Following links to any other off-site pages or other Web sites shall be at your own risk. Neither information nor any opinion expressed in this website constitutes a solicitation, an offer or a recommendation to buy, sell or dispose of any investment, to engage in any other transaction or to provide any investment advice or service. None of the services, investments or mutual funds referred to in this site are available, and prospectuses in respect of them will not be distributed, to persons resident in any country, state or jurisdiction where such distribution would be contradictory to local law or regulation.
Eligibility for a particular product or service is subject to review and approval by the Bank and are only offered in jurisdictions where they may be lawfully offered for sale. All products and services are subject to the terms of the applicable agreement. Prospective investors should consult with their financial adviser, local Regulator or Authority to determine if these securities may lawfully be sold in their jurisdiction. Access to the information contained on this Web site may be restricted by laws and regulations applicable to the user.
Opinions and any other contents on the site are subject to change without notice. The information contained in this Website may not be considered as investment, legal, tax or any other type of advice and should not be used to trigger any investment decision or other. This site may also contain such logos and trademarks of a third party, in which case it is also prohibited to use these marks without that party's consent. The content contained in this site is protected by copyright law.
Any unauthorized use of this information may be punishable by law. We are honored that you are considering us to be your partner in your investment matters. We would appreciate if you can fill out the form below so we can contact you as soon as possible. Meet the Bank. What's new Mission To provide the best investment solutions in the market, matching them to the risk profile of each Client.
Independence The Bank has no conflict of interest with Clients: its financial products are sourced exclusively from an open architecture and it has no proprietary investments. Innovation Across the entire organization, from the management model to services, processes, systems and products. The leading principle that guides our relationship with Clients, upholding diversification and ongoing evaluation of the risk profile compatible with the portfolio.
The Bank has no conflict of interest with Clients: its financial products are sourced exclusively from an open architecture and it has no proprietary investments. Across the entire organization, from the management model to services, processes, systems and products. Services Benefitting from a strong background in asset management, we specialise in providing private banking services to Individual and Institutional Clients.
Advisory Discretionary Execution. Advisory This service is suitable for Clients with financial market knowledge wishing to participate in the decision-making process for their investment.
Stages of advisory services. Discretionary This service is designed for Clients who choose to instruct the Bank to carry out the overall management of their investments.
Execution This service is oriented in particular towards Clients who want to keep close control of their investment decisions due to a deep understanding of the financial markets and experience, or due to an unwillingness to take risks.
The Bank serves as a platform to carry out orders and as a technical counterparty, available to make suggestions and to discuss important scenarios in your decision process From "expert to expert" level. Your name. Your e-mail address.
Message I would like to know more about the different Risk Profiles and importance of the Risk Profile. Message I would like to know more about the Products and counterparts the bank works with.
External Asset Managers. Services include:. About Us We value transparency and an effective communication with our Clients, prospects and stakeholders regarding relevant issues about our corporate life. Annual Reports Best Executive Policy. Top 5 Execution Venue Reporting.
Board of Directors Executive Committee Organization. Board of Directors. Jean-Luc Herbez Vice-chairman Independent. Henri Vanni Director Independent. Rui Coimbra Director - Group Representative. Mr Herbez has extensive experience in commercial, corporate, banking and securities law. His practice includes all the contractual, regulatory, finance, audit and litigation aspects of commercial law, as well as complex economic disputes and litigation, advising both domestic and international clients.
He was admitted to the Bar in Switzerland in He is currently a member of several boards of directors in industries from healthcare to private banking. He founded and managed the Geneva office for McKinsey from to , and has advised major companies in the pharmaceutical, consumer, and finance sectors.
Holding a Ph. After this, he became an independent economist focusing mainly in the banking and insurance sector. He also teached Public Finance during more than 10 years at Geneva University.
In May Mr. A overseeing all the risk areas of the Bank since In May , Mr. Executive Committee. He is responsible for the areas of Compliance, Finance and Trading.
Raoul started his career in in an audit company and worked for several Private Banks in audit, finance, IT and organization. He holds a Master's degree in finance from University of Geneva, and attended several Executive Programs, both in Management and Banking. It is as well responsible to set up the individual compensation of the Members of Executive Management of the Bank.
The Group is a leading institution in Europe and Africa and has a presence in numerous countries, where it operates under the Millennium brand. Take a look at the map to find out the countries where the Group is present and click here to read more about the Group. South Africa. Research Weekly. Research Asset Allocation. The problem is thinking small.
Filter by More News. It is the first time in modern times that an economic recession is caused by a virus. In case of need for further explanations, please contact your Private Banker. For further questions, please contact directly your Private Banker. Nature, , Defila, R.
Evaluating transdisciplinary research. Farley, J. Conserving mangrove eco- systems in the Philippines: Transcending disciplinary and institutional borders.
Envi- ronmental Management, 45, 39— Farrell, K. Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Book review. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, —, 13 1 , 75— Frame, B. Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability. Eco- logical Economics, 65 2 , — Funtowicz, S.
Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25 7 , — Gibbons, M. The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage. Hummel, D. Frankfurt am Main, www. Jahn, T. In: Bergmann, M. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. GAIA, 22 1 , 29— Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization.
Ecological Economics, 79, 1— Jantsch, E. Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Education and Innovation. In: CERI eds. Problems of Teaching and Research in Uni- versities. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 97— Kajikawa, Y. Research core and framework of sustainability science.
Sustainability Science, 3, — Sustainability science. Nature, , — Kauffman, J. Sustainability Science, 4, — Klein, J. Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A litera- ture review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, — Komiyama, H. Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustainability Science, 1, 1—6. Rickels, W. Gezielte Eingriffe in das Klima?
Eine Bes- tandsaufnahme der Debatte zu Climate Engineering. Kiel: Kiel Earth Institute, www. Rittel, H. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, — Schellnhuber, H. Earth System Analysis for Sustainability.
Cambridge: MIT Press. Schneidewind, U. An institutional reform agenda for the establishment of trans- disciplinary sustainability research. GAIA, 19 2 , — Learning ex-post: Towards a simple method and set of questions for the self-evaluation of transdisciplinary research.
GAIA, 17 2 , — Steinfeld, J. Education for sustainable development: The challenge of trans-disciplinarity. Sustainability Science, 4, 1—2. Thompson Klein, J. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity. US Committee of Scientists Washington, DC: U. Department of Agriculture. Designing trans-disciplinary research to support policy formulation for sustainable agricultural development.
Ecological Econom- ics, 67 3 , 52— Verweij, M. Clumsy solutions for a complex world. Public Administration, 84, — Weinstein, M. Sustainability science: The emerging paradigm and the ecology of cities. Ziegler, R. The quality of sustainability science — A philosophical perspec- tive. Funding by itself does not legitimize sustainability science.
Rather, it calls for reflection on such scientific activities, their key features, and the reasons for them. There is also sustainability science in the sense that there are scientists who regard themselves as sustainability scientists and who claim to do such science. However, neither funding nor a mere presumption to do science is sufficient to establish a scientific field. Sustainability science must continuously reflect on its practice and its key features, to avoid becoming unduly doctrinaire.
To this end, we raise from a philosophical perspective four questions regarding key features of sustainability science. How these questions are dealt with strongly influences the quality of sustainability science. Put briefly, these four features concern the explica- tion and articulation of values and principles normativity , addressing the tem- poral relation of the research to what is at stake urgency , the justified inclusion of nonscientists participation , and the joint research of natural and social sci- entists interdisciplinarity.
These features make sustainability science difficult to evaluate according to the standards of disciplinary science, especially of the natural sciences. The overall field of sustainability science, with its explicit inclusion of normative consider- ations, seems to rest on shaky ground by the standards of many other disciplinary approaches.
Philosophical considerations, in particular from the philos- ophy of science, can contribute to this task. As important as the development of indicators and tool sets for evaluation is the philosophical task of examining major presuppositions of sustainability science and their justifications.
Our approach aims at deep and comprehensive questioning in sustainability science: depth with respect to each feature, comprehensiveness as covering all major features. We first introduce a famous example to demonstrate that the philosophy of science plays a role by co-structuring the debate in sustainability science. Our illustration is the ongoing dispute between weak and strong sustainability.
In addition, we demon- strate this to be an uptake of philosophy of science that leads to a conceptually problematic way of framing the debate. Philosophy of science so conceived is enabling and its attempt to pose the relevant questions is one contribution to a critical self-understanding for sustainability scientists. Rather than uncritically stating certain features, we reexamine why and under what conditions features are justified, thereby improving the quality of the research.
Finally, we draw some tentative conclusions for the emerging culture of sustain- ability science. Framing issues — The difficult heritage of philosophy of science The relevance of philosophy of science for the way questions are asked in sustain- ability science can be demonstrated via the discussion of weak and strong sustain- ability. Therefore, there can be no unambiguous support for either weak sustainability or strong sustainability.
Nor can it be settled by empirical inquiry. Can the paradigms of WS or SS be falsified? This question as Neumayer also indicates via his references points directly to two seminal contributors to the philosophy of science: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. The specification of this scientific method, Popper argues, allows science to be distinguished from pseudoscience the so-called demarcation problem.
Popper believed fields such as psychoanalysis or scientific socialism belong in the domain of pseudoscience because they do not follow the scientific method. Popper did not describe how the fabric of science works in its day-to-day routines.
His phi- losophy of science is prescriptive, since it tells courageous scientists how they should proceed, a method, Popper believed, that would bring about scientific progress in the long run. On the one hand, scientists should advance bold and risky hypotheses and, on the other hand, they should attempt to derive empiri- cal predictions from these conjectures and seek to refute them. A proposition is only scientific if it is possible to falsify it.
Thus, if neither WS nor SS can be properly falsified, both concepts would not belong to the realm of scientific knowledge. The situation looks less painful for sustainability science if empirical falsification is perceived as a special case of refutation. There are many controversies that cannot be settled by empirical falsification of risky predications derived from a theory. For example, ethicists may refute specific claims by means of analysis of the concepts and the internal coherence of a theory Neumayer himself engages in this kind of logical argumentation.
Here, nonempirical shortcomings such as circularity, non sequitur, self-contradiction, absurd implications, and so forth count as counterargu- ments. There are thus plausible refutations beyond empirical falsification.
A paradigm in this sense includes generalizations along with preferred instruments and methods. It is furthermore structured by ontological commitments about elements and concepts and pow- ered by the faith that nature can be fit into the box of the paradigm via puzzle solving such as the often brilliant work of more elegant theory formulation and extension or more precise measurements.
Kuhn describes the social structure of science as one of particular scientific communities that are constituted by a shared faith in a paradigm. In his view, the scientific community is the supreme authority for validating and assessing scien- tific claims. Scientific claims are adopted and rejected according to criteria that stem from the paradigm itself. Students are initiated into the scientific commu- nity via textbooks, academic study programs, and laboratory training, and they adopt basic axioms, concepts, and mindsets.
Specialized conferences and peer- reviewed journals make it possible to assure the quality of research done within the community. In such ways, normal science becomes established.
From a Popperian perspec- tive, the structural process of science is one of conjecture and refutation with falsification as the selection, or rather elimination, criterion. From a Kuhnian perspective, scientific work mostly takes place in paradigm-based normal sci- ence.
There will be scientific revolutions and new paradigms will emerge and take hold according to Kuhn, but the selection criterion for the new paradigm is not one of falsification. Moreover, falsification plays little role for faith-based normal science. Moreover, this uptake of the philosophy of science has further problematic impli- cations. There are two readings of this claim.
A corrupt politician does not falsify the validity of anticorruption legislation. The Popperian language of risky predictions and falsifications, and its classic example relativity theory , tempts us to exclude or ignore genuine ethical methods of refutation.
Emotiv- ism is by no means an uncontested metaethical theory, as it cannot distinguish between the convincing force of reason and the persuasive force of rhetoric Ott Under emotivist premises, the question of how the quality of ethical reflec- tion within sustainability science might be assessed becomes somewhat pointless or must be replaced by interviews about how well and badly people feel within a given project.
If the project were performed in a good mood, the ethical quality would be high. Given this consequence, we would not like to adopt an emotive approach to assess quality in the ethical dimension of sustainability science.
But it would be unscientific not to use the methods proper to ethics. Because the debate between WS and SS depends strongly on ethical arguments about our responsibility to future generations, about precautionary motives, and about our relationship to the natural environment, excluding normative propositions from method-based investigation amounts to a problematic way of posing the question — more pre- cisely, to an incomprehensive way.
One might abstract them away in the routines of individual projects, but one should not overlook them in basic debates.
If sustainability science is to stand for a distinctive way of doing science, the philosophical dimensions of this mode need to be considered. The point, however, is not to uncritically accept their philosophies, but to reconsider them in the respective context. In the next sections, we therefore deal with their heritage for thinking about key features of sustainability science.
By doing so, we follow the pathway Neumayer has opened, but add that there are different viable pathways for the framing of questions in sustainability science.
Sustainability science In this section, we wish to deepen the understanding of our four key features of sustainability science that its practitioners have identified as distinguishing sus- tainability science in a particular, and even peculiar, way. If so, any concept of sustainability must clarify notions and theories of justice with respect to development.
This clarification is by no means an easy task and we will return to it below. Urgency: A commitment to the fulfillment of human needs in a world where even the basic requirements of a large part of the human population are often not met implies a dimension of urgency.
There is an ethical supposition in claims of urgency: as moral persons, we are not neutral to whether a specific problem might be addressed now, in some decades, or even in centuries. Fermat stated a theorem in the seventeenth century, but did not dis- close the proof.
The patience of the puzzle solver is a virtue. Meanwhile, down on earth, there is suffering, injustice, and devastation of the biosphere. The puzzle-solving scientific attitude can abstract away from such pressing concerns, transforming them into private opinions a scientist may or may not hold.
However, in the case of sustainability science these moral concerns are intrinsic. Those whose needs are to be met may simply no longer be alive in the long run. There is still another aspect of urgency: in the case of climate change the risks associated with waiting for better science might simply be judged too high.
A purely scientific attitude can become a source of risk in sustainability science. Funding bodies might even require the satisfaction of this condition. As Kates et al.
The inclusion of nonscientists and its justification is further discussed below. Typical tools for such attempts are scenario techniques that depend on information and causal mechanisms from natural and social sciences.
Another example might be coupled models that shed some light on the interactions between human and natural systems. In the subsequent sections, we discuss the questions raised by these features and their contribution to the quality of sustainability science.
In doing so, we further engage with the weak and strong sustainability debate and its framing in our attempt to contribute to a critical and enabling philosophy of science. Why include nonscientists? This approach specifically focuses on the inclusion of nonscientists as a matter of extended peer review. Postnormal science is explicitly situated in a sustainabil- ity context: The new global environmental issues. Data are. On the basis of such uncertain inputs, decisions must be made. Put differently, the Kuhnian community structure, which gives the scientific com- munity supreme authority, no longer applies.
As Funtowicz and Ravetz note, this can be observed as a simple matter of external pressure. However, there is also a separate series of arguments for the inclusion of nonscientists in sustainability science. Thus, the inclusion of nonscientists might be relevant for both problem formulation and for contextual knowledge application.
Because biases must remain unnoticed to be biases, the antidote against biases must come from outside. The inclusion of nonscientists can serve as an antidote against specialization and can help expose the limits of science.
For instances, scientists are often ignorant about history while history plays an important role for local people. Again, outside perspectives not so constrained can be helpful in engaging in such criticism. Laypersons do not have blind faith in science and often challenge scientific claims.
In this way, the scientific virtue of a critical attitude is turned against science from the outside. It is the tanker of science at sea and it is difficult to change its course once it has picked up speed. Research programs involve significant human and monetary invest- ments and paradigm work on measuring and theory articulation is likely to have a long-term perspective. As a result, scientists as a community may have difficulty being alert to novel challenges that do not easily fit into their theoretical outlook.
Nonscientists are not so constrained; hence, they can serve the function of communicating novel issues, thereby possibly making the ship of science more responsive. Imagination is, like prudence or even wisdom, not only found among scientists. To the extent that people most affected by environmental issues are not generally scientists, the care argument is sociologically plausible: those most affected are likely to care the most, and hence care that the policy instrument or similar is appropriate.
Because of this, the ultimate decision is up to her informed consent. In similar ways, local stakeholders have to cope with the consequences of projects designed by scientific experts. For example, if a scientific report, however brilliant, misses the window of opportunity provided by an election cycle, it might be practically useless. Here, too, the inclusion of nonscientists may offer insight.
Nonsci- entists who are informed and have the necessary influence can help effectively communicate or even implement a policy proposal Bergmann However, as Funtowicz and Ravetz note, values are in dispute.
Precisely for this reason, it seems important to make this dispute public and not to leave science with the decision of which values to prioritize Renn The inclusion of non- scientists can contribute to this end. Scientists as such are not experts in value judgments. Ethicists may offer skills for the investigation of norma- tive intuitions and their implications, historians may offer insight into the contexts of such intuitions, and so forth.
However, here too bias and limited self-criticism can pertain. Scientists should not have ultimate authority in moral matters. These various arguments partly complement one other, and may also be in many contexts quasi-independent. It is conceivable that in a context concerning basic needs, the value dimension is trivial and uncontroversial.
This does not mean that there is no value dimension in this context, but only that it may jus- tifiably fade into the background as far as the possible inclusion of nonscientists is concerned. More generally, it seems that some set of these arguments ought to be made explicit for the specific context of the sustainability project at hand. Put differently, for each sustainability science research project with nonscientists included, the various epistemological, political, and normative relations between scientists and nonscientists ought in principle be made explicit.
They are not always the same: they may not always have the same weight and the design con- sequences the question of how nonscientists are included or participate are accordingly also likely to vary. These reasons indicate that one criterion for the quality of sustainability sci- ence is an explicit rationale for the inclusion of nonscientists in a given project. In terms of the evaluation of sustainability science projects, this point concerns especially ex ante and intermediary evaluations.
In his discussion, Neumayer does not explicitly take this feature into account for his problem formulation, but where he implicitly notes it, it sug- gests a tendency in favor of strong sustainability. For example, discussing climate change, he notes that voters and politicians who favour decisive and urgent action. Neumayer [] The dogma of participation The establishment of sustainability science noted at the beginning of this article also means that some funders mandate the participation of nonscientists.
In such cases, inclusion does not need to be justified, but becomes an expectation or sim- ply a dogma of sustainability science. However, one can endorse the nine reasons just mentioned and remain critical of dogmatic ways to perform participation for the sake of funding requirements.
We may face such dogma if participation and inclusion seem to be mere add-ons to a given project, are disconnected to the scientific objectives, or do not rely on a sound concept. For this reason, Wolfgang Zierhofer and Paul Burger have a valid point when they question whether the inclusion of nonscientists in transdisciplinary research always serves epistemic ends.
They conclude that transdisciplinary research should not be considered a distinct mode of knowledge production. More- over, their conclusion seems to be the consequence of a formal description of transdisciplinary research that does not specify a domain of investigation, which could be numbers as in mathematics, life as in biology, the commitment to sus- tainability as in sustainability science, and so forth.
These domains of investi- gation stand for distinct epistemic ends What is number? What is life? What is sustainability? For example, sus- tainability science focuses on the promotion of normative sustainability goals and to this end on an improved understanding of nature—society relations.
The inclusion of nonscientists can serve this end see the previous list of arguments. Therefore, transdisciplinary research in conjunction with a domain of investiga- tion does seem to yield distinct modes of knowledge production.
They benefit from a dogma of participation and here the inclusion of nonscientists may not serve epistemic ends.
But sustainability scientists should examine what relation- ships between scientists and nonscientists may promote the issue at hand. There- fore, in our view a criterion for the quality of sustainability science is an explicit statement why nonscientists are included and a clear concept of how participa- tion should be performed and how the results should contribute to the overall results.
Why the pathos of urgency? The temporal horizon We tend to think that whether a geometric proof is valid is independent from its discovery by Greek, Indian, or other mathematicians. The context of discovery is distinct from the context of justification. According to this view, it is the rea- soning for a scientific claim that counts, not its timing. We say that a scientific claim is valid if it can be shown to be a condition of the world, according to a specific observation or laboratory method that verifies or confirms the claim this method usually involves a specific community structure for confirmation and tes- timony of experiments and observations.
Such conditions of the world can have a temporal reference. For example, the passenger pigeon — once an abundant species in North America — is supposed to have become extinct in the early twen- tieth century. A scientific claim or entire set of claims can involve a reference to a specific time or to a temporal dynamic such as the once abundant passenger pigeon becoming extinct.
However, such temporal references are irrelevant with respect to the validity of the scientific claims. For example, predictions and forecasts regarding single events and dynam- ics of stocks are frequently related to human options.
If global temperature is likely to increase by two degrees within the next generation, this can affect environmental security for example, shelter due to increased risks of floods. Accordingly, there can be questions of mitigation fight temperature increase and adaptation improve shelter. As the adaptation example shows, the rele- vance of scientific claims is not dependent on the human capacity to influence the occurrence of an event or the pattern of a dynamic.
In any case, sustain- ability science is interested in the dynamics of specific stocks and flows over time. As in the case of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the dynamics of increase give reason to claim that mitigation is urgent. If a lake is close to collapse or a species is near extinction, action is urgent.
Many stocks are goods that are components of the overall fair bequest package we owe to future generations. If so, sustainability science must schedule the relationship between stocks and time. A normative approach to the kinetics of stocks is required. Quite often, there will be a window of opportunity.
We can call this the kairos, the opportunity to act. The quality of sustainability science is codependent on an explicit way of deal- ing with urgency: How do stocks change over time? What are the temporal win- dows? How can long-term objectives be combined prudently with first steps and a transition period? In our view, these questions do not necessitate a departure from sound scientific standards, but augment them. The pathos of urgency as such clearly does not make any claim a scientific one.
Scenarios being presented in a context of urgency must in principle be open to disciplinary scrutiny and cri- tique. Even the claims of urgency themselves must be open for refutation. What is required is the explicit contextualization of scientific claims and practices in a temporal framing of dynamics and events.
Whether a scientific claim is consid- ered as evidence and a reason for action is ultimately an ethical question. This establishes a double link to the inclusion of nonscientists: Who decides on ethi- cal stakes? Who has knowledge of and influence on windows of opportunity for action?
These questions, we submit, also need to be asked for the weak versus strong sustainability debate. Consider the example of energy substitution, such as the substitution of nonrenewable oil with renewable solar energy that Neumayer discusses.
There are optimistic scenarios that suggest substitution is possible and there are pessimistic scenarios that put the possibility of substitution into doubt. With regard to urgency, WS would likely rely on economic wisdom about how depreciation of a resource motivates the search for substitutes, while SS would recommend political measures to speed up such substitution.
Only with these ques- tions addressed can we discuss and compare which energy scenarios we would like to base our decision on. Ethico-temporal urgency is a condition of asking the question.
The quality of sustainability science 55 Why must various disciplines work together? As a minimum question of quality, the various scientists working on the respective issue should be included Jahn For example, research on a problem with floods requires hydrological and possibly climato- logical knowledge, but also political knowledge regarding the societal actors and their coalitions.
A closely related second question of quality is the hierarchy of the disciplines involved. Does one discipline define the problem and simply add the other dis- ciplines so that the basic perspective on the problem is essentially disciplinary compare the example below? If there is a hierarchy, what is the reason? One nonhierarchical approach is to start from the societal problem rather than the scientific puzzle of a discipline.
Scenario techniques and models can serve as tools for joint work in this sense. Scenario techniques are one example of a family of models, which suggests a joint method for various sciences.
Moreover, scenarios and other tools can themselves be included in integrated sustainability approaches, such as the embedded cases study approach for sustainability learn- ing Scholz et al.
In light of the discussion of urgency and scientific validity, we need to recall that problem-oriented science is not something different from scientific prac- tice and its methods, data, observations, and so forth. In establishing a knowl- edge base, sustainability science consumes the results of scientific research.
It frequently relies on normal science. Therefore, sustainability science is hard to reconcile with philosophies of science that are highly critical of modern science. A third question of quality in this category is whether sustainability science pro- duces results that are communicable or translatable into specific disciplines and open to the critique and scrutiny of disciplinary science and its systems of peer review. Both paradigms presup- pose some ideas of how humans and natural systems are related.
We here make three observations with respect to the nature—society relation: 1 The definitions of weak sustainability, strong sustainability see above , and of natural capital15 and their terminology originate in economic thought about investments, substitutes, complements, capital, and so forth.
Thus, it is already a challenge to translate the weak versus strong debate into a genu- ine debate of social and natural science. Endogenous growth is in principle unlimited. The second paradigm conceives of the economy as a subset of the biosphere and claims that economic growth cannot be explained without reference to the enveloping biophysical system that also limits economic growth.
The anom- aly in the Kuhnian sense is the problem of substitution the old neoclassical paradigm is pushed to defend the increasingly contested claim that natural resources and services are substitutable. Prima facie, the paradigm of eco- logical economists necessitates nature—society integration due to its image of the economy as a subset of the biosphere.
Its paradigmatic image is one that fits well with respect to sustainability science, whereas the same cannot be said, at least at first sight, with respect to neoclassical economics. He subjects the four premises of weak sustain- ability to the logical and empirical objections of opponents,17 concluding that SS proponents cannot decisively refute WS because their objections are inconclusive or logically flawed.
But there is no complementary examina- tion of the premises of strong sustainability. Therefore, the burden of proof is not applied in an evenhanded manner. We submit that the normative considerations, along with the observation that this very debate has a disciplinary bias it is in the first place posited as an eco- nomic debate, in which ecologists do not really have a say , suggest a reasonable argument in favor of strong sustainability.
The evidence is that ecologists clearly tend toward the nonsubstitution view see e. MEA Indeed, some of them might not accept the terms of the debate as meaningful to begin with. How could life-supporting ecosystems possibly be substitutable? Even minute artificial biosphere projects have failed. Why do ethical considerations matter? Even for Popperians, as we noted above, scientific method is not reduced to empir- ical falsification.
It is all the more important not to simply ignore normative ques- tions because they are not falsifiable via risky predictions. Normativity is a key feature of sustainability science.
Under a broad conception of science as in the continental tradition of Wissenschaft this is not as problematic as under a narrow conception of science. Many disciplines are intrinsically related to and connected with ethical questions e. Both print and online versions of their textbooks are divided into student and instructor editions.
Of course, you probably need the McGraw-Hill Connect answers. Sample Assignment. The Atlas gives you a panoramic overview of the grand sweep of history. Go to connected. Buy, rent or sell. Reference is a digital publisher dedicated to answering the questions of students and lifelong learners.
Online Textbook. What makes a great world history textbook? Thorough scholarship and an engaging story Glencoe World History is a full-survey world history program authored by a world-renowned historian, Jackson Spielvogel, and the National Geographic Society.
McGraw Hill - Because learning changes everything. You get to learn all sorts of information about the world including other countries, oceans, continents, rivers, cultures, governments, and more. Locate and label major landforms such as mountain ranges, deserts, and bodies of water. Glencoe Mcgraw Hill World History Worksheets Using our fully online world history textbook course offers convenience, fun video lessons, outstanding instructors, and relief from back pain!
Using the Course Using the course is simple. Mcgraw Hill Networks World History and Geography Worksheet Answers as Well as 28 gillett , world architecture illustrated history trewin copplestone , world geography textbook answer keys , worldHigh School. History of Writing In about BC temple officials in Sumer develop a reliable and lasting method of keeping track of the animals and other goods which are the temple's wealth.
This series is offered in a blended print and digital format. The H-World website and online network is used among some practitioners of world history, and allows discussions among scholars, announcements, syllabi, bibliographies and book reviews.
There are 47 slides in this presentation and organized by lessons in the textbook. The exam is designed to measure your knowledge of world history and your ability to think historically.
Why It Matters Now. It is a branch of the humanities or social sciences. To save them, you probably will need to right click on the link and save it to your computer.
The key questions answered by all economic systems are: What and how much is to be produced? How are these goods and services produced? Who gets the goods and services that are produced? The McGraw Connect doesn't have answer keys. McGraw-Hill Education is a learning science company that delivers personalized learning experiences that help students, parents, educators and professionals drive results. McGraw Hill Science has one book per grade that covers grade-appropriate units.
Even though they are time-consuming, complete the Diagnostic and Resources, ideas, and stories for PreK educators. All links are deemed relevant and are not placed merely for profit. Welcome to myNGconnect, your one-stop portal for online materials available with your favorite National Geographic Learning instructional programs.
It is a web site exactly where men or women can talk to thoughts and everyday people can reply to questions. Shop now. Posted: 2 days ago McGraw Hill Education Company History A leader in educational texts, teaching tools, and innovations for over years. One Book in hand with all the information you need is like the god on the earth for IAS examination Aspirants.
Science Questions and Answers from Chegg.
0コメント