Pragmatism and Sustainability: towards an economically reasonable and pro-environment scientific change

Sustainability is a continuous process that takes into consideration human needs and environmental limitations. Whereas it requires committed citizens capable of developing a constant awareness of complex scenarios and changes, the current generation cannot keep waiting for general agreements without making a stand. Under such time restriction, what kind of science do we need for a sustainable future? The academic debate is full of alternative arguments and positions. From social change to processoriented approaches, many scholars seem to converge to the so-called Mode 2 paradigm of knowledge creation. In the following paper, in order to have a sustainable future, the author thinks science must also encompass an economicoriented approach, so that it becomes guided by pragmatic efforts that would allow behavioral changes without compromising life quality and the possibility of social mobility for impoverished peoples.


INTRODUCTION
What kind of science do we need for a sustainable future? In this essay, the author argues that there is the need for a sustainable science that would be guided by pragmatic efforts that would allow behavioral changes without compromising life quality and the possibility of social mobility for impoverished peoples.
As a direct outcome of problems such as climate change, resources shortage and extreme pollution, the focus on such issue has been increasing and culminated in the adoption of the Paris Agreement after the COP21 meeting (UNITED NATIONS 2015). This international agreement considers all the elements presented in the following study, including the need to take action, the importance of granting developing countries and impoverished people the right of development and mobility and the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in this change process. is what we do to improve our lot within that abode" (ibid., p. 10), they assume both are inseparable and are seen as broad ideas when put side by side to define sustainability. The definition used by the Brundtland Commission was reasonably inserted into this logic as it affirmed sustainable development as "to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (ibid., p.

10).
To revisit this concept regarding the current debate on the field, the author suggests an adaptation as following: sustainability is the continuous process to ensure society meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. As it should be, this concept incorporates both a universal nature, not narrowing its sense to specific challenges faced by society, and a procedural character, reaffirming its never-ending nature.
First, the same logic of preserving society needs was maintained. The author points that modern world already produces too many goods and should reverse its industrialization process. Nonetheless, such logic only applies to rich countries while the Global South still lag far behind in regards of technology, struggling to catch up with the developed world (KATES et al, 2001). Thus, granting them the possibility of developing their industry is essential to a sustainable world that cares not only to nature but also to the basic living standards and mankind self-development.
The same applies to our future generations. Obviously preserving the environment and its basic natural resources, such as fresh air and water, is a primary need for a Finally, the revisited concept considers sustainability as a continuous process, implying that there is no such thing as a sustainable stage when new efforts are not needed. Resources will always be scarce, meaning that they will not be infinite. It includes not only non-renewable resources but also renewable ones. Let us take energy as an example: wind turbines cannot be distributed across a region as they cause inefficiencies to each other; likewise, there might be a time when land available for solar farms shall become scarce. Therefore, there will be always a need of developing practices that ensure a continuous sustainability.

HUMAN ACTION
Wiek (2010)  He believes that understanding the complexity of sustainability should be linked to acting towards sustainable development. In his words, "sustainability requires direction that stimulates and guides our actions and impacts" (ibid., p. 10). Thus, it is important to ask ourselves if it is possible to measure how much understanding is needed before start acting. Moreover, if the world is an evolving complex system, will we ever gain enough understanding of the current and future scenarios in order to act?
If the answer to any of these two questions is no, Wiek (2010)  Whereas the authors could not prove themselves by presenting clear evidence of this change, their argument is interesting at least from the normative point of view. As mentioned, we indeed need scientists dedicated to generating context-based knowledge, especially in the context of sustainable science in developing countries. Increasing transdisciplinarity allows social scientists, who currently dominate the field, to produce and insert technological innovations that will optimize resources while granting minimum standards of living.
A greater diversity of sites where knowledge is produced implies a greater interaction between companies, universities and society as a whole. That is something constantly vouched by studies in the field of national innovation systems, such as the Triple Helix's approach of Leydesdorff (2010). It means that knowledge creation respects the demand and supply logic and, therefore, is optimized as the outcomes are generally purposeful.
Lastly, by suggesting that universities are not the only sites in processes of knowledge creation, the Mode 2 implies that scientists should not act alone. More stakeholders should participate in the debates on what to be produced, also resulting in novel manners of evaluating the quality of scientific output, not only through peerreviewed academic journals but also by the applicability and spread of new products. In

ALTERNATIVE THOUGHTS
In a seminal paper for economic sciences, Friedman (2008)

CONCLUSION
In this paper, the author favored of a pragmatic sustainable science that allows behavioral changes without compromising life quality and the possibility of social mobility.
In addition, the author presented the current considerations regarding the social change and process-oriented approaches, leading to the normative suggestion that more efforts should be made to reach the Mode 2 paradigm of knowledge creation.
Moreover, the author is concerned with the need of economic-oriented solutions that would preserve the access of developing countries and impoverished peoples to economic development and social mobility. It becomes feasible when companies are stimulated to engage in profit-making sustainable changes and key players are not geographically limited to universities in rich economies.
Finally, one central arguments of the study lies on the need of a more transdisciplinary point of view, including more engineers and other professionals capable of developing innovative technologies that optimize the use of resources without compromising life quality of, both rich and poor, individuals.