Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology 
ISSN: 2576-8484 
Vol. 8, No. 6, 591-599 
2024 
Publisher: Learning Gate 
DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2131 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 

© 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 
* Correspondence:  kotsurv@ukr.net 

 
 
 
 
 

People-centeredness in the context of sustainable development of the 
country: Issues of cultural policy and ensuring intellectual security 

 
Vitalii Kotsur1*, Oleg Bobina2, Iryna Shapovalova3, Iryna Vorchakova4, Nataliia Sugatska5 

1Department of Public Administration, Hryhorii Skovoroda University in Pereiaslav, Pereiaslav, Ukraine; kotsurv@ukr.net 
(V.K.). 
2,3,4Department of Psychology, Philosophy and Social and Humanitarian Sciences, Admiral Makarov National University of 
Shipbuilding, Mykolaiv, Ukraine; oleg.bobina@nuos.edu.ua (O.B.) iryna.vorchakova@nuos.edu.ua (I.V.) 
5Department of Humanities, Mykolaiv Institute of Law at National University “Odesa Law Academy”, Mykolaiv, Ukraine; 
sugatska@ukr.net (N.S.) 

 

 

Abstract: The study attempts to comprehend today notion and paradigm of people-centeredness 
(anthropocentrism), which shaped today due to the emergence and rapid evolution of sustainable 
development paradigm, changing all spheres of humanity life. It is shown, in particular, that new 
anthropocentrism implies new cultural policy, based on intellectual capital protected by intellectual 
security, gaining increasingly important role. 

Keywords: Anthropocentrism, Biocentrism, Cultural policy, Intellectual security, SDGs, Society. 

 
1. Introduction  

The action of man in the world around him has always played an important role in the development 
of philosophy and understanding of the modern world. The meaning of the principle of people-
centeredness (anthropocentrism) changed over time and depended on the understanding of the essence 
of man both from the side of humanitarian ideas of various philosophical schools and teachings, and 
from scientific knowledge about man, the results of his self-knowledge and self-awareness. 

Anthropocentrism and biocentrism reflect the main, most expressive trends in environmental ethics 
of our time, but not the only ones. In addition to anthropocentrism (“light green ethics”) and 
biocentrism, there are also left biocentrism, ecocentric ethics (“dark green”), moderate green ethics 
(intermediate), deep ecology, earth ethics, ecofeminism, and other types of environmental ethics (Taback 
and Ramanan, 2013). From the position of anthropocentrism, man is the only important goal and value 
of the existence of the whole world, his needs and interests are higher than all other existing ones. In 
biocentrism, nature must be freed from human claims to dominance; the goal of human life and the 
existence of the human race is the restoration of “primordial” nature. As a result of these attitudes, 
anthropocentrism is the basis of technicism identified within the philosophy of technology, and 
biocentrism is the basis of anti-technicism (Unuigbe, 2020). 

However, biocentrism, which fundamentally denies scientific and technological progress and the 
already existing technosphere, can be characterized as a dead-end path in the development of 
environmental ethics, in which the need for social development is questioned. Deep ecology is a real 
chance for the co-evolution of the biosphere and society, for the embodiment of the noospheric concept, 
because deep ecology recognizes the equality of man and nature, their equivalence as separate elements 
of the world. A new, emerging type of environmental consciousness can rightly be called sociobionic 
(Witoszek and Muller, 2017). In essence, this is a paradigm of ecologically oriented anthropocentrism. 

The concept of environmentally oriented anthropocentrism, developed on the basis of the theory of 
interaction between nature and society as distinct and interpenetrating entities, is based on the idea that, 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6647-7678


592 

 

 

Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology 
ISSN: 2576-8484 

Vol. 8, No. 6: 591-599, 2024 
DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2131 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 

 

in order to overcome technocratic thinking, it is necessary to include all components of the socio-
ecosystem in the value system. 

The concept of ecological culture of a socio-ecosystem is based on the idea that a socio-ecosystem is 
the unity and interaction of a socio-system and the eco-environment (natural system), a qualitatively 
special state of the world, which is the result of global evolution and a necessary condition for human 
existence. The core of the socio-ecosystem is the sphere of interaction between society and nature, the 
mode of existence of which is human activity. The ecological culture of the socio-ecosystem covers the 
sphere of relations between man and society towards nature, being a way to optimize human activities, 
the purpose of which is to optimize the functioning of all spheres of the socio-ecosystem. In the sphere of 
socio-natural interaction, it means improvement of the human-natural world, the entire “production-
consumption” system in a direction that would ensure the progressive development of both the social 
itself and the natural (Birkeland et al., 2018). In the field of the natural system, this involves the 
reconstruction of the natural world in order to optimize the process of interaction between nature and 
society. In the sphere of the social world, these are transformations that lower the level of necessary 
reconstruction of the natural, requiring appropriate scientific, spiritual, and moral justification. 

It is possible to overcome technocratic thinking through socio-economic and technological 
transformations at the level of all spheres of the socio-ecosystem, which are based on special cultural 
values designed to change the vector of technocratization of thinking to its ecologization (Alieksieienko 
et al., 2022). This, in turn, involves the development and implementation of appropriate cultural policies, 
as well as ensuring intellectual security, to prevent “sliding” into the extremes of crude 
anthropocentrism or left-wing biocentrism (it should be noted that biocentrism is aggressively active, 
which makes it similar to the crude anthropocentrism of the times of the first industrial revolutions). 
 

2. Literature Review 
An analysis of various concepts of society’s moral attitude towards nature shows that there is a wide 

range of concepts describing the relationship between man and nature: from nature-centric to 
anthropocentric. Moreover, in the antithesis “naturocentrism - anthropocentrism”, the objective 
characteristics of both are discarded, each of them is considered in the context of either exclusively 
apologetics or exclusively criticism. It does not take into account that modern man will continue to 
master nature and use it in his activities. In addition, the ultimate goal of social activity is a person, 
including indirectly, through the preservation of the natural environment of his existence 
(Kryshtanovych et al., 2022; Kryshtanovych et al., 2023a; Kryshtanovych et al., 2023b). This determines, 
in our opinion, the limitations of the nature-centric approach to understanding the role and place of man 
in the world. 

The relationship of man to nature turns out to be connected with morality because it is also the 
relationship of man to man. In this context, in our opinion, the actualization of anthropocentric attitudes 
is legitimate; in the modern meaning, anthropocentrism becomes environmentally oriented. The concept 
of “ecologically oriented anthropocentrism” means anthropocentrism focused on the conservation of the 
ecosystem, which is emphasized by many authors (Shoreman-Ouimet and Kopnina, 2015). 

Developing the concept of environmentally oriented anthropocentrism, today the scientific 
community and expert practitioners focus on anthropocentrism rather than nature-centrism (especially 
its extreme manifestation), because namely a man includes nature in his system of values and is called 
upon to preserve it (Droz, 2022). 

The idea of the need to optimize the functioning of the three levels of the socio-ecosystem makes it 
possible to define the person himself as a subject and to show the socioanthropic orientation of this 
process. Today, man has changed and acquired a new quality in relation to the world. His collectivist 
action, or social solidarity theory, should underpin the theoretical development of solutions to 
environmental problems (Bassey, 2020). 

In the process of socio-natural interaction, people and society must take into account the socio-
natural laws of optimal correspondence between society and nature - the law of cyclicity in the use of 



593 

 

 

Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology 
ISSN: 2576-8484 

Vol. 8, No. 6: 591-599, 2024 
DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2131 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 

 

planetary substances, the law of renewability in the use of energy, the law of complexity in the use of 
information (Kopnina, 2020). Undoubtedly, it is possible to overcome the environmental crisis only 
based on the priority of the values of preserving the biosphere; the understanding that we put into the 
definition of environmentally oriented anthropocentrism does not in fact contradict this principle and 
even lies at the basis of this theory. The anthropic principle is also based on this, according to which a 
person cannot imagine himself not being included not only in natural, but also in cosmic processes 
(Kopnina, 2020). 

The theory of environmentally oriented anthropocentrism, which defines the axiological 
foundations of the ecological culture of the socio-natural ecosystem, includes the ideas of new humanism 
and environmental ethics (Kryshtanovych et al., 2021a; Kryshtanovych et al., 2021b). 

New humanism presupposes, firstly, the voluntary recognition by each person of the principles and 
criteria of a new ethics, which reflects a moral attitude towards all living things (the founder of the Club 
of Rome A. Peccei spoke about this) (Griggs, 2009). Secondly, defining the attitude towards man as the 
highest value while at the same time being an eco-oriented form of worldview, the task is to comprehend 
the unity of humanity and the possibility of jointly overcoming the environmental crisis on the basis of 
collective interaction. 

In addition, scientists argue that the sustainability of social development, especially during periods 
of change, is achievable only if cultural factors are included in its strategies. The very phenomenon of 
sustainable development at this stage should be considered primarily as a new quality of universal 
human culture, which at the personal level should be embodied in the implementation of the most 
important components (motivational, cognitive, relational, activity) and personal functions (ecologically 
oriented, cognitive, meaning-forming). system-forming, regulating and, therefore, should be manifested 
in the corresponding personal formations and environmentally appropriate behavior of the individual, 
professional, including in environmentally problematic situations (Comfort, 2023). 

Culture and human rights, culture and governance, culture and territory, culture and social 
inclusion, and culture and economics were the five pillars of sustainable human development that were 
covered under Agenda 21. The genuine wealth of nations may be significantly increased if the 
interaction between those five dimensions is planned with consideration, intelligence, and vision 
(Kuzmin et al., 2023). Every city has the chance to construct a long-term vision of culture as a pillar of 
their growth by using Agenda 21 for Culture as a guide for public cultural policy. The successful 
execution of cultural development initiatives that provide communities direction, prosperity, and a sense 
of identity also rely on a component that may be difficult to come by but is essential to the projects' 
success: a style of government built on reputable and fruitful interactions between the political elite and 
civic society (Hajek et al., 2011). 

Numerous attempts to conceptualize and express a “place” for culture in sustainability or sustainable 
development have been spurred by the traditionally inadequate position of culture in major policy texts 
for sustainable development. This has led to a broad range of opinions and definitions. The ideas and 
frameworks that have developed throughout time to place culture in sustainable contexts have shown 
significant flexibility and a growing variety of approaches, as Duxbury et al. (2017) point out. Flexibility 
is becoming a liability in the formulation and promotion of policy, even if it can permit substantial 
alterations and adaptations of conceptual structures and frameworks to specific situations (whether 
political, cultural, economic, or geographic). 

Since the middle of the 20th century, there have been numerous international attempts to 
incorporate culture into frameworks for sustainable development. These efforts have been motivated by 
the difficult task of striking a balance between the inherent value of culture and the prevailing policy 
streams, justifications, and larger societal and environmental issues. As a result of these efforts, there is 
a long-lasting legacy of policy declarations, guiding principles, and other initiatives that support the 
role of culture in sustainable development. This legacy is characterized over time by a growing number 
of actors participating in these discourses and, concurrently, by a diversification of concepts, arguments, 
and methodologies. The area of cultural policy, which encompasses a wide range of values, strategies, 



594 

 

 

Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology 
ISSN: 2576-8484 

Vol. 8, No. 6: 591-599, 2024 
DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2131 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 

 

roles, and justifications, has occasionally interacted with these discourses, shaped by the dominant 
discussions and ideologies of the period. The primary paths of cultural policy, however, have often been 
positioned “separately” from these discussions. Currently, cultural policy has the difficulty of playing 
quite distinct functions in the context of sustainable development. These many responsibilities 
frequently overlap and coexist. Therefore, it is critical to explain their differences and why. Semantics 
accounts for most of the differences: in these circumstances, culture and sustainability simply have 
different meanings. 

It should also be noted that the modern global systemic crisis of human civilization, which is a 
harbinger and, possibly, the beginning or continuation of a bifurcation change in the socio-economic 
relations currently dominant in the world, requires increased attention to the theoretical and practical 
problems of ensuring the security of social development both locally and at global levels. An important 
but often overlooked component of this security is intellectual security. 

Some sources view intellectual security as the protection of products of mental activity. In others, an 
equal sign is placed between intellectual security and intellectual property. In third sources, the concept 
of intellectual security includes not only the protection of the products of mental labor, but also the 
rational use, reproduction and improvement of the quality of the mental ability of people that 
determines their activities. The last definition seems to us to be the most adequate for the landscape of 
sustainable development. 

Human intelligence, as it is known, is formed in accordance with the laws of genetics, and therefore 
it is appropriate to talk about the genetic roots of intellectual security. Genetics and intellectual security 
are interconnected: on the one hand, a violation of the country’s intellectual security leads to genetic 
consequences for the people, the results of which are difficult to imagine, on the other hand, the state 
and changes in the gene pool of society have a direct impact on the intellectual security of the state. It is 
therefore clear that intellectual security and sustainability are closely related, especially in the context of 
ESG. 
 

3. Results 
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising 

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, according to the World Commission on 
Environment and Development report, which was established by the UN in 1983. This is the first 
definition of sustainable development. The statement continues, “the strategy for sustainable 
development, in its broadest sense, aims to promote harmony between humans and between humanity 
and nature” (Jha, 2004). Two key tenets form the foundation of this definition: ƒ 

- Harmony between nature and humans (respect for the “ecological limits” of the earth);  
-ƒ Harmony among human beings (i.e., social cohesion). This definition makes the social dimension 

very visible right away, but the cultural dimension is not as clear-cut: “the pursuit of sustainable 
development requires a social system that provides for solutions for the tensions arising from 
disharmonious development [and] implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern 
that must logically be extended to equity within each generation” (Dallaire and Colbert, n.d. p. 8). 

Three perspectives have been presented by Dessein et al. (2015), outlining how culture is primarily 
positioned in relation to sustainability and its overall function in each scenario (refer to Figure 1, where 
culture is represented by the darker colored circles). These concepts, which have been further developed 
as “culture in sustainability”, “culture for sustainability”, and “culture as sustainability”, offer a single 
framework for arranging many discourses and analyzing prevalent conceptual problems. According to 
the first depiction, “culture in sustainability”, culture plays an independent and autonomous function in 
sustainability, serving as its fourth dimension. According to this method, cultural sustainability is 
comparable to ecological, social, and economic sustainability, each of which is made up of interrelated 
sustainability characteristics. The second depiction emphasizes the mediating function that culture plays 
in achieving ecological, social, and economic sustainability. It is titled “culture for sustainability”. The 
third portrayal, “culture as sustainability”, views culture as both a tool and a prerequisite for achieving 



595 

 

 

Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology 
ISSN: 2576-8484 

Vol. 8, No. 6: 591-599, 2024 
DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2131 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 

 

sustainability's overarching goals. According to this method, culture encompasses all other aspects of 
sustainability and turns into the main issue or paradigm of sustainability. 
 

 
Figure 1. 
Three approaches for exploring culture-sustainability relations. 

Source:  (Dessein et al. 2015, p. 29). 

 
Scholars have been examining the relationships between culture and sustainability, leading to a 

variety of descriptive and normative findings. For instance, Nassauer (1997) contends that “cultural 
sustainability must support landscape ecology”, and that the best way to attain ecological quality is to 
foster both an appreciation of the natural world and our aesthetic sense. According to Garcia-Mira, 
Sabucedo, and Romay (2003), culture acts as a bridge between environmental factors and human 
behavior, which in turn promotes sustainable development. Some argue that culture is “the fundamental 
element of sustainability, which supports, interconnects and overarches the traditional three pillars of 
sustainability”, while others (e.g. Nurse, 2006) suggest it should be included as a fourth pillar in the 
sustainability matrix, alongside the social, economic, and environmental pillars (Auclair and Fairclough, 
2015, p. 7). Isar's (2017) critical assessment of culture's ill-defined “relationship with development” and 
“sustainability” draws attention to how flexible these ideas are. Complex and complicated patterns of 
linkage, wherein norms and everyday behavior constitute culture and shape how distinct people 
interpret the past, behave in the present, and envision the future, are reflected in the difficulty of 
disentangling these notions. Ideas of progress and development interventions have always been based 
on cultural presumptions and hierarchies, as noted by Radcliffe and Laurie (2006, p. 231). 

Because of the SDG framework’s extreme ambition, implementing it will need a very daring 
strategy. The moment has come for institutions across the nation to mainstream culture into all 17 
SDGs, building on the overwhelming evidence of its importance to a wide range of policy areas. The 
document contains evidence on how culture plays a transversal role in attaining the SDGs “Implementing 
Culture within the Sustainable Development Goals. The Role of Culture in Agenda 2030”, building, in 
particular, upon the impact review “The Value and Values of Culture” by Culture Action Europe and 
inputs from CAE membership and partners. 

In addition to providing inquisitive, interrogative, and critical perspectives on the world and its 
systems, culture fosters the capacity to recognize and assess contemporary, complex issues that call for 
interdisciplinary and transversal solutions in order to be comprehended and addressed. Economic, 
environmental, and social factors often form the three-pillar paradigm on which the sustainability idea is 
built. These days, academics stress the need of a cultural pillar for the usefulness of culture in shaping 
communal narratives, uniting communities, and promoting diversity - all of which are critical 
components of sustainability. It is true that culture has a transforming power that is essential to 
creating a sustainable future for all. 

Culture is highly relevant for implementing each of the 17 SDGs, and it is a connecting link in the 
triad of ESG. 



596 

 

 

Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology 
ISSN: 2576-8484 

Vol. 8, No. 6: 591-599, 2024 
DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2131 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 

 

Furthermore, a revitalized aesthetic appreciation of environment is necessary for social 
transformation. Brady (2006) argues that a value for nature that is both beautiful and practical already 
permeates daily activities. For instance, Volvo Australia openly aims to include environmental 
awareness into their marketing campaign. Cultural policy should support valuing the environment from 
an aesthetic rather than a utilitarian standpoint, which is essential for creating an environmental ethic 
(Irvin, 2010). A sustainable quality of life must be prioritized over the stand-in for unrestricted material 
expansion, which calls for the advancement of environmental ethics and aesthetics. This necessitates a 
multi-scale, multi-generational strategy that involves teaching people in all areas of life and future 
generations, including families, local community leaders, governments, investors, and multinational 
politicians. Specific life situations require specific approaches; thus, the recommendations can only be 
broad. Therefore, the only environment in which this ethics can be properly shaped and implemented is 
one of intellectual protection. 

Intellectual capital is a strategic asset for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, as Secundo 
et al. (2020) correctly assert. It also promotes sustainable growth and the creation of technological 
policy. The following is how Secundo et al. (2020) construct other highlights: 1) Research on the 
meaning and implications of intellectual capital for sustainable development is a promising area; 3) 
Technology policies for innovation and sustainability must focus on IC for the identification of strategic 
goals and actions; 4) Intellectual capital components can nurture sustainable development in the private 
and public sectors. Moreover, as the digital era and the widespread use of technology applications 
develops, IC has a big influence on social and economic development that is based more and more on 
information and creativity. Competitivity, reputation, richness, and sustainability - all of which 
prioritize citizens, quality of life, and the creation of a more sustainable society - have made managing 
and implementing IC practices crucial. 

Accordingly, intellectual security should be directed on maintaining and development of this capital. 
Based on the scientific and philosophical research of scientists, we can say that disputes over the 

right to the existence of anthropocentrism in the formation of environmental consciousness are 
acquiring a new color. Man is not just the central figure of the world; man is the central figure of 
thinking about the world. Anthropocentrism is defined as a philosophical movement that is a 
multifaceted and centering scientific concept. In fact, man is a natural and logical part of the Universe, 
one with it, and anthropocentrism is an integral human trait. The mentality, the system of perception 
and interpretation of everything around us, the motivation of actions, both in practical and spiritual 
activities - everything is based on anthropocentrism. Man is a complex system. It is considered as a 
living system that integrates the physical and spiritual, natural and social, hereditary and lifetime 
acquired properties. As a living organism, man is included in natural, biosphere connections. Therefore, 
interpretations of anthropocentrism solely in a negative light raise certain objections. In our opinion, no 
matter how one-sided its implementation may be, it remains a kind of “archetype of culture”, without 
which it not only cannot develop, but also exist. The stereotype of understanding anthropocentrism as a 
source of environmental problems does not imply a solution to this problem at a deep, essential level. 
One should comprehend that man always stands at the center of the universe. And therefore, it is 
important to note that anthropocentrism, as the most important way for man to center the nature 
around him, must take the path associated with the discovery of the highest form of culture of thinking, 
which is now asserting its power in the practical construction of modern human society on a reasonable 
basis. 
 

4. Discussion 
Today there is no topic more important than ecology, since modern societies, uncontrollably 

progressing in the economic sphere, have come into conflict with nature, threatening the extinction of 
not only the human species, but also all life on our planet. At the same time, modern philosophy in its 
study of the essence and purpose of man strictly follows the traditions of Western philosophy, which 
developed in the Middle Ages and was supplemented in modern times by ideas about man as a 



597 

 

 

Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology 
ISSN: 2576-8484 

Vol. 8, No. 6: 591-599, 2024 
DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2131 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 

 

conqueror of nature, a kind of creative force that surpasses everything around. However, this old 
philosophy does not correspond to the changed circumstances on a planetary scale and requires serious 
rethinking, primarily from the point of view of anthropology and the doctrine of society (Kryshtanovych 
et al., 2023c). 

The theoretical justification for a new paradigm of thinking, the need to form a different human 
attitude towards the world and create a fundamentally new philosophy, starting from the mid-20th 
century, has been offered by representatives of deep ecology. The term “deep ecology” was coined by the 
Norwegian philosopher and ecologist Ame Naess in 1973, who emphasized that ecological science, 
concerned only with facts and logic, cannot answer ethical questions about how people should live. This 
requires “ecological wisdom” (Valera, 2019). A core tenet of deep ecology is biospheric egalitarianism - 
the belief that humans should respect the environment, viewing it as having certain basic moral and 
legal rights to life and flourishing, regardless of its instrumental capabilities for use. Naess believed that 
what was needed was not a reform of the existing society, but an essential, deep change in the type of 
civilization, in the process of which man himself would change, and science would rise to wisdom. A 
necessary condition for the worldview of a new society is the awareness that the Earth is alive and all 
beings are an integral part of it and have the right to life.  

Also, deep ecology separates itself from the rest of the environmental movement by emphasizing 
that the traditional environmental movement is “shallow”, it does not fight to change the very 
foundations of civilization, but only against pollution and resource depletion within the existing system, 
which is insufficient (Bender, 2003). From the point of view of deep ecology, it is impossible to protect 
nature from the destructive effects of humans using with superficial, exclusively technological measures. 
Shallow ecology believes that it is possible to reconcile conservation and industrial production without 
questioning the foundations of Western societies. Deep ecology sees the cause of all ills within man 
himself, selfish, enjoying the constant growth of comfort and level of consumption, convinced of his 
right to ruthlessly exploit the world around him. The impending ecological catastrophe is therefore a 
consequence of the deep spiritual crisis engulfing humanity. Deep ecology involves replacing capitalism 
with a form of economic development, the main goal of which is the combination of economic and 
technological progress with the preservation of the environment, that is, in a fundamental sense, it seeks 
to apply the anthropological content of this teaching to the actual needs of the transformation of 
philosophical knowledge at the present stage of development. 

Although the ideas of deep ecology themselves are quite utopian, nevertheless this direction offers a 
conceptual vision of a new anthropocentrism, which involves the transformation of cultural policy in the 
direction of caring for the environment and society, as well as active civic participation (ESG), and on 
the other hand, intellectual security, ensuring favorable conditions for the development of social capital 
(Kononenko et al., 2023).  

Also, advancing culture’s role in sustainable development is seen as social change through cultural 
policy (Rayman-Bacchus & Radavoi, 2019). 

Even if the majority of nations acknowledge the importance of culture to sustainable development, 
many industrial and industrializing economies still have daily behaviors that are incompatible with the 
principles of any conception of sustainable development. Although there are several explanations for 
this (financial, technical, institutional, etc.), there is always a risk of viewing these governments as 
merely acting carelessly, which undermines any chance of collaboration. Declarements made in national 
policies that culture is essential to sustainable development will not, by themselves, bring about societal 
transformation. These declarations made in public must be transformed into social change plans and 
initiatives that respect cultural variety and work well on a global scale. Consequently, it is doubtful that 
these modifications could be made without guaranteeing intellectual protection. 

From the standpoint of a systems approach, it is appropriate to talk about intellectual security in 
several aspects: 

• As an integral part - a subsystem of a higher level, which is national security; 

• As a complex multi-level system, including its subsystems (components) of a lower order; 



598 

 

 

Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology 
ISSN: 2576-8484 

Vol. 8, No. 6: 591-599, 2024 
DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2131 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 

 

• As an internal or external state or position of the country, in which there are no real and potential 
threats to the intellectual interests of the individual, society, and the state, and, if they arise, - a 
system of measures to ensure the protection or defense of carriers of intelligence and the products 
of their mental labor. 

In this regard, it is advisable to represent intellectual security in the form of a complex system that 
includes at least subsystems of three levels. Intellectual security, like national security, can be external 
and internal and is based on three basic concepts: intellectual interests, intellectual threats, and 
intellectual protection. 
 

5. Conclusions 
The concept of new people-centeredness, new anthropocentrism, based on the values of sustainable 

development, is extremely significant for the modern world, since it pays close attention to the value 
and importance of man as a central figure in social decisions and development. In the future, a new, 
“sustainable” anthropocentrism can continue its development and evolution in accordance with 
changing conditions and challenges. One perspective may be a deep understanding of the role and 
significance of humans in the digital age, where technology and network communication play an 
increasingly important role in people’s lives (Kryshtanovych et al., 2023d; Kryshtanovych et al., 2024). 
In addition, a broader integration of humanistic anthropocentrism, based on the intellectual security 
provided by sustainable cultural policies, with ecological and biocentric approaches is possible in order 
to create a more comprehensive and balanced basis for the sustainable development of human society. 

 

Copyright:  
© 2024 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions 
of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

References 
[1] Alieksieienko, T., Kryshtanovych, S., Noskova, M., Burdun, V., Semenenko, A. 2022. The use of modern digital 

technologies for the development of the educational environment in the system for ensuring the sustainable 
development of the region. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 17(8): 2427-2434. 
https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170810 

[2] Auclair, E., and G. Fairclough. 2015. Living between past and Future.” In Theory and Practice in Heritage and 
Sustainability, edited by E. Auclair and G. Fairclough, 1-22. Routledge. 

[3] Bassey, S. 2020. Technology, environmental sustainability and the ethics of anthropoholism. International 
Symposium for Environmental Science and Engineering Research (ISESER2020) at the Süleyman Demirel Culture 

Center Uncubozköy Yerleşkesi, Manisa, Turkey. 
https://socialspacejournal.eu/20%20numer/Technology,%20environmental%20sustainability%20-%20Bassey.pdf 

[4] Bender, F. 2003. The culture of extinction: Toward a philosophy of deep ecology. Humanity Books. 
[5] Birkeland, I. et al. 2018. Cultural sustainability and the nature-culture interface: Livelihoods, policies, and 

methodologies. Routledge. 
[6] Brady, E. 2006. Aesthetics in practice: Valuing the natural world. Environmental Values 15(3): 277-291. 
[7] Comfort, K. 2023. A global humanities approach to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Routledge. 
[8] Dallaire, G. and Colbert, F. n.d. Sustainable Development and Cultural Policy: Do They Make A Happy Marriage? 

ENCATC Journal of Cultural Management and Policy. https://cercles.diba.cat/documentsdigitals/pdf/E140060.pdf 
[9] Dessein, J., K. Soini, G. Fairclough, and L. G. Horlings, eds. 2015. Culture in, for and as Sustainable Development: 

Conclusions from the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. 
[10] Droz, L. 2022. Anthropocentrism as the scapegoat of the environmental crisis: a review. Ethics in Science and 

Environmental Policies 22: 25-49. 
[11] Duxbury, N., Kangas, A., and De Beukelaer, C. 2017. Cultural policies for sustainable development: four strategic 

paths. International Journal of Cultural Policy 23(2): 214-230. 
[12] Garcia-Mira, R., Sabucedo, J., and Romay, J. 2003. Culture, environmental action and sustainability. Hogrefe & 

Huber. 
[13] Griggs, E. 2009. The new humanism. BiblioBazaar. 
[14] Hajek, O., Noosak, J., and Bednar, P. 2011. Local Agenda 21 and culture: Lessons from the Czech Republic. Culture 

and Local Governance 3(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.18192/clg-cgl.v3i1.187 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


599 

 

 

Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology 
ISSN: 2576-8484 

Vol. 8, No. 6: 591-599, 2024 
DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2131 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 

 

[15] Implementing Culture within the Sustainable Development Goals. The Role of Culture in Agenda 2030. n.d. Culture 
Action Europe. https://cultureactioneurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Implementing-Culture-in-
Sustainable-Development-Goals-SDGs.pdf 

[16] Irvin, S. 2010. Aesthetics as a Guide to Ethics. In Aesthetics Today: A Reader, edited by R. Stecker and T. Gracyk, 
370-377. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 

[17] Isar, Y. R. 2017. ‘Culture’, ‘Sustainable Development’ and Cultural Policy: A Contrarian View.” International Journal 
of Cultural Policy 23 (2): 148-158. 

[18] Jha, A. 2004. Sustainable development: Concepts and strategies. AdhyayanBooks. 
[19] Kopnina, H. 2020. Anthropocentrism: Problem of human-centered ethics in sustainable development goals. In: Life of 

Land (pp. 48-57).  

[20] Kryshtanovych, M., Golub, V., Kоzakov V., Pakhomova, T., Polovtsev, O. 2021a. Socio-Ecological Effect of Public 
Management of Green Development in the Context of the Philosophy of Modern Ecology. WISDOM 19(3): 114-126. 
https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v19i3.493 

[21] Kryshtanovych, M., Kryshtanovych, S., Stepanenko, L., Brodiuk, Y., Fast, A. 2021b. Methodological approach to 
determining the main factors for the development of creative thinking in students of creative professions. Creativity 
Studies, 14(2), 391-404. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.14806 

[22] Kryshtanovych, M., Antonova, L., Filippova, V., Dombrovska, S., Pidlisna, T. 2022. Influence of COVID-19 on the 
functional device of state governance of economic growth of countries in the context of ensuring security. 
International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering 12(2): 193-199. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsse.120207 

[23] Kryshtanovych, M., Polovtsev, O., Liubetska, M., Lukashevska, U., Dubin, D. 2023a. Modeling the planning of the 
potential for sustainable development of the region in the system of public administration of social security. 
International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 18(3); 757-762. 
https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180311 

[24] Kryshtanovych, M., Kupchak, V., Voronov, O., Larina, N., Humeniuk, A. 2023b. Formation of social leadership in the 
system of public safety and security through the use of modern modeling techniques. International Journal of Safety 
and Security Engineering 13(2): 317-324. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsse.130213 

[25] Kryshtanovych, M., Kiyanka, I., Ostapiak, V., Kornat, L., Kuchyk, O. 2023c. Modeling effective interaction between 
society and public administration for sustainable development policy. International Journal of Sustainable 
Development and Planning 18(8): 2555-2561. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180827 

[26] Kryshtanovych, M., Kiblyk, D., Dzyanyy, R., Kovalskyi, M., Primush, R., Nazarenko, T. 2024. Formation of drivers of 
sustainable development: Administrative and legal support to ensure information security. International Journal of 
Sustainable Development and Planning 19(4): 1611-1619. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.19043 

[27] Kononenko O., Ivanchenko A., Gaivoronska T., Khitrova T., Semenko S., Kuzmin V. 2024. Psychological and Social-
Communication Aspects of HR Management Career in Wartime, Including Stress, Motivation, Will and Efficiency of 

Working Conditions, Revista de Cercetare şi Intervenţie Socială, 84, 206-223. 
[28] Kryshtanovych S., Inozemtseva, O., Voloshyna, O., Ostapiovska, I., Dubrova., O. 2023d. Modeling the Effective 

Digitalization of the Education Management System in the Context of Sustainable Development. International 
Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 18(5): 1507-1514. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180521 

[29] Kuzmin V., Gaivoronska T., Khitrova T., Velykzhanina D., Kazannikova O., Kuzmina M. 2023. Communicative and 

Psychological Aspects of Professional Career Development: Exploring the Differences.  Revista de Cercetare şi 
Intervenţie Socială, 81, 129-147. 

[30] Nurse, K. 2006. Culture as the Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development. Institute of International Relations, 
Trinidad and Tobago: University of the West Indies. 

[31] Radcliffe, S., and N. Laurie. 2006. Culture and Development: Taking Culture Seriously in Development for Andean 
Indigenous People. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24(2): 231-248. 

[32] Rayman-Bacchus, L., and & Radavoi, C. 2019. Advancing culture’s role in sustainable development: social change 
through cultural policy, International Journal of Cultural Policy, DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2019.1624735 

[33] Secundo, G. et al. 2020. Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: A structured literature 
review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 153: 119917. 

[34] Shoreman-Ouimet, E., and Kopnina, H. 2015. Culture and conservation: Beyond anthropocentrism. Routledge. 
[35] Taback, H., and Ramanan, R. 2013. Environmental ethics and sustainability. CRC Press. 
[36] Unuigbe, N. 2020. Eco-anthropocentrism and sustainable development in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region. GRIN 

Verlag. 
[37] Valera, L. (2019). Depth, ecology, and the deep ecology movement: Arne Næss’s proposal for the future. 

Environmental Ethics 41: 293-303. 
[38] Witoszek, N., and Muller, M. 2017. Deep ecology. Brill. 

 
 

https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.19043
https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180521