SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 24 - 27, 2013, Denver, CO

Preprint 13-049

NATURE FRIENDLY SUSTAINABILITY: MINING

M. Javier, EnviroMine, Denver, CO

N. Y. Chang, Univ. of Colorado, Denver, CO

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

CONCLUSIONS
• Sustainability is the management of the future of both mankind
and nature. This new concept of nature friendly sustainability will
transform the way businesses are conducted. Human cannot
make sustainable Earth but only sustainable society.
• Human is only capable of sustaining a society that lasts as long
as the human dictates. To assure human longevity our habits
must change to conform to the need to maintain a healthy
provider, nature.
• Education will play a major role in the promulgation and
implementation of NFS.
• Sustainable mankind and sustainable industries need sustainable
nature. To achieve this requires intense collaborative efforts from
all parts of society: people, businesses and government aiming at
correcting the mistakes resulted from the past anthropogenic
activities. If no action is taken now, the humankind is destined to
extinction. So, “Let’s do it!”
REFERENCES
[1] Brundtland Commission, Definition of Sustainability, United
Nations 1987, www.un.org
[2] Webster, Donovan , “Gold Fever,” Smithsonian Magazine, pp 38
to 51, Volume 42, No. 10, February 2012. www.smithonia.com
[3] Javier, Mauro, “Management by loss” SME 2008,
www.smenet.org

6 Copyright © 2013 by SME