄
(i.e., 𝑛second
𝑤 μ >⁄(θ set of 𝜕α
environment 𝜕μ (4) 0
applies 𝑛 <is λ
⁄λ)𝑚λ) θ (i.e
small
(1) θ
𝜕αneglect α⁄𝜕μ > > 0𝜕α
0⇿ 𝜕𝑚 ⁄> 𝑛 >0(θ⇿ λ⁄the𝑚μis )𝑤 θ< λ ⁄Section 𝑚;humanity’s
)⁄of 𝜕α 𝜕α ;⁄α𝜕λ ⁄the <>
𝜕μ >0⇿ 0⇿ ⇿ μ𝑤 > 𝑤 ⁄(θ 𝑛 (θ ⁄>𝑚
JUD
parameters. In particular, I will
Note that the second set ofsmall conditions
𝜕α the
Christianity,
⁄𝜕μ 𝜕α
>(2)is ⁄𝑤
applies
0future
⇿ 𝜕μ since
𝑤of<population
Note if0> ⇿
that
m λ
and
analysis
the large(θ second
⁄< 𝑚 (i.e.,
)
in
λapplies if(θ
set 𝑚λ𝜕α
𝜕α
2.4
)conditions ⁄of𝜕μ ⁄ <
natural
𝜕μ >01
main
(2) ⇿
0 applies
⇿ 𝑤𝑤text
family 𝑤
(2)>
<if> λmofλis (θ
large⁄𝑚⁄)𝑚
(θ (i.e.,
)
is technologically
suggests thatOrit αcan inefficient), if
never achieve nNote is that (i.e.,
sustainability second the technologically
set
unless conditions
itis𝜕α follows inefficient),
⁄𝜕μthe is
(4) >0 smaller ⇿𝑤
philosophy if
ifthan
λ n
⁄𝑛 of
JUD is the
is small
> λSt. smallcurrent θ (i.e.,
(i.e.,
Francis, the
the in future
use population
the environ
where: is extended to is
non-humanincreasing with
beings), increasing
if λ is μ:
where:
is
small extended Or
(i.e., α the to increasing
use non-human of the with
environment beings),increasing if λ
is μ:
technologically
is small (i.e., the use
population), or ifof𝑤the isαlarge
Orenvironment
JUD is (e.g.,
is increasing in
technologically Note that
ainpost-industrial
response
be ⁄at
HIN the second
inefficient), population),
towhere: economy).
increasing
Or set of
α ifis nincreasing isconditions
μ: 𝜕α
or small if 𝑤JUD ⁄ 𝜕μ
in is
(i.e., (2)
>large
response 0⇿
the applies 𝑤 tocombine
(e.g.,
future if inm
increasing is
>population
HIN large
λa post-industrial(θ ⁄ μ:(i.e., )
𝑚 is smaller if humanity’s
economy). than the en
of the
natur cu
where:use
which
inefficient), or if 𝑤αHIN where:> large
is 0is⇿ μ(e.g.,
should
extended > 𝑤 in an
to 𝑛 a θsubsistence
industrial
non-human and
inefficient),μ economy).
>beings),
θ λlevel. α ;ififαMoreover,
or >
𝑤λ 0< ⇿ is 1large
μ⇿
small >I𝑤will 𝑤 (e.g.,
(i.e.,⁄𝑛 ⁄the𝑛>an
in θuseθand λindustrial μ the
Hinduism
of > θenvironment λeconomy). ;α <is1 techno
⇿𝑤
For Islam,
and Buddhism, 𝜕αeither ⁄ 𝜕𝑛
α α
sinceis< 0their> ⇿μ0
decreasing ⇿
population), μ >
< θ λ largely
precepts with 𝑤 or (θ
; 𝜕α have
increasing
if ⁄ 𝑤 𝑚 JUD )⁄ and
𝜕λ the same
is μ:
largeμ α
>
For (θ ⁄ > 𝑚 )
0
0 ⇿ μconsequences,
(e.g.,Islam, in ⇿ λ μ ;
𝜕α 𝑤 𝜕𝑛𝑛< θ0although
> a either >
HIN
⁄ α
post-industrial 𝑤
α⁄ is < (θ 1
decreasing ⁄ ⇿𝑚
⇿ μ < θ the ) 𝑤 and
economy). μ > > (θ
λ precepts
with (θ; 𝜕α⁄ ⁄ 𝑚 𝑚
increasing) ) λ λ ⁄ 𝜕λ
are ; μ: α <
> 0 ⇿μ > 𝑤 1 ⇿ 𝑤
⁄μ𝜕𝑚 αwhere: 𝑤λ𝜕𝑛 μ:⁄(4)
𝜕α0 ⇿ <> 0decreasing
⇿ μ <μ𝑤 λ⁄ 0𝜕α μ⁄ 𝜕λθ𝑤 𝜕α α> ;0⁄industrial
θ⇿
𝜕𝑚 λμα⇿ >> μ(θ ><⁄𝜕α )and μ⁄⁄𝜕μ ⁄𝑛;𝑤αθ⁄𝜕λ
is0
μ𝑤⇿ 0𝑚 𝑤 >λ<> 𝑤θ;0λ𝜕α >λ 0𝑤⇿ θμ
For Judaism, either is
inefficient), or with increasing For
;decreasing Judaism,
μ: either decreasing with increasing
differently α >
justified. Finally, 𝑤 For
I will θIslam,
andneglect 𝜕α < if
either 𝜕α
θJainism ⁄ αHIN ;⁄
is < is
α 𝜕μ
and
large>
⇿ 01
<Daoism, (e.g.,
⇿ ⇿
< 𝑤with λinsince ⁄an< 𝑛 >
𝜕α
increasingthey λ0 ⁄both θ
𝜕λ <economy).
μ: 𝑤
achieve θ⇿ μ
sustainability ⇿ 𝑛>
< 1(2)⇿
Note that the α second > 0set ⇿ofμ conditions
< 𝑤For⁄Judaism, 𝑛 (4) θαand 𝜕α𝜕α
applies μ <
either⁄ if
θ
𝜕𝑚 ⁄λNote
𝜕μ
λ
αJUD
> is >0is; 0⇿
α ⇿μthe
small
that α
decreasing 𝑤 < (i.e.,
> 1
𝑤second
0 ⇿ > ⇿ the
with λ⁄μλuse
𝑤 set
< (θ
⁄
increasing 𝑛;of
𝑤⁄< 𝜕α𝑚 )θ⁄λ𝑛environment
𝜕α
the
conditions ⁄
μ: ⁄θ𝜕μ
𝜕λ and >(4) >μ0< 0⇿
applies
⇿θ 𝑤 λ μ > if;>𝑤 λα λJUD is
(θ < (θ
⁄ 1
𝑚 ⁄
small 𝑚
⇿
) ) (i.e
𝑤
by referring to usetheof the environment at a<second >
subsistence 0where:
⇿μ <𝑤 θ the and μ (i.e.,
< θ λif ;ofα conditions <1⇿ 𝑤 (5) <family θ λ if m is large (i.e.,
Note
is technologicallywhere: thatinefficient), second if set nNote isof 𝜕α conditions
that⁄𝜕μ
small α(i.e.,
the >0the (2)
⇿
0is⇿
applies
𝑤
future Note <level.
technologically
setμ< of ifthat
λ𝑤 m θis
population
conditions large
⁄𝑛 θinefficient),
second
and is applies
(4) smaller sethumanity’s
μ < θ λififthan nJUD
λ ; isαthe 𝜕α
small
is natural
small
< ⁄1(2)
current 𝜕μ
(i.e.,
⇿
applies
<𝑤
(i.e., 0the
the ⇿ 𝑤< of
⁄future
𝑛use
(3) θ<population
λ environ
λthe θ
Therefore, where: for 𝜕α ⁄the 𝜕μ where:
< is0extended⇿ is𝑤 ⁄to𝑛or < λof θresponse 𝜕α ⁄𝜕μ <
µ: 0(i.e., ⇿ 𝑤 ⁄𝑛use < λof the θ en
is extended
population), or if 𝑤 toJUD isHinduism
non-human large 𝜕αis (e.g., or
beings),
in
technologically Buddhism,
Notea ifthat
λHIN
post-industrial
⁄𝜕𝑛 <μ:0 ⇿ μ < θ λ ; Or
iseithersmall
second
inefficient), population), α(i.e.,
economy).set decreasing
if
𝜕α α is⁄𝜕λ
the
of
n is use non-human
conditions
𝜕α if
small 𝜕α> 0⁄⇿𝑤 ⁄ in
JUDthe
𝜕μ is
(i.e.,𝜕𝑛< environment
(2) 0
largethe beings),
applies
⇿
μ<>0increasing 𝑤 to increasing
(e.g.,
future
⇿ 𝑤 μ<
if
if<
in
⁄𝑛θ θ
m λ
is
λa HINtechnologically
is θ is small
large
post-industrial
population
λ ; 𝜕α ⁄𝜕λ is (i.e.,
smaller the
if humanity’s
economy). than
> 0 ⇿μ
natur
the > cu 𝑤
Orinefficient),
α is increasing or if with
𝑤 increasing
is large (e.g., in an industrial inefficient), economy). orincreasing
𝜕α
if 𝑤 ⁄ 𝜕μis with<
large 0 ⇿ (e.g., 𝑤 in⁄ 𝑛an μ:
< λ
industrial θ economy).
For Islam, Or αeither α is decreasing
is increasing
HIN is
𝜕α increasing
population),
with ⁄with
extended 𝜕𝑚 > or to
0if⇿
increasing μ: 𝑤JUD
non-human
μ <is𝑤 μ:
large For
Or ⁄(e.g.,
beings),
λIslam,
α is 𝜕α 𝜕α
;increasing
in if
either λ ⁄⁄𝜕𝑚
a post-industrial
HIN
HIN 𝜕λ
α isis small
> decreasing
with 0>⇿ 0 μ⇿ (i.e.,
increasing <μ𝑤>with
economy). the 𝑤μ:⁄increasing
use λ(θ⁄;𝑚𝜕α
of the ) environment
μ: ⁄𝜕λ is
> 0 ⇿μ > techno
ααFor >>Note00 ⇿ that μeither
µ <>the
w𝑤 (Or θdecreasing
θ/m and
α )is and μof>
increasing <θif (𝑤
µconditions λθ/m with ;)isdecreasing
2
αλ(4)increasing <;α α1HIN ⇿ >μ:< λ𝑤 01increasing
⇿ is0λ> wμαHIN >θsetdecreasing
λ𝑤 <ofeconomy).
(θ/m θ and )use λwith μ > θenvironment
λ ; ifαμ:λJUD < 1 ⇿ (i𝑤
μ <μαsecond set Note
<applies that ifin
the second small (i.e., the
𝑤conditions of
μ μ(4) the θapplies is small
HINJudaism, is
HINinefficient), with increasing For
HIN Judaism,
μ: either is HIN increasing
α α > 0> ⇿ 0 ⇿ 𝑤
> For 𝑤 θOr and
Islam, ⁄
α 𝑛 μ or
is θ<and
either θ λμαHIN
increasing > ;α
is θ
large
withλ ;1(e.g.,
α ⇿
increasing α 𝑤with < α > 1
an<
JUD
0 ⇿μ: >⇿
industrial
θ 𝑤 μ ⇿ > ⁄ μ𝑛𝑤 < μ:
> θ ⁄ λ
𝑛 θ θand and < > θλ(A1) λ > ; α; α < 1 <⇿ 1⇿ 𝑤𝑤<
α Note
is technologically that
> 0 ⇿ μ < 𝜕α the ∂α
second
𝑤 For⁄⁄𝑛
inefficient), α /∂µ set θ>
if <of
and
n 0 0 is⇿
conditions
μ < μ
w
smallisθ >
Noteλ 𝑤 < (2)
technologically
(i.e., that
;λ α theθ
applies
α and
(
the <θ/m
future >second
1 μ
if
0⇿ ) m
⇿> 𝑤 is
inefficient),θμ set
population < λ
large
⁄ of
𝑛 𝑤 < ; α
conditions
(i.e.,
θ
if ⁄isλ𝑛
n if <
humanity’s
θ
smaller
is and
small1 (2) ⇿ μ <
than 𝑤
(6)
applies
(i.e., θ natural
λ
thethe if ; m αθ
current
future is λ
family
large
< 1 ⇿(i.e.,
populatio 𝑤 if
HIN Judaism,
𝜕μ α α> 0 > >⇿either
0 0⇿ ⇿
HIN
𝑤 μ
α
μ><>𝑤 is HIN
decreasing
𝑤λ ⁄ θ𝑛and θ θ the with
μ < μθ >
and
increasing
λ θ ;λα ;𝜕α <
α
μ: 1⇿ ⁄𝜕μ
< 𝑤1 ⇿ >is<
(5) 𝑤 0technologically
θ⇿ λ⁄(4)
𝑛 𝑤>use θ λ> λthe envi θ
population), or if 𝑤JUD is𝜕α ⁄ 𝜕μ <⁄> 0 in⇿ 𝑤 0 μ⇿<<𝑤λ𝑤 ⁄θ𝑛⁄or α𝜕α ⁄ 1𝜕μθ ><0 𝑤0⇿ ⇿⁄(3) 𝑤𝑤 ⁄< 𝑛 λλ> λ θ θ
𝑤
λ⁄⁄𝜕μ
is extended to non-human 𝜕αbeings), 𝜕μ is ifextended
0a>⇿ λ is small to non-human
(i.e.,
𝑛>if use beings),
of the if λ
environment is small (i.e., the of
large α(e.g., population),
post-industrial
⁄λθ𝜕μ
economy). and θ μis<large θ λ𝑤 (e.g., ; 𝜕α in a< 𝜕μ
post-industrial
⇿ 𝑛 <economy). θ
HIN HIN
⁄𝜕α >0⇿ >
JUD
where: Or α is increasingor
inefficient), inifresponse
𝑤HIN 𝜕αincreasing
to
isdecreasing
large ⁄𝜕μinefficient),
(e.g., < 0an
µ:⇿
inwhere: 𝑤
industrial or 𝑛if< 𝜕α 𝑤 λeither
HIN⁄is
economy). 𝜕μθ large <is 0 decreasing
⇿ (e.g., 𝑤 𝑤in𝜕α <an⁄λ𝑛 industrial <0⇿
θλincreasing 𝑤 μ:⁄𝑛 < λ
economy). θ
Orwhere: For Islam,
α is increasing with increasing μ: either α is with increasing
For Islam,
Or α is increasing μ: 𝜕α ⁄ 𝜕μα >
with increasing 0 ⇿ with
μ: > θ
For Judaism, either αμis<decreasing where: For with 𝜕αeither ⁄
μ:𝜕μ < decreasing
0⇿𝑤 ⁄ 𝑛with < λ increasing θ
where:
α > 0α⇿ µ𝑤 θ and μ <Judaism,
αincreasing
θ λ increasing
; α< μ:α 1< >1αwith 0is⇿
⇿ 𝑤increasing
μ> << 𝑤 θ λ)θ and μ< θ λ μ;μ:
ααOr α is increasing
HIN>>0 0⇿µ μ >>⁄w𝑤 with(𝜕α
HINwhere: Or increasing
θ
θ/m and )⁄is𝜕λ
and μ>
increasing >μ:> θ0(⁄λθ/m ⇿ μ ;)>2α
with λ𝑤Or
HIN ;<
increasing
⁄
θαisα 1
HIN ⇿ > 𝑤
0 ⇿ ⁄
w>μ HIN> θ 𝑤
λ⁄ ⁄
(θ/m 𝜕α
θ ⁄
and ⁄
λμ: 𝜕λ
HIN μ > >
θ 0λ⇿
⁄
; >αα 𝑤 <<θ11⇿⇿𝑤 𝑤⁄
α 𝜕α α
> 0 ⇿ μ > ∂α 𝜕𝑛 <> 0 ⇿
𝑤 Orαα/∂µ μ⁄ <
𝑛isθ> θ 𝑤 λ
and ; 𝑛
μ >w 𝜕α θ and 𝜕λμ <
α θ > λ> 0 𝜕α 0⇿ ; ⇿ α μ >μ𝜕𝑛 < < 𝑤 < 1
⁄ 𝑤 0 ⇿ ⇿ 𝑛 𝑤 μ
𝑛 θ
⁄ < θ θ and
𝑛 λ< μ θ <
; λ 𝜕α
θ λ (A2) 𝜕λ
; α ><(5) 0<
1⇿ ⇿ μ𝑤>𝑤 𝑤
00 ⇿
increasing
> 𝜕α μλθHIN > λ𝑤
with
⁄𝜕μ is>0 <
;λ α𝜕α
increasing
0λ
α
θ⇿and (< θ/m
𝑤
⁄> 1μ
𝜕λ 0⇿ )μ: ⇿𝑤
<>λuse
>θ μ0>λ⇿
θof
𝑛𝑤 μ>;>α θ𝑤λ𝑛 θ< θand
𝜕α⁄ 1(5)⇿ μ >(6)
⁄applies
𝜕μ 𝑤 θ λ >; αθ λ
< 0 ⇿ λ⁄𝑤ISL <large
1⇿
λλ θ
Note that the first set of conditions
Note that the second set𝜕α of
⁄
HIN(5) applies
𝜕μ
conditions α > 𝜕α 0>(4) ⇿
𝜕α0⇿
if⁄ 𝑤
𝜕𝑛
applies
ISL
μ𝜕μ
⁄
Note
<> <if
Note >large
⇿
HIN
𝑤0that
that
λ ⇿
μ (i.e.,
<
⁄𝑛the 𝑤
isθ
the θ the
λfirst
θsecond
small and
⁄ 𝑛
;
<
set
μ> 𝜕α
(i.e., λ set
ofthe
θthe
conditions
⁄
λθ use
of
𝜕λ
𝜕α
𝜕α
environment
; αof⁄the
conditions
>
𝜕μ
0 << 𝜕μ⇿ 1(4) μ>
⇿⇿
0
environment
is
> 0
𝑤𝑤 ⁄(4)
applies
𝑤⇿ if 𝑤
𝑛⁄if𝑛>λ<𝑛 isθ> (3)
θλλis small θ
θ (i.et
(i.e.,
𝜕αthein ⁄first
𝜕μ >set 0 of ⇿Or 𝑤 α 𝜕α ⁄ >efficient) ⁄𝜕μ 𝑤 of⁄the
is𝑛economy). λ⁄(5) θ>In 𝜕α > in 0 ⇿ 𝑛 >environmλ econo θ
JUD JUD
technologically efficient)
where:
is technologically Or α is or if wISL is
increasing
inefficient),
Note small
with that (e.g.,
if naincreasing
is small
technologically
a pre-industrial
μ:
(i.e.,
conditions
isortechnologically
the future increasing
population𝜕μ applies
inefficient), 0orapplies
with ⇿is(λ
wλ𝑤
ififincreasing
summary, ISLis
ISL
smaller
ifE)nif
is >
smallanλincrease
large μ:(e.g.,(i.e., θ(i.e., the a pre-industrial
use
where:
in α implies an increase in (λ E) α and
technologically Note that
decrease
efficient)the second where:
in α
(μ/E)
if set
implies
w 1-α of :
is conditions
If an
smallμ 𝜕α is increase
small
(e.g., ⁄ 𝜕μ (4)
in > in
(e.g.,
a 0 ⇿
pre-industrial 𝑤
with α is λμ⁄JUD
and small
than
𝑛 < > is
a
λ λ
the
small
decrease
θ
economy). 2 at θ
currentthein
(i.e., In future
the (μ/E)use1-α
summary, population
of: the
If μ
an envis
inc
where: ∂α Orαα/∂m > 0
is increasing
> 0 ⇿ µμ >
with
< w 𝑤 increasing
2
/λθ and where:; μ
Or
μ:
∂α > αθ is /∂λ
ISL
λ α
increasing ; > α > 0 0 ⇿<
with 1µμ ⇿>
increasing
> w 𝑤 𝑤 ( θ
θ/m> μ:and θ
) λ μ > θ λ ; α < 1 ⇿ 𝑤
population), or HIN if 𝑤 JUD is
where: large
is (e.g.,
technologically in
HIN a post-industrial population),
inefficient),
HIN HIN if or
economy).
n
HIN if
is 𝑤
small JUD is large
(i.e., the (e.g.,
HIN future in a post-industrial
population is economy).
smaller than < th
equilibrium for Islam), then α inthe α>𝜕α 0 ⇿⁄μ𝜕λ>an𝑤>
magnitude
implies of0 ⁄
increase ⇿
the μθincrease
>
𝑛 equilibriumin 𝑤(λμ E) θ
αisθand for
larger
λ> 0Islam), a; ⇿ than
αdecrease μ ><then the inmagnitude
the 𝑛𝜕αmagnitude
(μ/E) 𝑛⁄:> 𝜕λ Ifμofθμ >λ > the
θof
is 0λsmall⇿ the;μαincrease
>(e.g., 𝑤 <(6) 1θ ⇿
with is μ larger λ
α 1-α
where: and > 1𝑤⇿ ⁄𝑤 θ⁄and 𝑤 ⁄
For Islam, either ⁄𝜕𝑛 α isset decreasing θ with 𝑤𝜕α
;increasing
JUD is⁄For
⁄ ifμ: Islam, either a⁄ αof is< decreasing
0⁄θ⇿ with ;increasing 0⁄𝜕λ isμ:the
𝜕α <population),
0of⇿conditions μ <for λor 𝜕λ >large 0𝜕α ⁄⇿ θλis ⁄larger
in μ >>𝜕𝑛 λ𝑤 μ𝑛increase
>μθ𝑤<𝜕α θnatural 𝜕μ𝜕α 𝑤 >magnitude0> ⇿
(4)λμ > θ𝑤o
Note that the second 𝜕α if
(2) applies 𝜕μlarge > m0𝜕α (e.g.,
⇿
is 𝑤 post-industrial economy). > than ⇿
equilibrium Islam), then the magnitude 𝜕λ(i.e., >if 0humanity’s
⇿
the family
Note that the first α
set
extended to non-human beings), if λHIN is of> 0 ⇿
conditions μ <For 𝑤 (5)
Islam, θ and
applies either
𝜕αsmall μ 𝜕α<
if ⁄𝜕𝑛θ
λα ISLλ⁄
Note
is
(i.e., 𝜕μ
is ; α
>
large
decreasing
< 0the that
⇿use 0 ⇿ <
(i.e.,
μ <ofthe 1𝑤 α ⇿ the
first
with
θ the ⁄𝑤> 𝑛
λ environment use
set0 >
increasing⇿< λ
of μ
θ the λ
< θ
conditions
; 𝜕α ⁄𝜕λ is>technologically 𝑤𝜕α
environment
μ: θ ⁄ and0 ⇿ μ > 𝑤 ⁄𝑛 θ ⇿θ(i.e.,
𝜕μ
(5) μ
> <0
applies is⇿θ λ 𝑤 if ;λ α⁄
ISL 𝑛 is> < λ
large1 𝑤 th
technologicallyNote
where: that the second
efficient) or if w set
ISL is Note of conditions
small that (e.g.,the in firsta (4) applies
where:
technologically
pre-industrial
set of Note if that
conditions λJUD is
the small
efficient)
economy). (5)second applies (i.e.,
Inor set ifthe
summary, w
ifofISL λ use
conditions
is oflarge
small
is antheincrease environment
(e.g., (4) in
(i.e., applies
the a if
pre-industrial
use of λ JUD is small (i.e
the econom
environm
inefficient),where: or if wHIN is large (e.g., in an industrial α > 0economy). ⇿ μ < 𝑤 θ and μ < θ λ ; α < 1 ⇿ 𝑤 < (5) ISL θλ
is technologically
in α implies an increase inefficient),
in (λ E) α and
technologically if na isthat
Note 𝜕α
small
decrease
efficient)the⁄where: 𝜕μ
(i.e.,
is
second
in
in <orα 0ifimplies
(μ/E) ⇿
technologically
the set
w 𝑤of
future :
is <
conditions
If an
smallμ λincrease
population
is small
(e.g., θ (4)
inefficient), in in ispre-industrial
applies
(e.g.,
a (λ smallerif
E)
with nαifandisλμ𝜕α than
small
JUD is ⁄small
𝜕μ
the(i.e., < current0the
(i.e., ⇿ 𝑤summary,
future
the use <1-αpopulation
λof the θ envs
𝜕α ⁄𝜕λ > 0 ⇿ μ(μ/E)
< a λ decrease
θ
economy). 2 at in In > 𝑤 : θIf μanisinc
1-α
For Judaism, either α is decreasing with 𝜕α increasing ⁄𝜕λ > 0µ:⇿ μ > 𝑤 θ ISL
population),
equilibriumOr forα Islam), or if 𝑤 JUD is large
theninwith 𝜕α
the is (e.g.,
technologically
⁄𝜕𝑛 <an
magnitude
α implies in0⇿ a post-industrial
ofμthe
increase population),
inefficient),
<equilibrium
θincrease
λin Or (λ; α 𝜕α
E)is economy).
if
is for or
𝜕αn ⁄𝜕λ
larger
and if
is 𝜕α𝑤
small
a⁄decrease
Islam), JUD⁄
𝜕𝑛 ><
than is 𝜕μ
0thenlarge
(i.e.,
0⇿the <⇿ 0 the
μincreasing
inthe > ⇿
(e.g.,
μ (μ/E)
<𝑤
magnitude 𝑤
future in
θ λ ⁄:𝑛
magnitude <
a λ
post-industrial
population
; of θ𝜕α θ ⁄the is
𝜕λ increase economy).
smaller
>0⇿ μ> thanμ𝑤 < th
is increasing increasing μ: α
increasing with 1-α
μ:If μ the isofsmall (e.g., with is larger λ
For Islam, either
Note that the α is decreasing
first
population), set offor with
conditions
or if 𝑤JUD
increasing (5) For
is2applies
Note
large μ: Islam, that
(e.g.,if λthe either
in aisfirst α
large is
post-industrialset decreasing
(i.e.,
of increase the use
conditions with
economy). of (5) increasing
theapplies environment μ:
if the isislarge (i.e.,o
λISL magnitude
ααJUD >>00that ⇿ the μ <> w𝑤Or θset
isand μ> µ <θNote λλJUD ; ;ααthe JUD> < <if0 11μ: ⇿ μ𝑤JUD > 𝑤>< θθθλλand μ applies> θtheλenvironment λ;αJUD α is small <1⇿ (i.e.,𝑤
ISL

equilibrium
µ JUDα /n Islam),
increasing
θofand then θwith the magnitude
increasing of w the /n JUD use
is larger than
technologically Note α >efficient) 0 ⇿ second μ <For or𝑤 ifIslam,wθISLand conditions
iseither μ < technologically
small θα(e.g., (4)
λis decreasing
;in that
α applies < 1α
a pre-industrial second
⇿
efficient)
with λ𝑤 >JUD set
0is⇿ <or
increasing small
of θμifλconditions
economy). < wISL (i.e.,
𝑤 μ:is small the
θIn and (4)
summary, μ<
(e.g., of θ inλ(A3) if;increase
aanpre-industrial <1⇿𝑤 econo <
∂αJUD α /∂µ><
(λ E)ifα⁄α
00istechnologically
⇿ wμJUD >(i.e., 𝑤 <the
/n λθJUD and θ 1-α μ: > θ λ(λnsmall ; αα < 1with ⇿ 𝑤future (6) > θatλ1-α: If μ isi
in is technologically
α implies an increase inefficient), in𝜕α 𝜕μ >
n
and is >0
insmall
a 0⇿α ⇿μ𝑤< 𝑤 > θλand θμ < θ λ ; 𝜕α
decreaseimplies in an inefficient),
(μ/E)future
increase population
If in
μ ifis E)is α < 1𝜕μ
small
isand (e.g., ⁄
smaller a ⇿>
(i.e., 𝑤0⇿
decrease than
the μ < θ𝑤λ
< the
in
(5) λ current
(μ/E)
θ >λ θ
2 population
population), if 𝑤JUDthen
orIslam), is large 𝜕α (e.g., ⁄𝜕μ in<
population),a0post-industrial
⇿of 𝑤 the or<iffor λ𝑤JUD θeconomy).
is𝜕μ large (e.g., in a𝜕α ⁄𝜕μ < 0 ⇿ economy).
post-industrial 𝑤increase < λ isθ large
equilibrium for
Or α is increasing with increasing µ:
where:
the magnitude equilibrium
where: 𝜕αincrease Islam), ⁄ is >
then
larger 0 ⇿the 𝑤
than magnitude the > λ
magnitude ofθ the of the
Or α is increasing For Islam, witheither increasingα is decreasing μ: with For Orincreasing
Islam,
α is increasing either 𝜕αα is⁄with
μ: 𝜕μ
decreasing <increasing
0 ⇿ 𝑤with< λ θ
μ:increasing μ:
where:
α> w
ααJUD>>00 ⇿ µμ > 𝑤> Or0/n ⇿
𝜕αθisand μθincreasing
⁄< 𝜕λ 𝑤>
μ µ> θθand 0with
λ2⇿ μμ;< >;αθα𝑤JUD λ α< >θ<; 1 α
0>1μ:⇿ 0< ⇿ μ1JUD
𝑤 μ> ⇿ </n 𝑤 >𝑤 𝑤 >θ𝜕α <θθλand
θ λθJUD
and ⁄λ𝜕λ μμ<> θ>θλ0 λ⇿ ; αμ; >α< 𝑤1 ⇿ < θ 1 𝑤 ⇿<𝑤

JUD α and > θ λJUD increasing w
𝜕α ⁄θ𝜕λμ >>θ0 λ⇿ μ ;>α𝑤 < θ (A4) (5)
Note that the first set of conditions ∂αJUD α /∂µ(5) >>0applies 0⇿ 𝜕α w μNote⁄>if𝜕μλ/n 𝑤ISL<that >0
isλ⇿ θlarge
the and
𝑤first (i.e.,<set λthe ofθuse conditions of𝜕α ⁄(5)
the environment 𝜕μ 1 <⇿
applies0⇿ 𝑤𝑤if(6) isλISL ><isλθlarge λ θ (i.e.,
𝜕α ⁄𝜕μ > 0 ⇿ 𝑤
JUD JUD
>λ θ 𝜕α ⁄𝜕μ > 0 ⇿ 𝑤 >λ θ
technologically efficient) or if wNote
ISL is small technologically
(e.g., inset
a pre-industrial efficient)economy).or if wIn ifsummary,
is
where:
where: Or α is increasing with
that the first
increasing Or
of conditions
μ: α is increasing
where: 𝜕α ⁄(5)
𝜕μapplies
with > 0⇿ ISL
increasing 𝑤small
λISL
μ: > λ
(e.g.,
is large an(i.e.,
increase
in a the
θ pre-industrial econo
use of the enviro
in α implies an increase technologically
in (λ E) andα in α or
2 aefficient)
decrease implies
in
if w(μ/E) ansmall
ISL is
1-α :increase
If μ(e.g., inin (λ
is small E)
(e.g.,and
α
a pre-industrialwitha decrease
μ economy).
< λ θ in 2 at (μ/E) 1-α : If μ isan
In summary,
α /∂n> <00 ⇿ µ μmagnitude
<>θ𝑤 λJUDθ; and
∂αJUDμ/∂λ >
αincrease
θ for>
λα>00Islam),
;⇿ αlarger
μ >> < 𝑤1JUD
⇿ θthe
𝑤magnitude
andθ > μ1-α>θ θλ ofλ ofthe;theαincrease
< 1is⇿larger 𝑤

∂αJUD where: JUD µ w /n
equilibrium for Islam), then
in α the equilibrium
of
𝜕α ⁄𝜕λ > 0 ⇿ μ > 𝑤 θ
implies an increase the
in (λ E) and is a then
decreasethan the in magnitude
𝜕α ⁄𝜕λ > 0 ⇿ μ > 𝑤 θ(6)
(μ/E) : If μ is small (e.g., with μ
equilibrium for Islam), 𝜕α ⁄then 𝜕μ >the 0 𝜕α⇿ 𝑤⁄𝜕λ >>of
magnitude λ 0 the
⇿θ𝜕α > 𝑤⁄𝜕μ
μincrease θ is> larger
0⇿𝑤 than > theλ magnitud
θ
Note that the first set of conditions (5) appliesNote if λISLthatis large
the first (i.e.,set
the ofuse of the environment
conditions (5) applies ifisλISL is large (i.e., t
where:efficient) or if wNote
technologically ISL is small
that the where:
technologically
(e.g., in aset
first pre-industrial
of conditions efficient)
economy).or if wIn
(5) applies ifsummary,
ISL isλISL
small (e.g.,
is large an (i.e.,
increase
in a pre-industrial
the use of the econom enviro
in α implies an increase technologically
in (λ E) and aefficient)
α
𝜕αin ⁄α𝜕λor
decrease implies
inif >
(μ/E)
wISL0⇿ an1-α
μ:increase
is small If
>μ 𝑤(e.g., inin(λ
is θsmall E) and
(e.g.,
α
⁄with
a pre-industrial
𝜕α 𝜕λ a decrease
μ> economy).
<0 λ⇿θμ in
2
>at𝑤 (μ/E)θ : If μ isan
1-α
In summary,
equilibrium for Islam), thenin αthe magnitude
implies equilibrium
of theinincrease
an increase (λ E) for
α and Islam),
is larger then
a decreasethanthetheinmagnitude
magnitude
(μ/E) 1-α: If μofofisthetheincrease
small (e.g., iswith
larger
μ
Note that the first set of conditions Note
(5) applies
that the iffirst
λ is
ISL set large
of (i.e.,
conditions
equilibrium for Islam), then the magnitude of the increase is larger than the magnitud the use
(5) of the
applies environment
if λ ISL is large is (i.e., the
inefficient), 𝜕α or if𝜕μ 𝑤HIN< 0is⇿ large 𝑤 (e.g., 𝑛 <inλ an industrial θ 𝜕α 𝜕μ < 0 ⇿ 𝑤 𝑛<λ θ
𝜕α ⁄𝜕μ > 0 ⇿ 𝑤economy). ⁄𝑛 > λ θ
where: For Judaism, where: either α is 𝜕α ⁄𝜕μwith
decreasing ⇿ 𝑤 ⁄𝑛μ:
< 0increasing <λ θ
Or α is increasing with increasing μ: Or α is increasing with increasing μ:
where: αθθ and ⁄⇿ ⁄𝑛0<<⇿
α 𝜕α >0⇿ ⁄𝜕𝑛 μ> < Or
0𝑤⇿ α is μ⁄𝑛< λ >μ
increasing ;0 𝜕α
⇿
>
withθμλ< 𝜕λ;𝑤
α⁄increasing
𝜕α> 0>
α 𝑛⁄<
0𝜕𝑛 ⇿
μ:θμ and
1 <
⇿
>μ0 >𝑤𝑤μ⇿𝑤 <μ⁄⁄ θ𝑛<
𝑛⁄ λ>θ𝑛θ θ ;θλα ;μ 𝜕α
λand ><θ1λ⇿ ⁄𝜕λ𝑤 ;α > 1 θ⇿
μλ>𝑤 𝑤 ⁄
α 𝜕α >0⇿ ⁄𝜕𝑛μ < >that 0𝑤 ⇿ μ⁄< θθλand⁄;μ𝜕μ 𝜕α 0λ⁄⇿ 𝜕λ;𝑤α >⁄0 ⇿ μ >𝑤θ𝑤 ⁄𝑛⁄> 𝑛 θθ λ
Note that the second set of conditions 𝜕α ⁄𝜕μ(4) Note
>applies
0⇿ if λ⁄𝑛JUD
𝑤 the 𝑛𝜕α
second>isλsmall set >(i.e.,
θ of <θconditions
the
𝜕α use ⁄𝜕μof 𝑛<the
(4) <1applies
>
⇿
0λenvironment
⇿ 𝑤 if λ⁄JUD
(4)
𝑛 >is λsmall θ (i.e.,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2590
is technologically inefficient), Note if n
that is small
the is technologically
second (i.e., set the of future inefficient),
conditions population if nis issmaller
small 28 of(i.e.,
36
Or α is increasing with increasing 𝜕α ⁄μ: (4) applies
𝜕μ > 0 ⇿ 𝑤 ⁄𝑛 > λ if λ JUD is(i.e.,
than
small the
the
θ future
current
the population
use of the en
where: large (e.g., in where:
population), or if 𝑤JUDisistechnologically apopulation),
inefficient),orif ifneconomy).
post-industrial 𝑤isJUD is large
small (i.e.,(e.g.,
the in a post-industrial
future population economy). is smaller than t
where: α > 0 ⇿ μ > 𝑤 ⁄𝑛 θ and μ > θ λ ; α < 1 ⇿ 𝑤 ⁄𝑛 > θ λ
Note that For the
Islam, 𝜕α
either
second ⁄𝜕𝑛
α
set ofis<conditions
0 ⇿ μ <or
decreasing
population), θ(4)
with 𝑤JUD
ifλ applies 𝜕α
;increasing
For λ⁄JUD
ifIslam,
is large 𝜕α
𝜕λ(e.g.,
μ: >in⁄
either
is small 0𝜕𝑛 αa⇿post-industrial
is<μdecreasing
(i.e., >
0the⇿𝑤use μ <⁄of 𝑛θwithλthe
θ environment𝜕α ⁄𝜕λμ: > 0 ⇿ μ > 𝑤
;increasing
economy).
is technologically α > 0 ⇿For
inefficient), nμof
is<Islam,
𝑤 θ 𝜕α and ⁄μthe
either 𝜕𝑛
α<isθ <decreasing
λ0 ⇿; population
μα< θ<with
α 𝜕α
>λ10⇿ ⇿ ;⁄𝑤𝜕μ
𝜕α <><
μ smaller
increasing 𝑤0⁄𝜕λθ⇿λμ: θ𝑤 and > ⁄μ0the𝑛<⇿ >θμλλ> θ;𝑤α ⁄𝑛 < 1θ ⇿ 𝑤 <
Note that the secondifset small
conditions (i.e., (4)
Note future
applies that the if λJUD secondis small set is (i.e.,
of the use
conditions than of(4) the current
environment
applies if λJUD is small (i.e.,
population), or if wJUD isinefficient),
large (e.g., in α > 0 ⇿economy). μ < 𝑤 θ and μ < θ λ ; α < 1 ⇿ 𝑤 < θ λ(5)
is technologically where:
Note if athat
npost-industrial
𝜕α
is the
small ⁄𝜕μ
is second <set
technologically
(i.e., 0⇿
the 𝑤
offuture <population
λ θ
inefficient),
conditions 𝜕α
if nis issmaller
(4) applies λJUD⁄𝜕μ
ifsmall than < 0the
(i.e.,
is small ⇿
the 𝑤 the<use
future
current
(i.e., λ of θ the en
population
For Islam, either is
population), or if 𝑤JUD is
α decreasing with increasing µ: n𝑤 𝜕α ⁄𝜕μ
is large
Or α is increasing with increasing μ:
(e.g., in apopulation),
technologically post-industrial
𝜕αinefficient),
Or⁄𝜕𝑛 or
0if⇿
α is<increasing
ifeconomy).
μisJUD
< θis
small λlarge
with ;<
(i.e., 0the
(e.g.,
𝜕α
increasing
⇿⁄ in 𝑤
𝜕λ < population
λ θ
a post-industrial
future
μ: > 0 ⇿ μ > 𝑤 ⁄𝑛 θ
economy).
is smaller than t
For Islam, either αpopulation),
is decreasing if 𝑤JUD
orwith increasing
Foris Islam,
large μ:either
(e.g., in αa is decreasing
post-industrial with increasing
economy). μ:
α αISL> >00 ⇿ µ
α > 0 ⇿For
μ <> Orw𝑤
<
θ θand
α isθ increasing
μ Note
ISL
𝑤 that
Islam, and µthe
and
either <μsecond
μα
θ> λθ α
< isθISL
;λα ;><
2with increasing μ:
α01<⇿
λ set;ISLαofα conditions
decreasing >10⇿
with <w μ⇿1ISL
>⇿<𝑤
𝑤μ(4)
increasing 𝑤
θ λISL
<<applies
θ>
𝑤 θ λμ:
and
θ and
θ λμλμJUD
if > θ λλ ; ;α(i.e.,
<isθ small
α <the <use
1⇿
1 𝑤⇿ 𝑤<
of the
(A5)
∂αISL α /∂µ>α<00 ⇿
is technologically wμISL > <𝑤<λISL
inefficient), θθ and
𝑤if nθ> isand μ > (i.e.,
small θ λ the; αfuture <⇿ 1𝑤 ⇿ 𝑤 is> smaller
population (6) θ λ than
𝜕α ⁄⁄𝜕μ > 0>⇿ 0 μ⇿ 𝑤 λ μ <θθ λ 𝜕α; α ⁄𝜕μ < 1> 0 ⇿ <𝑤 θ λ(5)> λ θ
⁄𝜕μ < 0 ⇿ 𝑤 < λ θ
population),𝜕α or if 𝑤 𝜕μJUD<is0 large ⇿ 𝑤 (e.g., < λin a θpost-industrial 𝜕α economy).
Orwhere:
α is increasing with increasing µ: 𝜕α ⁄𝜕μ >0⇿𝑤 >λ θ
⁄𝜕μincreasing
For Islam,μ: where:
either 𝜕α with < 0 ⇿ 𝑤 μ: < λ θ
Or α is increasing with increasing Or αα is is decreasing
increasing with increasing μ:
where: α > 0 ⇿ μ < 𝑤 θ and μ <θθλ𝜕α λ ;⁄α <>10⇿
α αISL>>00 ⇿ µμ >>Or w𝑤 α is
ISL θ𝜕αand ⁄𝜕λ
θincreasing
and µ >μθ> θ 0α
λ>ISL
2 with
;λ⇿ α μ;> ><
increasing
ISL α𝑤 01 ⇿ <μ:θw μ1ISL> ⇿> 𝑤𝑤 θ
ISL >and θ𝜕λλμ > θ λ⇿𝑤μ; >α<𝑤 θ < λθ
1⇿𝑤
(A6)
∂α α /∂µ > > 0 0 ⇿ wμ > >𝑤 λ 𝜕αθθ and ⁄𝜕α𝜕λμ > >
⁄𝜕μ θ 0 λ
⇿
<𝜕α μ
0use⇿𝑤;> α 𝑤 <θ
<> 1
λ0 ⇿ ⇿ θif λ𝑤 >
(6) θ λ
𝜕α ⁄(5) ⁄(5)
ISL ISL ISL
Note that the first set of conditions 𝜕μNote > 0that
applies ⇿if 𝑤 the is>
λISL first large λset of θconditions
(i.e., the of 𝜕μthe environment
applies 𝑤ISL is is
> λ (i.e.,
large θ th
technologically efficient) orNote
where:where:
if Or
wISLthat
αisissmall
the technologically
(e.g.,set
first
increasing
where:
inwith efficient)
a pre-industrial
of conditions𝜕α ⁄(5)
increasing 𝜕μ if>
oreconomy).
μ: wISL
applies 0 is ⇿ 𝑤ISLsummary,
ifsmall
In
λ >
(e.g.,
is large λin (i.e.,
aan θ increase
pre-industrial
the use of the econom
envi
in α implies an increase in (λ E)α and
technologically inaαdecrease
efficient) implies
or if win an increase
ISL(μ/E)
is small Ifinμ (λ
1-α: (e.g., inE)
is small
α and (e.g.,
a pre-industrial a decrease
witheconomy).
μ <inλ(μ/E)θ2 In
at1-αsummary,
: If μ is sm
where: ∂αISL /∂λ α ISL>>00 ⇿ µμ >>w𝑤 ISL θ θ and μ > θ λ ; α 1-α < 1 ⇿ 𝑤 > θ λ
equilibrium for Islam), in then the𝜕α
α implies an⁄equilibrium
magnitude 𝜕λ >of0in⇿
increase the (λμ increase
for > 𝑤 θ isthen
E)Islam),
α and a larger
decrease the𝜕α than
magnitude ⁄the
in (μ/E) 𝜕λ magnitude> If0 μ
: of ⇿isμincrease
the >of𝑤 the(e.g.,
small θ is larger
with μ
Note that the first set ofequilibrium
conditions (5) applies
for Islam), then if λ is
ISLthe 𝜕α large 𝜕α⁄𝜕λ 𝜕μ
magnitude (i.e., ⁄ the>of0>the
use⇿ 0 μ⇿
of the
>𝑤
increase 𝑤 θ> is λ
environment largerθ than the magnit
Note that
is technologically the firstorsetif of
efficient) conditions
wISL is small (5) applies
Note
(e.g., in athat if λtheISL is
first
pre-industrial large set (i.e.,
of conditions
economy).the use In of(5) the
summary, environment
applies ifan λISL isislarge (i.e., th
technologically efficient) where:
or if w is
ISLthat
α small
thetechnologically
(e.g., a
increase in α implies an increase in (λ E) and a decrease in (µ/E) : If µ is small (e.g., with µ < λ θ atthe use of the
Note first in
set of efficient)
pre-industrial
conditions 1-α or
(5) if w
economy).
applies ISL is ifsmall
In
λ summary,
ISL (e.g.,
is large in a an
pre-industrial
(i.e.,
2 increase econom
envi
in α implies an increase in (λ
technologically E) α and
equilibrium for Islam), then the magnitude of the increase is larger𝜕αin a α implies
decrease
efficient) or if w an
in increase
ISL(μ/E)
is small1-α: If
than⁄the in μ
(e.g., (λ
isin
𝜕λ magnitude E)
small
a α
> 0 ⇿μ > and (e.g.,
pre-industrial a
of 𝑤 decrease
with θ
the decrease,μ <in
economy). λ (μ/E)
θ 2 at
In : If
1-αsummary,μ is sm
equilibrium
so a smaller for Islam),
µ is required in then
to achieve the same
α implies
the magnitude
an equilibrium
w level.ofInin
increase theotherfor
(λ increase
Islam),
E)words,
α and isain then
larger
decrease
terms theof than
magnitude
in (μ/E)
the the
likelihoodmagnitude
1-α : of
If the
μ is
of theincrease
of the(e.g.,
small is larger
with μ t
equilibrium Note that for the firstthen
Islam), set ofthe conditions
magnitude (5) of applies
the if λISL is large
increase is (i.e.,than
larger the usethe ofmagnit
the en
second set of conditions (2, 4, 6) (i.e., for α increasing with increasing µ), HIN > JUD > ISL, where
technologically efficient) or if wISL is small (e.g., in a pre-industrial economy). In summar
condition 2 is met if m is large for HIN. Moreover, in terms of the likelihood of α decreasing with
in α implies an increase in (λ E)α and a decrease in (μ/E)1-α: If μ is small (e.g., with
decreasing θ (i.e., stricter conditions in case of an increase in population), HIN = ISL > JUD. Finally, in
equilibrium for Islam), then the magnitude of the increase is larger than the magn
terms of the minimum µ in the case of an increasing α, ISL > JUD > HIN.
By comparing Hinduism and Judaism, one obtains αHIN = αJUD if ln[µ] ln[m] equals
2 ln[n](ln[θ] + ln[λ] − ln[w]) + ln[m](2 ln[w] − 2 ln[n] − ln[λ]). By comparing Judaism and Islam, one
obtains αJUD = αISL if ln[µ] = ∞ or if ln[µ] = 0. By comparing Hinduism and Islam, one obtains
αHIN = αISL if ln[µ] ln[m] equals ln[λ](− ln[m] + ln[w]) + (− ln[λ] + 2 ln[m]) ln[w]. In other words, for
a sufficiently large µ, the α for Hinduism and Buddhism is smaller than that for Judaism and Islam (i.e.,
it represents a stricter constraint on consumption). Moreover, if the second set of conditions applies
to both Judaism and Islam, Judaism allows a larger α than Islam (i.e., Judaism is less constrained
than Islam). Finally, an increase in λ implies a larger α for all religions (i.e., a looser constraint on
consumption), provided the second set of conditions applies (i.e., α increasing with increasing µ).
Appendix D. Statistical Results

In this section, I will estimate the significance and size of the impacts of the five main religious
environmental ethics on sustainability by relying on a panel dataset (i.e., 18 years from 2000 to 2017)
around the cross-country dataset discussed in Section 3 (i.e., the single year 2010) and the formulas
introduced in Section 2. In particular, the formulas suggest the need to use a logarithmic transformation
of dependent (i.e., ln EF) and independent (i.e., ln GDP) variables, and then to estimate a linear model.
The dataset suggests a need to introduce dummy variables to identify countries where the majority of
the population believes in a given religion, where the following Pearson’s r values were observed for
these dummy variables: r(BUD, HIN) = -0.19, r(BUD, CHR) = -0.02, r(BUD, ISL) = -0.08, r(BUD, JUD)
= -0.01, r(CHR, HIN) = -0.01, r(CHR, ISL) = -0.50, r(CHR, JUD) = -0.07, r(HIN, ISL) = -0.03, r(HIN,
JUD) = -0.01, and r(ISL, JUD) = -0.03. Note that using EF as a dependent variable implies that negative
signs in the dummy variables mean a positive contribution of a religion to sustainability. In summary,
if µ is normalized to 1 for the sake of simplicity, I will estimate the following equation:
ln EF = [α/(1 − α)](ln GDP − ln U ) + BUD + CHR + HIN + ISL + JUD + ξ

where ξ are estimation residuals. Note that I expect a positive sign of the parameter attached to ln GDP
and a smaller value of the parameter attached to JUD, since ζ = 1 implies that, for Israel, ln U must be
replaced by ln U – λ θ (1/ θ)1-α . The panel estimation results for level impacts of religious environmental
ethics on EF are presented in Table A1. Note that a regression estimation that included a quadratic
term to tightly depict the Kuznets curve produced the same ranking of the dummy values that identify
countries where Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are the majority religions.
Table A1. Panel estimation for level impacts of religious environmental ethics on EF (ecological
footprint) (lnef in log), in addition to the per capita GDP (gross domestic product) (lngdp in log);
budmaj, chrmaj, hinmaj, islmaj, judmaj are dummy variables identifying countries where Buddhism,
Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are majority religions. Number of observations = 4140
with 180 countries, P > F(6, 173) is 0, R2 between estimates = 0.46.
lnef Coef. Std.Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

lngdp 0.2698 0.0238 11.32 0.000 0.2228 0.3169
budmaj −0.1232 0.2337 −0.53 0.599 −0.5846 0.3380
chrmaj 0.0116 0.1453 0.08 0.936 −0.2752 0.2984
hinmaj −0.7714 0.4046 −1.91 0.058 −1.5700 0.0272
islmaj −0.1000 0.1569 −0.64 0.525 −0.4099 0.2097
judmaj 0.3212 0.5580 0.58 0.566 −0.7801 1.4226
cons 0.4857 0.1381 3.51 0.001 0.2129 0.7584
Note that there is no religion with a negative sign that is both strong and significant. In other
words, the positive analysis developed here (i.e., which religion favors sustainability) must be coupled
with the normative analysis developed in Section 4 (i.e., how religions should change to achieve
sustainability). Moreover, the ranking presented in Section 4 is confirmed here, both in terms of
size and significance: HIN > BUD > ISL > JUD > CHR. This ranking is supported by Gutsche [60],
since this paper finds a significant impact of Christianity (i.e., Catholics and Protestants) only for
minor pro-environmental behaviors, such as purchases of food and clothes; but it is in contrast with
Hwang [61], where CHR > BUD, although this paper refers to pro-environmental intentions rather
than observed behaviors. This ranking is partially supported by Arli and Tjiptono [62] (i.e., ISL > CHR)
for impacts of intrinsic religiousness on attitudes towards environmental issues; and it is partially
confirmed by Yang and Huang [63] (i.e., BUD > CHR) for public pro-environmental behaviors, such
as donating to environmental protection, and participating in environmental activities organized
by governmental and non-governmental organizations. Finally, the statistical results confirm the
theoretical insights on Judaism (i.e., a less negative impact on sustainability) and on Christianity (i.e.,
a non-significant impact on sustainability). The OLS estimation results for level impacts of religious
environmental ethics on EF are presented in Table A2.
Table A2. OLS estimation for level impacts of religious environmental ethics on EF (ecological footprint)
(lnef in log), in addition to the per capita GDP (gross domestic product) (lngdp in log); budmaj, chrmaj,
hinmaj, islmaj, judmaj are dummy variables identifying countries where Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam,
Judaism, and Christianity are majority religions. Number of observations = 4140, P > F(6, 4133) is 0,
R2 = 0.39.

lngdp 0.2298 0.0089 25.80 0.000 0.2123 0.2473
budmaj −0.1067 0.0482 −2.21 0.027 −0.2013 −0.0122
chrmaj 0.0381 0.0294 1.30 0.195 −0.0195 0.0958
hinmaj −0.7899 0.0278 −28.40 0.000 −0.8445 −0.7354
islmaj −0.1009 0.0322 −3.13 0.002 −0.1641 −0.0377
judmaj 0.4025 0.0354 1.34 0.000 0.3329 0.4721
cons 0.5366 0.0289 18.53 0.000 0.4798 0.5933
Note that signs of panel estimation for level impacts are confirmed, while significance is increased.
The OLS estimation results for level and dynamic impacts of religious environmental ethics on EF are
presented in Table A3.
Table A3. OLS estimation for level and dynamic impacts of religious environmental ethics on EF
(ecological footprint) (lnef in log), in addition to the per capita GDP (gross domestic product) (lngdp
in log); budmaj, chrmaj, hinmaj, islmaj, judmaj are dummy variables identifying countries where
Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are majority religions, whereas budt, chrt, hint,
islt, judt are these dummy variables multiplied by year. Number of observations = 4140, P > F(11, 4128)
is 0, R2 = 0.40.

lngdp 0.2344 0.0092 25.35 0.000 0.2163 0.2525
budmaj −0.0766 0.0934 −0.82 0.412 −0.2599 0.1066
budt −0.0026 0.0062 −0.42 0.671 −0.0150 0.0096
chrmaj 0.1561 0.0354 4.40 0.000 0.0865 0.2256
chrt −0.0100 0.0018 −5.51 0.000 −0.0136 −0.0065
hinmaj −0.8007 0.0333 −24.04 0.000 −0.8660 −0.7355
hint 0.0010 0.0013 0.83 0.409 −0.0014 0.0036
islmaj −0.0515 0.0499 −1.03 0.303 −0.1495 0.0465
islmt −0.0041 0.0030 −1.37 0.172 −0.0100 0.0017
judmaj 0.4805 0.0387 12. 41 0.000 0.4046 0.5565
judt −0.0072 0.0025 −2.86 0.004 −0.0122 −0.0022
cons 0.5307 0.0292 18.15 0.000 0.4734 0.5880
Note that signs of panel and OLS estimations for level impacts are confirmed, and that Buddhism
and Islam show negative and decreasing impacts on EF, Christianity and Judaism show positive,
but decreasing impacts, Hinduism shows a negative, but increasing impact on EF: This result
is in contrast with Konisky [64], although this paper identifies pro-environmental behavior with
environmental participation.
Appendix E. Sensitivity Analyses
Figure A1. Comparison of the feasibility of religious environmental ethics for achieving sustainability,
with n = 0.9 (i.e., future population smaller than current population) and m = 5 (i.e., a small dignity
of non-human beings). For the parameter constraints, µ ≥ 58.4 for Judaism (i.e., there are no feasible
values of µ); for Islam, µ ≤ 13.3; and for Hinduism or Buddhism, µ ≥ 3.2. Areas in the feasibility space:
For Judaism, 0; for Islam (yellow and light yellow), 10.19; for Hinduism or Buddhism (light yellow and
white area under the increasing curve), 22.79.
Figure A2. Comparison of the effectiveness of achieving sustainability based on religious environmental
ethics (i.e., the potential of each religion to solve the same average global environmental problem),
with n = 0.9 (i.e., future population smaller than current population) and m = 5 (i.e., a small dignity of
non-human beings). Parameter constraints: For Judaism, µ ≥ 25.2; for Islam, µ ≥ 22.6; for Hinduism
or Buddhism, µ ≥ 4.5. Areas in the feasibility space: For Judaism (light green area), 8.93; for Islam
(yellow, light yellow, and light green areas), 11.95; for Hinduism or Buddhism (white area under the
first increasing curve from the left, light yellow and light green areas), 19.07.
Figure A3. Comparison of the replicability of religious environmental ethics (i.e., the potential of each
religion to solve the same environmental problem in countries where the religion is a minority) for
achieving sustainability in pre-industrial economies, with n = 0.9 (i.e., future population smaller than
current population) and m = 5 (i.e., a small dignity of non-human beings). Parameter constraints: For
Judaism, µ ≥ 14.7; for Islam, µ ≤ 13.3; for Hinduism or Buddhism, µ ≥ 2.6. Areas in the feasibility space:
For Judaism (blue and light blue), 30.71; for Islam (yellow and light yellow), 11.91; for Hinduism or
Buddhism (light yellow, light blue, and white area under the first increasing curve from the left), 26.03.
achieving sustainability in industrial economies, with n = 0.9 (i.e., future population smaller than current
population) and m = 5 (i.e., a small dignity of non-human beings). Parameter constraints: For Judaism,
µ ≥ 15.9; for Islam, µ ≥ 17.7; for Hinduism or Buddhism, µ ≥ 3.2. Areas in the feasibility space: For
Judaism (blue and light blue, green and light green areas), 16.81; for Islam (green and light green areas),
20.49; for Hinduism or Buddhism (light green, light blue, and white area under the first increasing
curve from the left), 22.29.
achieving sustainability in post-industrial economies, with n = 0.9 (i.e., future population smaller than
current population) and m = 5 (i.e., a small dignity of non-human beings). Parameter constraints: For
Judaism, µ ≥ 58.3 (i.e., there are no feasible values of µ); for Islam, µ ≥ 52.5 (i.e., there are no feasible
values of µ); for Hinduism or Buddhism, µ ≥ 10.5. Areas in the feasibility space: For Judaism, 0; for
Islam, 0; for Hinduism or Buddhism (white area under the increasing curve), 9.54.
Figure A6. Comparison of the replicability of religious environmental ethics for achieving sustainability
in pre-industrial economies, with n = 1.1 (i.e., future population larger than current population) and
m = 10 (i.e., a large dignity of non-human beings). Parameter constraints: For Judaism, µ ≤ 5.2; for
Islam, µ ≤ 5.7; for Hinduism or Buddhism, µ ≥ 0.6. Areas in the feasibility space: For Judaism (green
and light green areas), 2.82; for Islam (yellow and light yellow, green and light green areas), 3.38; for
Hinduism or Buddhism (light green, light yellow, white area under the increasing curve), 31.38.
in industrial economies, with n = 1.1 (i.e., future population larger than current population) and m = 10
(i.e., a large dignity of non-human beings). Parameter constraints: For Judaism, µ ≥ 15.9; for Islam,
µ ≥ 17.5; for Hinduism or Buddhism, µ ≥ 1.7. Areas in the feasibility space: For Judaism (blue and light
blue, green and light green areas), 21.86; for Islam (green and light green areas), 18.23; for Hinduism or
Buddhism (white area under the first increasing curve from the left, light blue and light green), 22.37.
in post-industrial economies, with n = 1.1 (i.e., future population larger than current population) and
m = 10 (i.e., a large dignity of non-human beings). Parameter constraints: For Judaism, µ ≥ 51.9 (i.e.,
there are no feasible values of µ); for Islam, µ ≥ 56.3 (i.e., there are no feasible values of µ); for Hinduism
or Buddhism, µ ≥ 5.6. Areas in the feasibility space: For Judaism, 0; for Islam, 0; for Hinduism or
Buddhism (white area under the increasing curve), 12.77.
References
1. Jain, P.; Jain, P. Sustainability assessment index: A strong sustainability approach to measure sustainable
human development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2013, 20, 116–122. [CrossRef]
2. Salas-Zapata, W.A.; Rios-Osorio, L.A.; Mejia-Escobar, J.A. Social-ecological resilience and the quest for
sustainability as object of science. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 19, 2237–2252. [CrossRef]
3. Schlör, H.; Fischer, W.; Hake, J.F. The system boundaries of sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 88, 52–60.
[CrossRef]
4. Zagonari, F. Technology improvements and value changes for sustainable happiness: A cross-development
analytical model. Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 687–698. [CrossRef]
5. Zagonari, F. Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: Insights for
the global environment from a cross-development analytical model. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018. [CrossRef]
6. Knauss, S. Conceptualizing human stewardship in the Anthropocene: The rights of nature in Ecuador,
New Zealand and India. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2018, 31, 703–722. [CrossRef]
7. Zagonari, F. Four sustainability paradigms for environmental management: A methodological analysis and
an empirical study based on 30 Italian industries. Sustainability 2016, 8, 504. [CrossRef]
8. Mathevet, R.; Bousquet, F.; Raymond, C.M. The concept of stewardship in sustainability and conservation
biology. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 217, 363–370. [CrossRef]
9. Christoforou, A. On the identity of social capital and the social capital of identity. Camb. J. Econ. 2013, 37,
719–736. [CrossRef]
10. Maintenay, A. A notion of immanent transcendence and its feasibility in environmental ethics.
Worldviews Environ. Cult. Relig. 2011, 15, 268–290. [CrossRef]
11. Simkins, R.A. The Bible, religion, and the environment. In Routledge Handbook of Environmental Anthropology;
Kopnina, H., Shoreman-Ouimet, E., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 144–154.
12. Shoreman-Ouimet, E.; Kopnina, H. Reconciling ecological and social justice to promote biodiversity
conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 184, 320–326. [CrossRef]
13. Kopnina, H. Half the Earth for people (or more)? Addressing ethical questions in conservation. Biol. Conserv.
2016, 203, 176–185. [CrossRef]
14. Kopnina, H.; Washington, H.; Taylor, B.B. The “future of conservation” debate: Defending eco-centrism and
nature needs half movement. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 217, 140–148. [CrossRef]
15. Jenkins, W. After Lynn White: Religious ethics and environmental problems. J. Relig. Ethics 2009, 37, 283–309.
[CrossRef]
16. Lai, P.-C. Interreligious dialogue and environmental ethics. Stud. Interrelig. Dialogue 2011, 21, 5–19.
17. Basedau, M.; Gobien, S.; Prediger, S. The multidimensional effects of religion on socioeconomic development:
A review of the empirical literature. J. Econ. Surv. 2018, 32, 1106–1133. [CrossRef]
18. Dwivedi, O.D. Hindu religion and environmental well-being. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology;
Gottlieb, R.S., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 160–183.
19. Jain, P. Dharmic ecology: Perspectives from the Swadhyaya practitioners. Worldviews Environ. Cult. Relig.
2009, 13, 305–320. [CrossRef]
20. Kala, M.; Sharma, A. Traditional Indian beliefs: A key toward sustainable living. Environmentalist 2010, 30,
85–89. [CrossRef]
21. Smith, F.M. A brief history of Indian religious ritual and resource consumption: Was there an environmental
ethic? Asian Ethnol. 2011, 70, 163–179.
22. Chapple, C.K. Jainism and ecology: Transformation of tradition. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology;
23. Tanner, R.; Mitchell, C. Religion and the Environment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016.
24. Kaza, S. The greening of Buddhism: Promise and perils. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology;
25. Shaw, J. Religion, ‘nature’ and environmental ethics in ancient India: Archaeologies of human: Non-human
suffering and well-being in early Buddhist and Hindu contexts. World Archaeol. 2017, 48, 517–543. [CrossRef]
26. Berthrong, J. Motifs for a new Confucian ecological vision. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology;
27. Clippard, S.D. Zhu Xi and the instrumental value of nature. J. Study Relig. Nat. Cult. 2016, 10, 15–38.
[CrossRef]
28. Harry, C.C. Seeing the unseen: Suggesting points for intersection between Levinasian ethics and the Daoist
reverence for all beings. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2012, 2, 271–274. [CrossRef]
29. Miller, J. Daoism and nature. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology; Gottlieb, R.S., Ed.; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 220–235.
30. Francis, J. Environmental ethics to holistic ontology: A Naessian approach. J. Dharma 2014, 39, 353–367.
31. Tirosh-Samuelson, H. Judaism. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology; Gottlieb, R.S., Ed.; Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 25–64.
32. Riley, M.T. The wicked problem of climate change: Christianity and environmental ethics fifty years after
‘historical roots’. Worldviews Environ. Cult. Relig. 2017, 21, 61–86. [CrossRef]
33. Hart, J. Catholicism. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology; Gottlieb, R.S., Ed.; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 65–91.
34. Schaefer, J. Theological Foundations for Environmental Ethics: Reconstructing Patristic and Medieval Concepts;
Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; pp. 1–323.
35. Warner, K.D. The greening of American Catholicism: Identity, conversion, and continuity. Relig. Am. Cult.
2008, 18, 113–142. [CrossRef]
36. Chryssavgis, J. The Earth as sacrament: Insights from orthodox Christian theology and spirituality. In Oxford
Handbook of Religion and Ecology; Gottlieb, R.S., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 92–114.
37. Cowdin, D. Environmental ethics. J. Theol. Stud. 2008, 69, 164–184. [CrossRef]
38. Santmire, H.P.; Cobb, J.B. The world of nature according to the Protestant tradition. In Oxford Handbook of
Religion and Ecology; Gottlieb, R.S., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 115–146.
39. Simmons, J.A. Evangelical environmentalism: Oxymoron or opportunity? Worldviews Environ. Cult. Relig.
2009, 13, 40–71. [CrossRef]
40. Foltz, R.C. Islam. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology; Gottlieb, R.S., Ed.; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 207–219.
41. Saniotis, A. Muslims and ecology: Fostering Islamic environmental ethics. Contemp. Islam 2012, 6, 155–171.
[CrossRef]
42. Muhammadi, M.; Haftador, H.R. Basic principles of environmental ethics in Islamic discourse.
Adv. Environ. Biol. 2014, 8, 947–952.
43. Aboul-Enein, B.H. “The earth is your mosque”: Narrative perspectives of environmental health and education
in the Holy Quran. J. Environ. Study Sci. 2018, 8, 22–31. [CrossRef]
44. Grim, J.; Tucker, M.E. Ecology and Religion; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 1–265.
45. Zagonari, F. (Moral) philosophy and (moral) theology can function as (behavioral) science: A methodological
framework for interdisciplinary research. Qual. Quant. 2019, 53, 3131–3158. [CrossRef]
46. Clements, J.M. Measuring actual payment for biodiversity protection: The influence of religiously and
scientifically framed messages. Worldviews Environ. Cult. Relig. 2018, 22, 263–288. [CrossRef]
47. Lakhan, C. The garbage gospel: Using the theory of planned behavior to explain the role of religious
institutions in affecting pro-environmental behavior among ethnic minorities. J. Environ. Educ. 2018, 49,
43–58. [CrossRef]
48. Intahphuak, S.; Pamala, N.; Yodkhong, B.; Buakhiao, A. Religion role on community movement for solid
waste management. J. Solid Waste Technol. Manag. 2017, 43, 321–327. [CrossRef]
49. Clements, J.M. The influence of religiously and scientifically framed messages on agreement with water use
restrictions. Soc. Sci. 2016, 5, 76. [CrossRef]
50. Adriance, P.; Aiken, W.; Brown, P.; Carmichael, C.; Coddington, N.; Dobb, R.F.; Novick, R.; Rausch, F.J.;
Swartz, R.D.; Wood, J. Religion in a sustainable world: What is the role of religious institutions in fostering
ecological sustainability? Ecopsychology 2010, 2, 5–11. [CrossRef]
51. Alonso, E.B.; Houssa, R.; Verpoorten, M. Voodoo versus fishing committees: The role of traditional and
contemporary institutions in fisheries management. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 122, 61–70. [CrossRef]
52. Gupta, N.; Kanagavel, A.; Dandekar, P.A.; Dahanukar, N.; Sivakumar, K.; Mathur, V.B.; Raghavan, R. God’s
fishes: Religion, culture and freshwater fish conservation in India. Oryx 2016, 50, 244–249. [CrossRef]
53. Tucker, M.E. Can science and religion respond to climate change? Zygon 2015, 50, 949–961. [CrossRef]
54. De-Shalit, A. Environmental policies and justice between generations: On the need for a comprehensive
theory of justice between generations. Eur. J. Political Res. 1992, 21, 307–316. [CrossRef]
55. Pedersen, K.P. Religious ethics and the environment: A review essay. J. Relig. Ethics 2015, 43, 558–585.
[CrossRef]
56. Olupona, J. Religion and ecology in African culture and society. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology;
57. Grim, J.A. Indigenous tradition. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology; Gottlieb, R.S., Ed.; Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 283–309.
58. Tucker, M.E. Religion and ecology: Survey of the field. In Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology; Gottlieb, R.S.,
Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 398–418.
59. White, L. The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 1967, 155, 1203–1207. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Gutsche, G. Individual and regional Christian religion and the consideration of sustainable criteria in
consumption and investment decisions: An exploratory econometric analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 157,
1155–1182. [CrossRef]
61. Hwang, H. Do religion and religiosity affect consumers’ intentions to adopt pro-environmental behaviour?
Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 664–674. [CrossRef]
62. Arli, D.; Tjiptono, F. God and green: Investigating the impact of religiousness on green marketing. Int. J.
Non-Profit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2017, 22, e1578. [CrossRef]
63. Yang, Y.; Huang, S. Religious beliefs and environmental behaviours in China. Religions 2018, 9, 72. [CrossRef]
64. Konisky, D.M. The greening of Christianity? A study of environmental attitudes over time. Environ. Politics
2017, 27, 267–291. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 12 02590 v2 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sustainability 12 02590 v2 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

sustainability

Keywords: environmental ethics; religion; sustainability; mathematical model; statistical analysis

Sustainability 2020, 12, 2590; doi:10.3390/su12072590 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

1. To empirically assess whether sustainability solutions based on religious environmental ethics

2. The Theoretical Framework

2.1. Hinduism (Including Jainism)

Wi = (λHIN Ei )α (µ/Ei )1−α s.t. Ei ≤ θ/m and Wi ≥ wHIN

With m ≥ 1. Thus, solutions can be represented as follows:

ln[wHIN ] − ln[(µ m)/θ]

Jainism provides precepts on non-violence, not-stealing, and non-possession.

2.2. Buddhism (Including Confucianism and Daoism)

Wi = (λBUD Ei )α (µ/Ei )ν s.t. Ei ≤ θ/m, Ei ≤ eBUD , Wi ≥ wBUD

Max W s.t. Wi ≥ wJUD and Ei ≤ θ with ζ = 1 and ε = 0

The solutions can be represented as follows:

2.4. Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestantism)

Max WC s.t. Wi ≥ w with ε = 0

θ/Ei s.t. Ei ≤ s and Wi ≥ w

Thus, sustainability is achieved if s ≤ θ.

Wi = (λ Ei )α (µ/Ei )1−α and Ei ≤ e and Wi ≥ w

with a large µ and a small α. Thus, sustainability is achieved if e ≤ θ.

Thus, solutions can be represented as follows:

2.6. Summary of Religious Environmental Ethics

Religion Objectives Constraints Parameters

3. Data and Standardizations

I obtained the following main insights:

4.2. Sustainability at Average World Levels of GDP and EF

Figure 2. Comparison of the effectiveness of achieving sustainability based on religious environmental

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2590/s1.

Appendix A. The Mathematical Model

Wi [Xi (Ei ), Yi (Ei )] = Xi α Yi ν

Appendix B. Some Sacred Statements

Appendix D. Statistical Results

ln EF = [α/(1 − α)](ln GDP − ln U ) + BUD + CHR + HIN + ISL + JUD + ξ

lnef Coef. Std.Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

lnef Coef. Std.Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

lnef Coef. Std.Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

Appendix E. Sensitivity Analyses

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen