Understanding Deep-Seated Paradigms of Unsustainability to Address Global Challenges: A Pathway to Transformative Education for Sustainability

Abstract

This study investigates the foundational causes of unsustainability that obstruct efforts to address global challenges such as climate change, environmental degradation, water crises, and public health deterioration. Using qualitative research with in-depth expert interviews from education, environmental studies, and business, it finds that these global challenges, while visible on the surface, are deeply rooted in worldviews that shape human behavior, societal structures, and policies. Building on this insight, the thematic analysis manifests three interrelated systemic paradigms as the fundamental drivers of unsustainability: a crisis of wholeness, reflected in fragmented identities and collective disorientation; a disconnection from nature, shaped by human-centered perspectives; and the influence of dominant political-economic systems which prioritize growth logics over ecological and social concerns. These paradigms underlie both structural and cognitive barriers to systemic transformation, which influence the design and implementation of education for sustainability. By clarifying a body of knowledge and systemic paradigms regarding unsustainability, this paper calls for transformative education that promotes a holistic, value-based approach, eco-empathy, and critical thinking, aiming to equip future generations with the tools to challenge and transform unsustainable systems.

1. Introduction

The global community faces an unprecedented convergence of environmental, economic, and social crises, underscoring the urgent need for transformative action. Despite the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’s ambitious vision, progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has been slow [1]. Health-related SDG targets, including universal health coverage (UHC), remain insufficient to meet the 2025 goals. In 2000, 22.7% of people aged 30 had a chance of dying prematurely from chronic diseases (heart disease, cancer, lung disease, or diabetes) before reaching the age of 70 [2]. Additionally, over one billion people suffer from obesity, while millions of children under five face stunting, wasting, or being overweight [2]. By 2024, 1.1 billion people lived in acute multidimensional poverty, with over half being children [3]. In 2023, between 713 and 757 million people faced hunger, far from achieving SDG 2, Zero Hunger [4], with acute hunger rising for the sixth consecutive year in 2024, now affecting 295 million people [5].

Central to these crises is environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, largely driven by human activities. About 25% of assessed species are threatened, and around 1 million species face extinction, with current rates far exceeding historical averages [6]. Between 1970 and 2020, the average size of wildlife populations has fallen by an alarming 73% [7]. Agriculture, the world’s primary food system, is responsible for the endangerment of 24,000 of the 28,000 species at risk of extinction [8]. Despite this degradation, humanity demands more from the Earth, relying on the resources of 1.6 Earths to maintain current lifestyles, exceeding the planet’s regenerative capacity [9].

This unsustainable pressure on natural resources is largely driven by rapid economic growth [10,11,12]. Between 2010 and 2019, global net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions reached unprecedented levels, spurred by rising GDP per capita and population growth, which are major contributors to CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels [13]. Economic growth, measured by GDP per capita, is positively linked to ecological footprints, as growing economies typically lead to increased energy consumption and industrial production [12]. While economic growth has improved living standards, it has also escalated resource consumption beyond basic needs, resulting in significant environmental harm [14]. These patterns of consumerism, often driven by market-focused business practices, prioritize short-term gains over long-term ecological responsibility [15,16,17].

Recently, researchers have emphasized the importance of investigating the principles and values underpinning the sustainability crisis on both an epistemological and a paradigmatic level. Global environmental change is not only a material matter, it is also about values and the change in human consciousness [18]. Environmental problems are deeply intertwined with cultural narratives and the way humans view their relationship with nature [19,20], as evidenced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s belief that a polluted environment is a symptom of a polluted mind [21].

The strategic importance of education to spearhead this shift has long been acknowledged. However, conventional approaches to education, have been challenged for its support of dominant economic institutions and approach of not dealing with the deeper ethical and ecological issues of sustainability [10,22,23]. These models often reinforce extractive logic and narrow professional rationalities, rather than fostering empathy, systemic thinking, and reflection. Despite progress in incorporating sustainability into curricula, such education has been criticized for focusing too heavily on economics and not enough on transforming worldviews and values [24].

There is a growing need for transformative aspects of education, one that goes beyond the transfer of knowledge to the fostering of critical awareness, ecological sympathy and possibility for systemic change. Education, therefore, should not only impart knowledge about the environment but also instill values and behaviors that promote sustainability [25]. To achieve this, education must be reconceptualized, not merely as a tool for addressing environmental issues, but as an opportunity to cultivate deep inquiry into values, identity, and humanity’s role in the world. In this context, this article aims to contribute to this transformation by examining the deep-seated paradigms of unsustainability—paradigms that are often hidden yet profoundly shape societal and organizational structures. By addressing these root causes, education can be reshaped to become genuinely transformative, facilitating a shift in both individual and collective thinking, values, and actions, all focused on sustainability.

2. Materials and Methods

This study employs a qualitative exploratory methodology to capture the complex concepts underlying deep paradigms of unsustainability [26]. It combines primary data from semi-structured interviews and secondary data from literature, journals, and other relevant sources, which provide theoretical foundations. This approach aims to expand or refine existing theories by adding new propositions or clarifying relationships between constructs [27]. In addition, the study ensures that the reasoning behind inferences is clearly stated, contributing to the development of a deeper understanding of the root causes of unsustainability [28].

2.1. Sampling and Participant Selection

This study employed purposive sampling to select eight experts with extensive experience and a deep understanding of unsustainability. Participants were carefully chosen to ensure their perspectives would align with the research objectives and contribute valuable insights. According to [29], the competence of interviewed experts significantly influences the quality of data obtained; therefore, participants were selected for their relevant knowledge and experience. In this research, all experts have more than 10 years of professional experience in the field, ensuring deep expertise and understanding of the subject matter.

To provide a comprehensive exploration of unsustainability, participants were selected from diverse sectors, including Academia/Educational Institutions, Business Practice, and Environmental/Sustainability Issues, with sector engagement in NGOs, International Agencies, and Policy Making, as shown in

Table 1. Area of expertise of participants.

No	Experts	Area of Expertise			Sector of Engagement
		Academia/ Educational Institution	Business Practice	Environmental/ Sustainability Issues	NGOs /International Agencies	Policy Making
1	Expert 1	√		√	√
2	Expert 2	√		√	√	√
3	Expert 3	√		√	√	√
4	Expert 4	√	√	√	√
5	Expert 5		√	√	√
6	Expert 6	√	√	√
7	Expert 7		√	√	√
8	Expert 8	√		√	√	√

. This multidisciplinary approach enriches the study by incorporating a wide array of perspectives, ensuring a thorough examination of the various dimensions of unsustainability [30]. The inclusion of experts from different roles further broadens the scope, addressing the multifaceted nature of sustainability challenges and enhancing the depth of analysis.

Although the sample size is limited (n = 8), it is consistent with qualitative studies where the emphasis is on depth of investigation rather than generalisability. Data saturation was achieved as no new themes or insights emerged after the eighth interview, indicating that the sample size was sufficient to capture the essential perspectives and experiences related to unsustainability. As emphasized by [31,32], saturation is reached when no new insight from the field is no longer obtained through data generation, thus ensuring that the themes identified are representative of the broader expert community. This lends credibility to the sample size, and ensures that the research results are meaningfully robust and do not derive exclusively from limited data.

2.2. Data Collection Procedures

This study employed semi-structured interviews, a widely used qualitative technique, which provides depth and flexibility, as well as comprehensiveness of themes addressed. In terms of epistemological objectives, these interviews are exploratory and are meant to open up new or less clear research territory [30]. The interview guidelines in this study were derived from the research questions, with additional questions incorporated to allow participants to freely discuss related topics. This semi-structured format enabled a detailed examination of the concept of unsustainability, allowing the interviewers to probe for further information and adapt to emerging themes as the conversation unfolded. This approach strikes a balance between structure and openness, using a topic guide to steer discussions while allowing for flexibility [33]. The approach follows the problem-centered design, by concentrating on the interviews around socially relevant topics that are at the heart of the research issue [34].

The in-depth interview was developed around three primary research questions:

RQ1: Sustainability: How do participants conceptualize and identify sustainability? From this theme, the study aimed to uncover the systemic factors contributing to unsustainability from the perspectives of each expert in their respective fields.

RQ2: Business-Sustainability: How do experts conceptualize and assess business-sustainability? This theme explored the experts’ views on how current business models and policies contribute to unsustainability and the potential for transformation.

RQ3: Education: What contribution does education provide to unsustainability and to moving towards sustainability? This theme gathered insights into the fundamental aspects of education that need to be reformed or targeted to challenge unsustainability and promote sustainability.

In addition to the primary data collected through interviews, secondary data were systematically gathered from a variety of peer-reviewed scholarly articles, policy documents, and reports. These secondary sources played a crucial role in contextualizing the study’s findings within the broader landscape of existing research on sustainability, business practices, and education for sustainability. They provided essential theoretical foundations that contributed to advancing knowledge in the field [27,28].

Literature reviews are key to knowledge building and preparing expert interview studies [35]. By offering an overview of critical issues and informing the interview schedule, the literature reviews help ensure the topics are adequately covered and that the research has a strong theoretical and contextual basis. This process also enables the creation of precise, relevant questions. Furthermore, academic articles and policy documents provide theoretical and methodological perspectives essential for interpreting the interview data.

2.3. Data Analysis: Thematic Analysis

The data from semi-structured interview were analyzed with inductive thematic analysis to interpret and present patterns and themes in the data [36]. Initial codes were abstracted and organized into more complex categories and themes, allowing for deeper insight and coherence. Themes were categorized according to their relevance to unsustainability and the transformative role of education in shifting these paradigms. The analysis followed the seven-step procedure proposed by Kuckartz [36], as illustrated in Figure 1, and was grounded in the construction of interpretative categories using a structured coding system, as outlined by [26,37,38].

The coding process was conducted in two cycles, following the approach introduced by Miles et al. [26]:

First cycle (exploratory coding): Open coded to identify initial themes and concepts. Where possible, in vivo coding in participants’ own words was used in order to be as true to the participants’ experience in this stage of analysis as possible. This cycle aimed to identify common patterns from interviews such as system-level forces driving unsustainable performance in business, policy and education.

Second cycle (focused coding): Coding became more focused and structured. Initial codes were abstracted and organized into more complex categories and themes, allowing for deeper insight and coherence. Themes were categorized according to their relevance to unsustainability and the transformative role of education in shifting these paradigms.

To ensure methodological rigor, all data were fully coded following established quality criteria and organized into a comprehensive codebook. The coding process was supported by NVivo 12 software, which helped systematically organize nodes and parent nodes, track emerging themes, and document patterns [39]. Each node represents an idea, theme, or category emerging from the data and serves as a repository for all relevant data references [26,39]. These nodes were then categorized into broader categories based on similarities or patterns, enabling a coherent and structured understanding that supported deeper interpretation [40].

2.4. Triangulation and Data Validation

To enhance the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings, triangulation and validation methods were applied [41]. Triangulation strengthened results by integrating multiple sources, methods, and perspectives, enabling cross-validation and broadening the analysis [26,41,42]. Building on this, trustworthiness was further ensured through a series of interconnected validation procedures [43].

Firstly, data source triangulation involved comparison and cross-verification of interview data with data obtained from literature review and document analysis. This cross-examination was used to confirm the credibility of the data as well as increase the depth of the study. Second, triangulation was achieved by actively seeking different perspectives on the phenomena of interest in order to address the complexity of the issues and embrace conflicting as well as supporting perspectives. Parallel coding comparisons were carried out to test for shared meaning/common themes across the participants. This added to the internal validity and the soundness of the results. Finally, triangulation techniques employed interviews with literature thus reducing methodological moderator and gaining wider coverage of data [42].

Validity, as a measure of a qualitative study’s strength, indicates the degree to which the results correctly reflect the researchers’, participants’, and the target audience’s views [31]. To achieve this, communicative validation was used so that participants had the opportunity to check the accuracy and consistency of their answers and could ensure that interpretations corresponded to their intentions. This approach reduced interviewer and participant differences in understanding of the questions asked.

Following the guidelines, all interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim with time stamps to ensure transcript accuracy and precise referencing [37]. The audio recordings enhanced transparency by making the analysis auditable, thereby increasing confidence in the findings. Every word, intonation, and nuance was captured, minimizing the risk of memory lapses or recording errors. Transcriptions were completed manually with assistance from online transcription software, ensuring both completeness and accuracy.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of Coding and Thematic Categorization

Qualitative data analysis followed a strict two-stage coding method [26,36]. In the first stage, initial open codes were developed deductively, preserving the authenticity of participants’ language through in vivo coding. This phase helped to identify broad thematic constructs related to unsustainability.

As the analysis progressed, key categories began to emerge, and the coding framework was refined through axial coding. At this point, a more formalized codebook was created, which included detailed definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data examples to guide consistent and standardized coding.

Table 2. Example of a codebook, featuring code name, description and data examples.

Code	Code Description	Data Examples
Greedy	Description: the insatiable desire for more, driven by inner emptiness, leading to excessive accumulation of material goods.	“We have this culture of never having enough.” “We never feel contented with what we have. If we have three cars, we want four.” “I cannot feel satisfied with what I have because of inner emptiness.”
	Inclusion Criteria: Involves the desire for more than necessary, focusing on endless accumulation, refusal to accept limits, and inability to be content with what one has.
	Exclusion Criteria: Excludes consumption driven by basic needs or external circumstances.

provides an example of this codebook [36,40].

Following the codebook, the dataset was revisited in a focused second cycle to refine and deepen the coding framework. Codes were inductively derived to capture nuance and complexity, leading to the final set of 27 distinct constructs. Figure 2 visually represents the hierarchical coding structure, illustrating how the initial open codes were synthesized into these 27 constructs across. Each construct reflects a unique facet of the unsustainability crisis as perceived by the expert participants, ranging from observable phenomena such as climate change and disaster events to deeper systemic issues including ideological dominance and disconnect from nature.

3.2. Rationale of Thematic Categorization

The 27 codes identified through thematic coding were organized into four main categories: Events, Behavior, Underlying Factors, and Systemic Paradigm, as illustrated in Figure 2. Each category groups related codes that share common characteristics, simplifying the complexity of qualitative data and highlighting key patterns [36,40]. These categories serve as conceptual frameworks that deepen the understanding of unsustainability. This clustering is supported by existing literature, providing theoretical justification for code inclusion within each category. Grounding the classification in prior research strengthens validity and clarifies the rationale, ensuring categories reflect recognized dimensions of unsustainability.

Events are defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as “something that happens or takes place, especially something significant or noteworthy; an incident, an occurrence.” In sustainability and climate studies, ‘events’ commonly denote notable natural and socio-environmental phenomena that signal disruptions to ecological and societal stability. For example, climate-related phenomena such as droughts, storms, and hurricanes are explicitly linked to ‘events’, which serve as direct manifestations of environmental perturbations [44]. Similarly, critical changes affecting natural resource dynamics and human-environment relationships are considered as ‘events’ [45]. Events are also conceptualized as a constellation of intensifying ecological crises, such as wildfires, floods, and droughts, that collectively reveal systemic environmental instability caused by anthropogenic actions [46]. Moreover, such events disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, exacerbating social inequalities and resource conflicts, a view supported by significant socio-economic effects on local communities [47,48]. Accordingly, codes including social inequity, pollution and waste accumulation, overshooting planetary limits, natural resource depletion, geopolitical tension, economic indstability, disaster, and climate change are grouped under Events. This grouping reflects an understanding of these codes as interconnected phenomena that collectively represent the accelerating crisis of planetary instability and social vulnerability [49,50,51].

Behavior, in contrast, refers to the observable actions of individuals or groups that directly influence ecological and social outcomes. According to Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, behavior is defined as any measurable action, shaped by intentions, attitudes, and perceived social norms [49]. In sustainability research, behavior encompasses individual and collective patterns that either promote or undermine sustainable development. Behavior is shaped by complex psychological factors, including motivation, beliefs, and social pressures, and is reflected in habitual lifestyles and consumption patterns [50]. This motivation, in particular, plays a crucial role in determining sustainable resource use, as highlighted by self-determination theory [51]. However, unsustainable behavior is often rooted in consumerism, materialism, and narrow self-interest, driving excessive consumption and social fragmentation [52]. Strong emotional attachment to material possessions (materialism) can provoke feelings of loss, reinforcing unsustainable consumption habits [53]. Accordingly, codes such as dissatisfaction, unemphatic, materialism, individualism, consumerism, consume the future, and competitiveness are classified under Behavior, representing critical drivers and expressions of unsustainability supported by psychological and sociological evidence [50].

Meanwhile, Underlying Factors capture fundamental psychological, cultural, and structural drivers that implicitly influence behavior and institutional decision-making. Short-termism is defined as a cognitive bias favoring immediate gratification over long-term outcomes, which can lead to the neglect of environmental sustainability and the needs of future generations [15,54,55]. Similarly, myopia, described as the propensity to act in a ‘short-sighted’ manner, prioritizes immediate rewards while disregarding long-term impacts [16,56]. Meanwhile, denial, a psychological defense mechanism, hinders recognition of and response to environmental degradation [57,58]. Socio-cultural drivers include growthism, an ideological commitment to perpetual economic growth regardless of ecological limits [59,60,61], and greed, reflecting cultural norms that valorize accumulation [61,62]. Collective trauma refers to shared historical psychological wounds that shape short-term, survival-oriented behaviors [63]. At the structural level, weak legal enforcement denotes institutional failures in effectively regulating environmental harm, while trade-off thinking frames sustainability as an inevitable conflict between economic growth and environmental protection [64,65]. Collectively, these codes represent Underlying Factors, encapsulating deeply entrenched cognitive, cultural, and systemic barriers to sustainability [60,63].

Finally, Systemic Paradigm refers to the deep-seated worldviews and ideological frameworks that shape societal organization, values, and relationships with nature. Limited human consciousness reflects constrained ecological awareness, which impedes recognition of planetary boundaries and interconnectedness [17]. The disconnection from nature paradigm arises from anthropocentric views that instrumentalize nature and deny its intrinsic non-human values [66,67]. The ideological-based political economy, particularly capitalism and growthism, prioritizes economic growth as the primary goal, often justifying environmental externalities as acceptable trade-offs [59,61,68]. These systemic paradigms serve as foundational drivers perpetuating unsustainability by embedding specific values, institutional arrangements, and collective consciousness that resist transformative change. Such conceptualizations align with scholarly assertions that global environmental challenges are inseparable from prevailing value systems and patterns of thought [18,19,20,21]. Addressing these paradigms is therefore essential for fostering the deep transformations required for sustainable education [69,70]. This systemic paradigm and its implications will be discussed in detail in Section 4.

3.3. Cross-Referencing Expert Views and Literature

Triangulation in this study involved integrating multiple perspectives from experts with diverse backgrounds to verify data and findings. The frequency data presented in

Table 3. Frequency of occurrence of each construct across the eight experts.

	Experts	INF = INF 1 (1)	INF = INF 2 (1)	INF = INF 3 (1)	INF = INF 4 (1)	INF = INF 5 (1)	INF = INF 6 (1)	INF = INF 7 (1)	INF = INF 8 (1)	Total (8)
Unsustainability		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
1. Events		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
1	Social Inequity	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	3
2	Pollution and Waste Accumulation	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	4
3	Overshooting Planetary Limits	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	5
4	Natural Resource Depletion	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	4
5	Geopolitical Tension	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	4
6	Economic Instability	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	3
7	Disaster	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	4
8	Climate Change	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	5
2. Behavior		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
9	Dissatisfaction	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
10	Unemphatic	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
11	Materialism	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	4
12	Lifestyle	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
13	Individualism	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2
14	Consumerism	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	4
15	Consume the future	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
16	Competitiveness	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
3. Underlying factors		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
17	Weak Legal Enforcement	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	2
18	Trade-off Thinking	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	3
19	Short-termism	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	3
20	Myopia	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
21	Growthism	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	6
22	Greedy	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	5
23	Denial	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
24	Collective Trauma	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
4. Systemic paradigm		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
25	Limited Human Consciousness	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	5
26	Ideological-Based Political Economy	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	8
27	Disconnected from Nature	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	6
	Total (unique)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	8

reveals how often each code was referenced, helping to identify the most commonly discussed factors across different domains. However, the significance of these codes lies not only in their frequency but in their contextual relevance to the systemic nature of unsustainability. Triangulation was further strengthened by existing literature, providing theoretical grounding, external validation [36], and enhancing sensitivity to nuanced data aspects [42].

To further illustrate how expert insights support the coding categories, here are some anonymized excerpts from the interview transcripts:

Events category: Codes such as overshooting planetary boundaries and climate change emerged as the most frequently cited, each referenced by five experts. As Expert 1 noted, “Disrupting the ecological balance either,” and Expert 6 emphasized, “Six out of nine planetary boundaries have already been surpassed,” both reinforcing the urgency of the ‘Overshooting of Planetary Boundaries’ code. In line with these concerns, Expert 2 shared, “Landslides are nature’s own way of seeking balance,” tagged under the ‘Disasters’ code, highlighting nature’s response to the imbalance caused by human actions. Together, these comments emphasize the feedback loop between human actions and ecological disruptions, where human-induced unsustainability results in immediate, visible environmental consequences. These insights underscore the urgency of addressing these phenomena as global environmental crises, highlighting the need to preserve Earth’s balance [71,72].

Behavior category: Materialism and Consumerism were most commonly referred to this category. Expert 1 stated, “When we have a culture focused on consumerism, materialism, and individualism, this is also a factor of unsustainability,” which strongly aligns with the ‘Consumerism,’ ‘Materialism,’ and ‘Individualism’ codes. These codes reflect how societal and individual behaviors, shaped by cultural norms and economic incentives, contribute significantly to unsustainable practices. Expert 8 further emphasized, “Overconsumption and the unwillingness to reduce our comfortable lifestyle contribute to the unsustainability crisis,” highlighting how the code ‘Overconsumption’ reflects cultural expectations of comfort and excess, fueling unsustainable consumption patterns. These insights align with [50,52] which both argue that these behaviors are key drivers of unsustainability, particularly in consumer-driven societies.

The Underlying Factors: ‘Growthism’ is the most frequently referenced code, mentioned six times. For examples, Expert 1 and Expert 2 both noted, “We suffer from a very big issue: we have this culture of never having enough,” illustrating the unsustainability of a growth-driven culture. Expert 8 further suggested, “We need to promote ‘you know when to stop,’” advocating for a shift in societal values from continuous growth to more sustainable futures. All comments are tagged under ‘Growthism,’ underscoring how cultural values around consumption and growth create systemic barriers to sustainability, as highlighted by [57,59,62,73]. Similarly, in the code ‘Greed,’ Expert 2 pointed out, ‘Behind that, there is a desire driven by greed,’ identifying greed as one of the factors that has prevented people from achieving sustainability.

The Systemic Paradigm: the code ‘Ideological-based Political Economy’ was universally referenced by all eight experts, highlighting its foundational role in shaping unsustainability narratives. Expert 4 stated, “Our political and economic systems are ideologically structured to prioritize growth over sustainability, which must be abandoned,” while Expert 7 emphasized, “When we talk about sustainability, it is inseparable from the current political economy system,” pointing to the need for a fundamental transformation of the political economy to support long-term sustainability. Expert 8 echoed this sentiment, saying, “Capitalism must be challenged; if it is not, we will not be able to achieve sustainability. The ideology must change.” These insights reflect a widespread recognition that the current growth-based economic model, particularly capitalism, is inherently incompatible with sustainability goals [59,60,74].

This cross-referencing of expert views and literature validates the multi-layered nature of unsustainability, showing that it is not only the visible symptoms, such as pollution, climate change, and resource depletion, that require attention, but also the deeply ingrained systemic structures, behaviors, and ideologies that sustain unsustainable practices. The findings underscore the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic challenges, stressing the importance of a comprehensive, holistic approach. Sustainable transformation, as the data suggests, necessitates addressing these root causes by restructuring systemic paradigms, ranging from individual behaviors and cultural norms to global political and economic frameworks. Thus, the insights from this study emphasize the crucial role of transformative reform in reshaping worldviews and systems to foster sustainability at all levels.

3.4. The Relationship Between Unsustainability Factors and the Role of Education

The relationship between unsustainability factors and the role of education, as identified through Research Question 3 (RQ3). As seen in

Table 4. Expert insights on the role of education.

Expert	RQ3: The Role of Education
Expert 1	Education must shift from reinforcing outdated economic paradigms like competition and growth. It should integrate systemic thinking, ecological awareness, and personal responsibility, helping students understand their impact on the environment and society. Most education today, however, continues to teach the same thinking that has created the problem.
Expert 2	Education should instill values and ethics that encourage students to engage with sustainability at every level. It must educate students in the way that sustainability intersects every dimension of life from social justice to ecological equilibrium and encourage in them the ability to critique practices that are not sustainable. But education tends to divorce values from science and technology, deepening the crisis of meaning.
Expert 3	Education must be focused on behavioral change and values development, encouraging students to not only understand sustainability but to live by its principles. It needs to cater for personal attitudes, values and long-term environmental responsibility in the context of both academic and personal development. For environmental education is a point of entry to the perception that we are part of the environment.
Expert 4	Education should be a reflection of real-life sustainable action, a practice that promotes not only student understanding but also student efforts in sustainable action. This includes promoting behaviors that are consistent with ecological and other kinds of social values, both individually and organizationally.
Expert 5	Education should not just be an academic exercise. It should be practical, hands-on experiences that make sustainability real. Field trips and hands-on-approaches to sustainability give students a better sense of how their place in the world is impacted by what they do.
Expert 6	Education should be reformed to integrate sustainability across all business sectors. It must challenge students to rethink business practices, with a focus on social equity, ecological responsibility, and sustainable consumption, preparing them to address systemic issues in business. Current education, however, often hides the truth, leading to false consciousness about sustainability.
Expert 7	Education should foster values and critical thinking, helping students move beyond knowledge to behavior change. It must prepare them for the complex, interconnected challenges of sustainability, emphasizing real-world applications that align social, environmental, and economic goals.
Expert 8	Education should be all about behavioral change; giving students the skills they need to be able to live sustainably, teaching respect for the natural environment and consequences of their actions in the long run. It includes encouraging moderation, daily sustainability and intergenerational justice as well as wisdom and knowledge in recognizing borders.

, experts emphasize that education must evolve to confront deep-seated issues within current systems, addressing both cognitive and structural barriers.

The expert insights highlight key areas for educational reform to address the underlying paradigms that sustain unsustainable practices. First, educational models need to break free of obsolete economic models ruled by competition and growth. Expert 1 stresses that these paradigms are key drivers of unsustainable consumption and inequality. The current education system continues to reinforce the same mindset that has contributed to these issues. As experts point out, sustainability-focused education often fails to tackle the root causes of environmental problems, especially by treating economic growth as a solution [10]. This growth-centric political-economic system remains entrenched in education, reinforcing the mindset that has led to unsustainability, often neglecting the ecological and social costs associated with it [75]. Expert 6 also notes that the current educational system often creates a false consciousness. Marx’s concept of false consciousness describes a state in which individuals fail to recognize or misinterpret their true socio-political or economic conditions. In line with this insight, education limits critical understanding and sustains elite dominance by transmitting values and ideologies that preserve the status quo [76]. This mechanism of social control entrenches false consciousness, preventing students from questioning the systems of power that shape their lives and leaving them unaware of alternative paths [61,77].

An equally crucial area identified in the expert insights is the disconnection from nature. This disconnection, deeply rooted in modern economic and cultural systems, helps explain why education often fails to produce individuals who act responsibly toward the environment. Education related to sustainability has been criticized for its anthropocentric approach, prioritizing human needs over ecological concerns and often overlooking the trade-offs between environmental, social, and economic sustainability [24]. Highlighting this issue, but in relation to business education [10], is the fact that economic growth is often taught to the exclusion of ecological balance. Expert 1 emphasizes how this disconnection from nature in education reinforces the belief that humans are separate from the environment, sustaining unsustainable practices by ignoring the interconnectedness between humans and nature. Expert 8 advocates for an educational approach that promotes respect for nature and fosters behavioral change, while Expert 3 underscores the importance of environmental education in helping students recognize their role as part of nature. Such an approach would offer students a more comprehensive understanding of environmental issues. Moreover, education must stress that human well-being depends on a healthy planet, fostering a holistic perspective that acknowledges our interdependence with other ecosystems [78].

In addition to reconnecting with nature, addressing disconnection from self-awareness is equally important. Expert 1 highlights this disconnection from reality and self as a key factor in sustaining unsustainable behaviors. Education must foster wholeness, guiding students to recognize their role in the broader ecological system. Wholeness refers to a holistic, integrated understanding of both the self and the world, emphasizing the need for students to develop competencies that not only address sustainability from a knowledge-based perspective but also involve deeper, transformative thinking and holistic thinking [21]. When students develop a sense of self-consciousness, they are more likely to adopt sustainable behaviors that align with their personal values and ecological responsibility [79].

4. Discussion

4.1. Unraveling Root Causes of Unsustainability

Unsustainability is often viewed as a series of separate global challenges, including climate change, food insecurity, economic inequality, and health disparities. While these crises are interconnected, current global policies typically focus on responding to these events rather than addressing the systemic issues that fuel them. For instance, the neo-classical approach to climate change promotes market-based solutions like carbon taxes and cap-and-trade policies, which treat the atmosphere as a tradable commodity [45]. This approach frames climate change as a straightforward problem caused by the failure to charge greenhouse gas emitters for the full cost of their emissions [80]. The proposed remedy is to place a price on carbon [81]. Similarly, the Paris Agreement also emphasizes market-based mechanisms, such as carbon trading, aiming to limit global temperature rise by encouraging countries to reduce their carbon emissions. However, whilst it is the case that many companies have adopted such methods, the solutions generated through these instruments are still insufficient when it comes to dealing with the underlying complexity, irreversibility, and uncertainties in the issue [82]. SDGs, moreover, have been criticized for focusing on issues rooted in the prevailing development paradigm, which may undermine their capacity to confront the climate emergency and the deep inequalities it intensifies [83]. While the SDGs are a call for sustainable development that integrates the goals of economic growth, social equality, and environmental protection, it may also serve as an intermediary mediator to consolidate, rather than disrupt, unsustainable structures [73].

Building on this criticism, the current study argues that sustainable solutions must address more than just the immediate symptoms. At their core, unsustainability is driven by cognitive and systemic barriers, deep-rooted beliefs and structures that sustain harmful practices. Cognitive biases often prioritize short-term gains, while dominant economic models emphasize growth over environmental and social well-being. Therefore, addressing issues like poverty, inequality, and climate change requires a paradigm shift that transforms the underlying systems, rather than merely mitigating their effects. The following subsections explore three critical paradigms identified in this study as deep-seated paradigms of unsustainability.

4.1.1. Wholeness and Existential Crisis

Wholeness refers to recognizing oneself as an integrated whole, where identity is shaped not only by internal aspects like body and mind but also by one’s relationship with the external world [52]. Extending this concept, wholeness encompasses the Earth itself as an integrated, living entity [84]. It involves a holistic acceptance of one’s entire being, acknowledging both intrinsic value and meaning, and transforming these insights into existential strength to lead a more fulfilled and purposeful life [85]. In positive psychology, wholeness connects to existential questions about the “good life,” what makes life meaningful, and how true happiness can be achieved. These inquiries guide individuals toward understanding their potential and living authentically, aligned with their core truths and values [86,87].

The wholeness crisis, or existential crisis, points to a disconnection from values that provide meaning and direction. Some refer to this crisis as a “divided life” [87] or a “dualistic view of reality” [88], which describes a fragmented state where knowledge, human aspects, and the relationship between humans and nature are perceived as separate. Others use the term “alienation,” highlighting a condition in which individuals feel detached and unconnected [89]. Ultimately, the wholeness crisis reflects the lack of reintegration of these fragmented aspects, hindering the development of unity and harmony within oneself, society, and the natural world.

In materialistic, individualistic, and consumer-driven societies, people constantly seek validation through possessions, power, status, consumer goods, and career success, leading to existential emptiness [17]. This crisis manifests in unsustainable behaviors, such as excessive consumption and greed. It is important to note that greed is not inherent in human nature but a by-product of unsustainable socio-economic behaviors that have alienated humanity from more harmonious ways of living with nature [90]. Likewise, overconsumption becomes a coping mechanism to fill the existential void created by disconnection from deeper spiritual and ethical values. The research shows that changes in consumption patterns are partly driven by economic prosperity and the availability of secular alternatives that fulfill needs previously met by traditional religion, which ultimately leads to a decline in faith in religious values [91]. This separation from spiritual and ethical values intensifies issues like unsustainable economic growth and resource depletion, further compounding sustainability challenges.

4.1.2. Disconnection from Nature and Anthropocentric Perspective

The disconnection from nature, rooted in anthropocentrism, places humans at the center of the universe, viewing nature solely as a resource for human benefit, often ignoring its intrinsic value and ecological role [66,92]. While human-centeredness itself is not the issue, the problem arises when humans are given priority, sidelining the interests of other species [93]. This bias can lead to “hubris,” where nature is seen as a mere resource, disregarding the rights and value of other species [94].

With the rise in industrialization, globalization, and urbanization, society has become more dependent on technology and complex systems, while becoming increasingly disconnected from nature [95]. The disconnection occurs because abstract thinking has caused us to view both nature and society as fragmented, treating them as separate parts rather than recognizing their interconnectedness within the web of life. This disconnection weakens our bond with both the natural world and each other [84,96]. It also leads to exclusionary thinking, as it ignore the intrinsic worth of non-human [92,94]. As a result, an extreme dichotomy has emerged, placing humans in one sphere and nature in another [97]. The dichotomy weakens humans’ sense of attachment, empathy, and responsibility toward the natural world.

When humans view themselves as separate from nature, they tend to view it merely as a resource to be exploited without limits. This detachment facilitates the rise in human greed, the drive to maximize short-term benefits and material gains from natural resources, without regard for long-term ecological consequences [90]. This creates a vicious cycle: the deeper the disconnect from nature, the stronger the greed and exploitation become. In this context, anthropocentrism further exacerbates the problem by promoting unsustainable behaviors such as overconsumption and resource depletion. By prioritizing human needs over ecological balance, anthropocentrism not only fuels these unsustainable behaviors but also complicates sustainability efforts, driving harmful production and consumption patterns [66,93] and hindering progress toward genuine sustainability [98].

4.1.3. Growth-Based Political Economy System

The dominant political-economic system today is one that is deeply rooted in the drive for growth. This growth-centric framework views continuous economic growth, profit maximization, and market expansion as the main drivers of societal progress [61]. Growth is seen as the key to improving well-being, embedded within a societal growth model institutionalized within an ideological-based political economy system, which heavily emphasizes capitalist structures that prioritize economic expansion [99]. However, despite empirical evidence and critical analysis showing that growth does not always correlate with improvements in overall well-being, this dominance is rarely questioned [61].

Growth-oriented political economics, such as capitalism, plays a critical role in driving many global challenges, including climate change, economic inequality, social injustice, and pressure on natural resources [10,11,12]. Capitalism, with its focus on continuous economic growth, profit maximization, and market expansion, incentivizes behaviors that exploit natural resources, deepen poverty, and exacerbate social disparities [59,60,61,68]. The system’s emphasis on short-term profits and quantitative growth results in unsustainable consumption patterns, pollution, and the overexploitation of ecosystems [60,68]. Capitalism’s political economy is rooted in an aggressive accumulation strategy: Cheap Nature. For capitalism, nature is “cheap” in two senses: it is made “cheap” in price, and simultaneously degraded in an ethical-political sense, which facilitates its exploitation [97,100]. These two elements are intertwined in every significant capitalist shift over the past five centuries, reinforcing the cycle of environmental degradation and social inequality.

Given these systemic challenges, this study highlights the critical need to promote alternative paths within political-economic systems and to move beyond the dominant economic model. Fostering diversity in economic thought and social values is essential for addressing complex issues like climate change [101]. A continued focus on growth alone no longer adequately addresses the ecological justice issues confronting the world today [102]. Well-being must be redefined beyond growth metrics and should focus on a more equitable, sustainable distribution of resources [99]. Therefore, moving beyond the prevailing growth-oriented model is essential to pave the way for a more just and sustainable future, where both environmental and social well-being are prioritized over the relentless pursuit of economic expansion.

4.2. Global Initiatives on Education for Sustainability

Global initiatives for sustainability education have evolved since the 1970s, with foundational declarations such as the Stockholm Declaration (1972), the Belgrade Charter (1975), the Tbilisi Declaration (1977), and the Brundtland Report (1987) establishing a comprehensive framework that integrates economic, social, and ecological dimensions. Over time, these initiatives have increasingly emphasized ethics, transparency, and lifelong learning. Notably, the Earth Charter (2000) has provided a global ethical framework that guides sustainability education programs worldwide [103]. Furthermore, UNESCO’s United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014), followed by the Global Action Program (GAP), has significantly strengthened the role of education in promoting sustainability through capacity building, curriculum development, and global awareness. These initiatives underline the global commitment to utilizing education as a crucial tool in facilitating the transition to sustainability [103,104].

In response to growing global awareness of sustainability challenges, sustainability education models have evolved. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), formally recognized during the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014), integrates environmental, social, and economic dimensions to equip individuals with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for sustainable development [75,105]. Following the introduction of SDGs in 2015, Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDG) emerged, focusing on achieving the SDGs by integrating knowledge, skills, and values to enable current and future generations to address global challenges [24,75]. Each of these models contributes to the evolving landscape of sustainability education, aiming to address the multifaceted nature of sustainability through diverse approaches.

However, despite the evolution of these models, several limitations have been identified. Notably, ESDG emphasizes ‘inclusive and sustainable economic growth’ but frequently overlooks long-term ecological impacts and systemic environmental challenges [24]. ESD seeks to balance the three pillars of sustainability; it has been argued that it often prioritizes human well-being and economic development over environmental justice, may detract from crucial ecological perspectives [75,106,107]. Additionally, these models have been criticized for emphasizing systemic reforms without adequately promoting individual behavioral change, which limits their practical effectiveness [108,109]. Furthermore, most of these models are also an extension of anthropocentrism that does not instill an eco-centric perspective which acknowledges the inter-relatedness of all life [70]. Thus, while these models have made significant contributions to sustainability education, there is a need for more balanced and integrated approaches that prioritize ecological sustainability alongside social and economic considerations to address the root causes of unsustainability.

4.3. Research Implication: A Pathway to Transformative Education for Sustainability

Building on the three critical deep-seated paradigms of unsustainability identified in the previous section: existential crisis, anthropocentrism, and the growth-based political economy system, and the urgent need for an educational shift to address these paradigms, this section outlines a pathway to transform education into a more holistic and integrated approach to sustainability. It calls for a fundamental change in both the cognitive and systemic foundations of society, confronting the wholeness voids, human-centric perspectives, and unchecked growth models that fuel unsustainable practices.

The research offers key recommendations aimed at guiding the transformation of education, focusing on addressing the root causes of these global challenges. In this regard, transformative education for sustainability provides not only a new way of thinking and knowing but also a new way of being [110]. These recommendations emphasize the necessity of embedding holistic, values-driven approaches into educational systems, creating lasting change and addressing the deeper issues at the core of unsustainability.

4.3.1. Addressing Wholeness Crisis Through Holistic and Value-Based Education

To address the existential crisis, it is essential to reconnect individuals with a sense of wholeness, helping them recognize their interconnectedness with society and the natural world. Education must, therefore, extend beyond academic achievements to focus on the development of the whole person -intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and socially. Achieving wholeness requires moving away from education systems that concentrate solely on intellectual proficiency and cultivating an environment that nurtures all aspects of human development. This broader approach equips individuals not only with cognitive skills but also with emotional intelligence, ethical values, and social responsibility, allowing them to engage deeply with the world and each other [89,111].

Holistic education is one effective approach to achieving this, integrating intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual dimensions of learning. It aligns with the principles of interconnectedness and sacredness, values deeply embedded in various religious and indigenous worldviews [112]. By emphasizing the interconnectedness of all human dimensions, holistic education helps students see themselves not in isolation but as part of a larger, interdependent community. This approach integrates various aspects of human existence, fostering a balanced and harmonious understanding of life [88]. Studies show that students who engage in this approach develop a deeper understanding of themselves, their communities, and their relationship with the environment [113].

In parallel, value-based education nurtures character and moral principles, emphasizing human dignity, relationships, and a connection to the natural world. Educators should guide students to recognize the intrinsic value of nature and humanity, focusing on well-being that stems from connection to self, community, and the environment, rather than external possessions. It emphasizes the importance of values-based and ethics-driven education to guide integrity and responsibility in decision-making [114]. By fostering ethics and empathy, value-based education encourages sustainable lifestyles that promote long-term ecological and social harmony [21,115].

Both holistic and value-based education are vital to achieving wholeness in education, emphasizing the development of the whole person, integrating values into learning, and fostering interconnectedness. These core principles are foundational for transformative education, preparing individuals to contribute meaningfully to the world. By adopting these principles, educational systems can guide students toward a deeper, more harmonious learning experience that equips them to address the global challenges of our time.

4.3.2. Moving Beyond Anthropocentrism Through Ecoliteracy and Ecopedagogy

To address the root causes of unsustainability, it is essential to shift toward non-anthropocentric frameworks. Moving beyond anthropocentrism involves extending moral consideration to non-human entities, recognizing their intrinsic value and ecological roles. The interconnectedness and value of all entities, both human and non-human, must be recognized to establish a balanced relationship with nature [116]. Psychological approaches, such as attempts to prime superordinate human–nonhuman identities, can reduce such biases within the anthropocentric view and help cultivate a more inclusive view [117]. This shift emphasizes the interconnectedness of all life forms, where human well-being is deeply linked to ecosystem health.

Adopting an eco-centric perspective is not simply a philosophical shift; it is an urgent necessity for sustainability. Such a shift requires that education become eco-centric, where the interrelatedness of all life and ecosystems is embraced by all. As recommended by [70], this entails a shift from human-centered to Earth-centered thinking that allows the health of the planet is prioritized alongside human needs. Consistent with this notion, [118] argues that sustainability education must internalize eco-centric and eco-pedagogical principles, creating a transformative framework that also addresses the environmental and social crises. The ecocentric approach views nature not as an object for exploitation, but as a system that deserves protection, with all components intricately interconnected [119], aligns with deep ecology [120], which asserts that all forms of life have intrinsic value and should be protected despite being useful to humans. Furthermore, education that incorporates ethical relationship with the natural world can create an environment that respects all living beings, and therefore strengthens ecological empathy [121].

One of the cornerstones of this transition is ecoliteracy, the reconnection to the relationship between human beings and the rest of the natural world. Ecoliteracy involves not only knowledge of ecosystems and biodiversity but also the skills and attitudes necessary for responsible environmental action [122,123]. This concept has already proven effective in shifting societal thinking regarding sustainability and environmental awareness [124]. Ecoliteracy helps bridge the gap created by anthropocentrism, encouraging individuals to see themselves as part of an interconnected ecological system rather than separate from it [66]. It goes beyond mere knowledge-based understanding of environmental factors and promotes empathy with the reciprocal relationship between people and nature [96] that enables people to see the value of the nature and why it should be conserved.

Ecopedagogy, as described by [125], complements ecoliteracy by focusing on education that promotes sustainability for all life—humans, animals, and ecosystems. This critical and transformative approach challenges existing systems that harm life on Earth and advocates for a deep rethinking of how teaching and learning should address ecological destruction. Rooted in critical pedagogy and grassroots activism, ecopedagogy invites students to consider their place in the ecosystem and empowers them with the information they need to deal with environmental problems from an eco-centric perspective [126]. Additionally, post-anthropocentric pedagogy plays a key role in recognizing non-human entities as significant subjects in the learning process, fostering critical inquiry and innovative connections beyond human-centric perspectives [127]. This type of pedagogical encourages students to see non-human animals and ecosystems as integral to the broader environmental and social context.

Adopting eco-centric perspective in education fosters a shift in how students perceive their relationship with the natural world. This change in mindset, from humans separate from nature to humans as an essential part of the ecosystem, will promote responsible environment-friendly actions and a greater level of environmental sustainability awareness. Therefore, incorporating ecoliteracy and ecopedagogy into educational frameworks is crucial for creating transformative learning experiences that prepare students to respon the urgent ecological challenges.

4.3.3. Expanding Political-Economic Horizons Through Postgrowth Literacy

The study pinpoints the dominant political-economic systems, specially the growth-orientated models, as a key cause of unsustainability. These systems encourage the exploitation of natural resources and exacerbate social inequality. To address this, education must guide students in exploring alternative economic models that prioritize sustainability, equity, and long-term well-being over unchecked growth. Integrating postgrowth literacy is crucial in broadening students’ understanding, as it challenges the idea of perpetual economic expansion and promotes more equitable, sustainable economic frameworks.

Becoming literate in postgrowth means understanding that economic models can exist without the need for infinite growth. It focuses on redesigning economic systems to function within ecological limits and with social justice [99]. This approach critically addresses the flaws of growth-oriented economic systems, such as capitalism, which is based on continuous economic expansion, profit maximization, and market domination. These systems contribute significantly to global challenges, including climate change, economic inequality, and resource depletion [10,11]. Including a postgrowth literacy in education would challenge students to critically analyze our existing economic models and consider alternative ones that put sustainability and equality first.

In this context, education should guide students to explore alternative ideas and models such as steady-state economy [128], economics of enough [129], doughnut economy [130], ecological economics [131], degrowth paradigm [132], and regenerative economy, all of which prioritize sustainability, justice, and long-term well-being over unchecked growth. It has been pointed out by [10,70,133] that capitalist paradigms need to be critically reviewed, and post-growth models should be explored. While post-growth ideas are not always new, some extend classical thought, such as John Stuart Mill’s introduction of the “Stationary State,” a stable economic condition that does not imply stagnation in human development [134]. Mill’s ideas influenced modern sustainability models like limits to growth [135] and steady-state economy [128].

Given this perspective, postgrowth literacy challenges the monoculture of economic thought, where a singular focus on growth limits academic inquiry and fails to address the complexity of real-world problems [136]. By exploring a variety of economic models, including those derived from indigenous and local wisdom, education fosters a broader, more inclusive perspective that encourages innovative solutions to global challenges. This shift in perspective is essential for preparing future generations to navigate the complex, interconnected challenges of the modern world.

One important feature of postgrowth literacy is its capacity to promote a critical understanding of dominant economic systems. Education should encourage students to challenge and critique the status quo, one that has been legitimized by the capitalist systems that have for centuries prioritized growth over ecological equilibrium and social justice [61]. It encourages students to critically evaluate the limitations of current political-economic systems and equips them with the tools to explore and embrace alternative, more sustainable and equitable models. Ultimately, postgrowth literacy fosters a more holistic understanding of the economy, one that balances human needs with the health of the planet, paving the way for a more sustainable future.

5. Conclusions

This study provides a comprehensive understanding of the underlying causes of unsustainability, revealing how systemic structures, behaviors, and worldviews perpetuate global crises. A key finding is the identification of a four-layer hierarchy of unsustainability: Events → Behavior → Underlying Factors → Systemic Paradigm. The analysis makes clear that crises including climate change, resource depletion, and social and economic inequality, are not singular problems, but are interconnected symptoms of structural pathologies. To address these crises, it is necessary to look beyond surface and the deeper level of systems that are propping it all up. These superficial matters are symptomatic of the root-level worldviews and value systems that condition how people think and act, how societies function and how institutions operationalize.

The study finds three major systemic paradigms underpinning unsustainability: the wholeness/existential crisis, the disconnection from nature, and the growth-based political economy system. The wholeness crisis centers on a crisis of meaning, driving individuals to seek fulfillment through materialism and consumerism, which exacerbates environmental degradation and social inequality. The disconnection from nature paradigm highlights the anthropocentric worldview that treats nature merely as a resource for human exploitation, leading to significant environmental harm. Finally, the growth-based political economy system, particularly in its capitalist form, is built on an endless pursuit of economic growth, profit maximization, and market expansion, all at the expense of ecology and social justice.

Challenging these cultural norms, the research highlights the importance of education in catalyzing change. Education must go beyond knowledge transfer and directly address the root causes of unsustainability. It should develop critical consciousness, eco-empathy, and critical thinking -the ability to criticize and change the belief systems norms and policies that make unsustainable practices possible. Education must undergo a transformation, not only in thinking and knowing, but also in how it presents the concept of being.

Regarding the former, the outcomes of this research call for a fundamental shift by adopting a holistic and value-based approach, embracing an ecocentric worldview through ecoliteracy and ecopedagogy, and expanding perspectives on the world’s systems by introducing alternative models such as postgrowth and beyond. Through this, education can nurture a generation of critical thinkers, environmental caretakers, and systems-thought leaders who can serve as a powerful force for change to address global challenges such as health pandemics, climate change, resource depletion, and social equity, ensuring that a sustainable future is possible for all.