There's this debate on sustainable development going on, as I write this, at Economist.com's debate micro-site. Naturally, I have a thing or two to say about such matters. However, I tend not to favour media sites and blogs that require you to register and login just to leave a comment. I have an email address, a gravatar, an OpenId etc. and somehow manage to prove my humanness on Captcha challenges, usually. Why won't they accept any of these to make sure I'm a live human being and not a spam bot (assuming that's the concern)? In any case, they can moderate my comment just to make sure I'm not posting hate and libel. But no, they want me to register and login. Meh. So then I come back to my blog to air my views. Smaller readership as compared to The Economist, but what the heck. On the plus side, I can say pretty much what I want here, without having to be stodgy, keep a stiff upper lip and speak in euphemisms.
The motion: "This house believes that sustainable development is unsustainable". My comment:
To being with, the motion, as articulated, is paradoxical. As a logician, I'd classify it along with other self-referential 'nonsense' statements such as the Eubulides paradox: "This statement is false" or the liar's paradox: "He is a liar - he said so himself". All very well in a lighter vein, in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way, but debates on topics such as sustainable development, should not become a forum for indulgence in frivolous footling. And after all, one does expect a quantum of gravitas in the content hosted by The Economist. No?
So here're a couple of alternative interpretations of (what to my mind are) the issues and concerns underlying the theme of sustainable development, which, according to me, make for good debate over a cuppa.
(Alternative interpretation no. 1) If what has been labelled "sustainable development" is turning out to be (or has already turned out to be) unsustainable, then the focus should be on the corrective action that needs to be taken to make it so. The debate should then centre around two questions: (a) Is the sustainable development initiative turning out not to be so sustainable after all, and if so, then (b) What can we do to set it back on its proper course. In this case, the motion should be re-articulated as "This house believes that the sustainable development initiative needs to correct its course, in order to meet its goals".
(Alternative interpretation no. 2) If the expression "sustainable development" is an oxymoron (as opposed to a paradox) - i.e., if the proposition is that all development is intrinsically, by definition, not sustainable - then the focus should be on evaluating other strategies to address global challenges that threaten the future of our planet and the nature and quality of life as we know it. The debate should then centre around two questions: (a) Are efforts to achieve sustainability (in development) in vain because the very nature of development carries within it the seeds that will make such efforts unsustainable, and if so, then (b) How must we address global issues that call for a sustainable approach. In this case, the motion should be re-articulated as "This house believes that the concept of development is unsustainable by definition and hence we need other solutions to global challenges and threats".
Of course "sustainable development" is sustainable! Moreover, sustainable development is not an option (as I have argued before and will continue to argue). Look around you - we simply cannot go on like this! Governments, corporations, institutions, communities and people in general must all understand and embrace sustainable development if we are to have a fighting chance to survive and thrive.
P.S. On second thoughts, the moderator might just not have posted my comment. Harumph!
0 comments:
Post a Comment