(Not so) Sustainable Development
December 2, 2010
When I awoke this morning to the site of an utterly white landscape outside and texts from Leeds Met cancelling the day’s lectures, naturally my thoughts turned to ‘what should I ask for this Christmas?’
‘Iphone or Blackberry?’ I pondered to myself. To take my mind off this conundrum, I started reading over my notes on Brendan Sheehan’s seminar on Sustainable Development. I suddenly felt a great deal of guilt and somewhat spoiled.
Out of a global population of 6.9 billion people, 2 billion people live on less than $2 a day. 1 Billion live on less than $1. Really puts thing in perspective. I already have far more than I really need, but that’s still not enough.
There’s always something new, better and more expensive than the things I already have, at an increasing rate. I guess the man behind this ‘all-consuming self’ conception is Edward Bernays, godfather of PR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs (this video’s worth a watch).
Bernays was the first to apply Freud’s psychodynamic emphasis on dream analysis to a consumerist culture, where people’s desires take precedence over their needs – a formula for an economic boom and the birth of ‘supercapitalism’.
I don’t mean to ‘name and shame’ a man I respect dearly, and I’m not a green peace activist or anything like that. After all it’s this kind of mentality that stimulates economic growth, drives technological progress, creates more jobs and improves quality of life and wellbeing.
What does this have to with sustainable development?
Resources and fossils fuels are depleting, China and India will soon be (some may argue they already are) world superpowers, competing and creating new industries and markets and for resources, consequently the worlds’ population is estimated to soar to 9 billion by 2040.
In light of these factors, the concept of sustainable development is seemingly an ideal, despite many initiatives being taken to reduce and recycle, we have still yet to come up with a way to ensure our development is completely sustainable. Nonetheless development in renewable energies is looking optimistic.
The point is by definition, a free market capitalist economy conflicts with sustainable development because free markets produce economic growth, accelerating development.
The current recession is a perfect example of unsustainable development, too much money was being loaned to match repayments (in a nutshell) causing deficits and insolvency.
Sustainable development it seems is a myth. Our society and culture will always want more. Look at me, I’m at university because I( and 50% of post 18 year olds in the UK) want to better my prospects and hopefully earn more than I would have otherwise. I was not content with developing sustainably. And to be honest, what’s wrong with that? Isn’t creativity and progress the essence of humanity? And democracy?
Perhaps I’m being too harsh, many commentators will argue that measures have been taken to develop in a sustainable way whether that be planting 3 trees for every 1 you cut down, switching bulbs to low energy, investing in solar panels and wind turbines and waste less and recycle. But the wholly definition provided by the ‘Brundtland Report’ ensures subjective analysis and interpretation, how can we measure: ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ ? With no quantifiable means of measurement or a comprehensive, practical strategy to be imposed upon us, how can we use this definition?
Corporations will continue to exploit market niches and grow, and maybe our technocentrism will pay off, and we will find ways to cap our emissions and meet our energy needs more efficiently. But our compulsion to desire what we don’t have has been rigorously programmed into us from a very early age. Sustainable Development is a nice idea, but in practise has not and will not be so eagerly implemented because of the ramifications it would have to business and industry and economic growth.
We know our resources are dwindling (the IEA predicts oil prices to rise to $200 a barrel by 2035), we know climate change is inevitable, we know we are developing too fast for our own good, but it will take more than this for us all to embrace the notion of sustainable development openly into our everyday lives. I can guarantee Christmas at my house this year will be one of merry excess and looming credit card bills and I’m sure yours will be very similar.
What it will take is either a major global disaster or global co-operation between governments far beyond what we’ve ever seen in the history of the planet.
Humanity is capable of great acts of compassion and kindess, but most of us can only really extend these feelings so far. Can we really expect every citizen of this country to feel guilt for the fact we’re better off than othr parts of the world?
Have you ever heard of Dunbar’s number? It’s a theory that suggests we all have a limit on the number of relationships we can maintain, and therefore our social consecience beyond our own friends and family is stricly finite. I think it highlights the problem well; it’s not that we don’t care, it’s that we’re not designed to care on the kind of scale demanded to solve this issue.
Changing a light here and planting a tree there is great, but it won’t solve the problem. It certainly doesn’t hurt, but we do it because its simple, it doesn’t require any real effort, time or money on our part and hey, it makes us FEEL better.
The single largest contribution anyone can make to sustainability without dedicating their entire life to the cause is simply to not have so many children, but I don’t think we’re going to see the government of this country suggesting that solution any time soon.
You seem to be able to articulate my blog better than I can!
I think a feeling of guilt is a natural human response when you have plenty and many others have next to nothing.
(Without being too historically political) It is British imperialism that contributed to the poverty of third world countries and the vast industrialization of commerce and the consequences that have followed. Although whose to blame for things that happened last century?
I agree with your citing of Dunbar and limited social interaction … if it doesn’t affect me personally, my interest and motivation to solve these issues remains a minor priority at best. It would take as you say a ‘global disaster or global co-operation’ to comprehensively address the issues I have outlined.
I think that we don’t really get a proper feel of how much poverty there is out there unless we are thrown into that situation. People go out to Africa and other third world countries in the world but they always have the knowledge that they’re coming back to a plentiful existence. And we can’t exactly swap everyone over, so all of the developed countries swap inhabitants with third world countries.
I don’t think the media represents the situation as well as it could either. Only one reporter is allowed into a war zone and they have to share their reports with the rest of the media so how do we know that that source is reliable and not holding further information back. Also, reporters often write articles without their own emotions added and it makes the news very cold but not very emotional to persuade the developed countries into giving more aid.
We should be able to give aid easily to these countries but for some reason our government can’t even cover it’s own costs- however much we pay in tax. It’s said that if the top ten richest people in the world put their interests for one year together, world poverty could be solved.
As we’ve studied in O+E though, if everyone had the same lifestyle all over the world resources would deplete so rapidly that by 2040 we wouldn’t need one planet but we’d need 5. The westernised countries definitely need to cut back though on using up resources and their consumer culture. However, saying that, I’m typing this on a MacBook Pro. Very hard to not get caught up in it. Clever Bernays! Sad to think that we will be following in his footsteps. Perhaps I should stop my degree and go and live in Africa and help villages with no water :S!
Charlotte
What’s more alarming is the rise of China & India. Soon they will be competing for resources and market domination (some commentators already argue they are).
Morever after a failure to reach a consensus for EDCs as well as MEDCs to reduce carbon emissions at the UN Climate Change Conference last year, it seems things will only get worse. This decade will be one of unsustainable economic growth leading to turbulent relations between East & West.