Lecture 2 Contradictions in Sustainable Development Introduction(Growth versus Development) Sustainable Development (SD) an ambiguous term, composing of words that are contradictory to each other “Sustainable” call for ecological and social transformation, a world of healthy environments and social justice “Development” Economic Growth The planet Earth: finite, one size & not growing no such thing as “sustainable growth” because growth will inevitably hit physical limit Differentiating “Development” & “Growth” “Growth” Implies increasing endlessly in size and quantity which is impossible “Development” The realization of a fuller and greater potential involving qualitative change and transition to a fuller or better state Thus “Growth” is after quantity while “Development” is after quality, i.e. having grown to the maximum, it is time that humanity began to concentrate on developing its full potential. This is equivalent to the analogy that we grow early in life & when we reach adult maturity we develop mentally, socially & culturally, instead of continually to grow physically However... Development Constrains Our development cannot reach its full potential because of discriminations in gender, race, class, religion, or ideology If we can take the full advantage of the potential of co-development activities from all these different parts of the humanity, we may not feel so pressured to “keep growing” our economies (e.g. shifting cultivation) What is Development finally? “Human development is not about having more, but about being more” Genuine development assures a dignified level of existence, including the basic needs of food, clean water & air, shelter, cloth, friendship, diversity of tastes, beliefs, preferences …etc. Through the actions of Sustainable Development, we can construct a better world healthier, happier & less unequal Contradictions in SD According to Redclift (1987) “Sustainable Development is a concept which draws on two frequently opposed intellectual traditions: one concerned with the limits which nature presents to human beings, the other with the potential for human material development which is locked up in nature. Embedded within this broad contradictions are the following specific contradictions...” (1) Democracy versus purposeful action (A) The limits of sustainability have structural as well as natural origins “Structural” here means overriding structures of the international economic system which arose out of the exploitation of environmental resources, and which frequently operate as constraints on the achievement of long-term sustainable practices (e.g. globalization) (B) Intellectual traditions which we draw upon for solutions to problems point in different directions (C) Neither neo-classical nor Marxist economics take sufficient account of the environment, while environmentalists provide the vaguest guidelines in negotiating a more constructive relationship with nature E.g. Mao Zedong’s belief that man can conquer nature; China’s outmoded state-owned-enterprises. (D) Authoritarian measures to contain economic demands for material advance contradict the liberating, humane objectives (E) Some people believe the world should place greater reliance on international agreement & planning, without which individual, personal or national interests would dictate the course of development process (2) Political struggles over the environment in developed and developing countries Developed countries (North) seek to protect & conserve rural space recognize aesthetic values in the countryside provide better access to this space ensure the biological survival of threatened species (e.g. Hong Kong’s country park system since 1976) Environmental objectives in the South are different: the survival of species is important for economic reasons, the environment is a contested domain (e.g. tropical rainforests) Unfortunately, the material standards of life in the developed countries (North) are linked with the way resources & human labor is exploited in the South. It is not left to people in developing countries to decide how to use their resources. A reduction in the amount of work is acceptable to people in developed countries, but is a nightmare to poor people in the South (One exception is China’s reduced work hours to stimulate internal spending). (3) Paradox of Technology (cause or cure) Technology plays a dual role in mediating our relationship with the environment. It brings benefits as well as creates new problems E.g. fertilizers and pesticides Biotechnology is potentially a powerful tool yet bioethics is a cause of concern Thus technological breakthroughs should not be construed as a way of resolving the contradictions of development for the environment, but a way of distancing ourselves from these contradictions. There is also the danger that policy-makers and governments of the North may adopt technological option that they can control, without counting the environmental or social costs. (4) Inter- and intra-generational equity Intergenerational equity, or justice between generations, is the ultimate moral principle behind sustainability Intragenerational equity, or equalities within the current world population, is also important. These disparities are most obvious between the developed and developing worlds, and within the world’s richest countries. If the developing world was brought up to the consumption level of the developed countries, a 5-fold increase in total load (& environmental degradation) of the Earth would result. Political & economic cycles (e.g. elections, government budgets) are much shorter than the natural systems (e.g. plantation forestry, soil formation & climatic change). To enforce intergenerational equity, institutional systems need to think over time scales that are somewhat closer to those of natural systems. (5) Economic growth versus ecological limits Continuous economic growth in size & quantity is unsustainable, and is a cause of ecological predicament. Despite this, growth is central to the politics of economic management in the modern era Recently, economic growth can be achieved in a more environmentally-sound manner (e.g. using less input per unit of economic activity & productivity) The new dimension of growth in an intellectual, spiritual, or artistic sense is also feasible e.g. multi-faceted values of country parks Nowadays, ecological limits refer to the assimilative capacity of the environment to accept wastes, than to limits of resource supply. (6) Individual versus collective interests Individualism a basic tenet of the political & economic arrangement of western cultures. It is epitomized by our automobile culture, our attitudes to land tenure, & our preference for small household units. In contrast, many concerned about the global ecological future call for mass public transport, a shift in attitudes to land from ownership to stewardship, & changes in household size and structure. Environmental issues are actually collective problems, arising from the sum of individual preferences & consumption. Those who consume little will bear the costs of total consumption just as much as those who consume a great deal. So the tensions between individual & broader goals will develop This tension also exists internationally, as in per capita & overall energy consumption. (7) Is optimization antisustainability? Optimization to make the best use of resources, in response to population growth & increased per capita consumption growth. It also increases waste production. The critical result of optimization is to view any unused resources as a waste, hence to expand use to the limit. Fuller & fuller use of resources is a moral & survival imperative for those who lack basic needs. In this case, spare capacity is limited & antisustainability. (8) Humility versus Arrogance Despite an ever-increasing quantity of information, our comprehension of the global environment is characterized by uncertainty (e.g. climate change, biodiversity). Current policymaking processes are not good at recognizing & coping with uncertainty. We need humility to maintain an open mind on new knowledge & experience listen to new ideas & leaders remain flexible to deal with new circumstances. We also need arrogance to make decisions in face of this uncertainty. For instance, many reforms are advisable even though uncertainty exists for the costs and benefits of action over greenhouse gases emissions (9) Anthropocentric approach versus non-anthropocentric approach Anthropocentrism represents the traditional format of ethical inquiry, i.e. human interests or well-being. It seeks such things as sustainable society, sustainable food production, & sustainable economic development that are closely related to human welfare. It also represents a moral responsibility of people with respect to other people. Nonanthropocentrism it shifts the emphasis from strict consideration of human interests to nonhuman interests. It represents a moral responsibility of people with respect to the environment (or biotic community), and not with respect to other people. The rise of nonanthropocentrism is because anthropocentrism is believed to be the cause of our current environmental problems, hence is unecological & threatens the stability of life on Earth. Nonetheless, the anthropocentric perspective still dominates the paradigm of sustainable development because many consider nonanthropocentrism unrealistic or too abstract. THE END