Continuing my journalism for inclusive developmentof my country the Philippines, I must continue to pursue sustainability.
Above: Environmental. Socio-cultural. Technological. Economic. Public Policy. According to the American think tank Joslyn Institute, these 5 domains must all be employed in concert building or rebuilding Sustainable Communities.
Joslyn says, “Many business and governmental leaders have been skeptical about placing any domain on a par with Economics.” And I say that if you don’t, Economics will gobble up any energies or efforts at sustainable development – and that is the meaning of Gross Domestic Product, GDP – where if you have a high GDP value, you have high development – but not necessarily sustainable development.
In November last year, Agriculture Monthly republished my article “Appreciating Sustainable Development[1]” earlier published last March. I wrote:
So, when you read the term sustainable developmentanywhere, whether it is applied to science or technology, applied in economics or education, unless the author is using the term in a very limited context (which happens, and which is wrong), whether it is the Philippine government or the United Nations using the term, it must mean not just one or any combination but all of the following, that whatever is being considered is:
(1) Economically viable, and (2) Environmentally sound, and (3) Socially acceptable.
Whatever happened to “public policy”? It must be socially acceptable. Same with “socio-cultural.” What about “technological”? It must be economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially acceptable!
No technology, no matter how advanced, can lead to sustainable development of a region, for instance, if it is merely (1) technically feasible, or merely (2) environmentally sound, or merely (3) socially acceptable; it must be a combination of the three components.
Joslyn insists on its 5 domains of sustainability. It justifies those by saying:
These questions are relevant to every community on the globe… small, large, mega, or intermediate in size. We are leaving the era when the international argument has been over poverty, or rich versus poor. This language is from the industrial revolution, “economics above-all-else” thinking, which symbolizes only one measure among the five domains. The “rich” may have significant economic wealth, but may be poor in environmental resources, or socio-cultural attributes; the “poor” may have less economic stature, but may be wealthy in cultural history and basic quality of life.
Joslyn is wrong in saying “We are leaving the era when the international argument has been… rich versus poor.” The whole world is still rich versus poor. That is because the rich do not really want sustainable development except if it is in their favor!
Joslyn says, “The ‘rich’ may have significant economic wealth, but may be poor in environmental resources” – that is justifying the unjustifiable. We are all in this together!
Joslyn says, “The ‘poor’ may have less economic stature, but may be wealthy in cultural history and basic quality of life.” How can the poor be wealthy of the basic quality of life?! That is a contradiction.
Joslyn, about sustainable arguments, try again!@517
Comments
Post a Comment