The indonesians get poorer by the day where their banking-notes money getting devalued by the day. Can governments do anything? All banks in the world are related to central banks. All central banks are tied to the world bank. By extension to IMF. They have a mechanism to sustain the banks and their banking notes system. Of course gold is not a vocab with them.
Ideal and reality
A prohibited word. A NO NO. I have been looking at your website, you are a very impressive person! It does seem hard to find and it probably does not taste very good.
I look forward to reading more about your work. I wish that I could say something kind in your language, but I do not even know what your native language is. I am trying to teach myself Thai and Japanese… this is difficult when I can barely speak english properly. While I appreciate everything that has been said so far, I do feel that a few key, concepts have been overlooked. The forward states:. I was very much aware of the need to put together a highly qualified and influential political and scientific team, to constitute a truly independent Commission.
The Commission does, however, go on to describe ways to achieve sustainability. The commission and its definition can not be blamed for a lack of sustainability today, nor should the concept of sustainability be abandoned. It explicitly states:. In so doing we speak to people directly as well as to the institutions that they have established.
The congregation of governments, gathered in the General Assembly of the United Nations, will be the main recipients of this report. I have placed in quotes the bodies who should have acted on the commission more strongly, many of them who possibly were unaware of the existence of the commission at all. How many people today are aware of this commission- twenty five years later? It is a failing in the global political system that the people who need to understand what is happening politically the most are the most out of the loop. Why is that, I wonder?
In any case, the commission was demanding participation and creativity from the world, which it possibly did not get. Group work is not always the easiest to coordinate on a large, even global scale. However, if everyone is waiting to be coordinated, who will do the coordinating and the creative thinking? That said, I do not think the term sustainable development should be dismissed, but rather approached more closely. The scope of it is outlined in the commission. It is a theory that needs its practice to be seen, or else it will disappear… and then? And then the global changes we will see could be catastrophic.
Separation is the problem in this supposedly globalized world. Another term that deserves a look is globalization. I think this is a key concept that is overlooked. The problem is people with money have the option right now of dismissing anything unpleasant they decide to dismiss because we have political power or just simply a choice- our life is not hanging by a thread, day to day, or we are not living downstream. We even have the option of being hypocritical. And this is because we do not see the direct effects of our choices. While the monetary system is something I would love to see edited, it is also something that many people are firmly attached to, to the point that taking it away could cause global political unrest.
I would, even more, love to see people living off of the land that is in front of them and returning to the barter system so that the illusions we in America practice would not affect the global population negatively. Unfortunately, people are reluctant to give up what they already have. Here is my compromise perhaps as equally unlikely given the fragmented state of many governments and the people in democracies that supposedly run those governments : I would love for people who drive cars, both gas guzzling and efficient, to have to pay for every ounce of carbon that comes out of their tail pipe and for the labor- the true price of the labor in terms of global value- that went into making the car or truck.
Your built environment bookshelf is a couple of clicks away
I would like to see people more invested in their food systems, with food education including who grows the food and with what means. And I would like to see people appreciating the people and places in front of them rather than living off of some distant dream. I will offer one more comment, and that is that as long as governments shelter ignorance to important issues and unsustainable choices behind a coat of rights, it will be impossible to make positive changes in the economic, environmental, and social arenas that will take into account what works for a specific locality.
It is the shared interest, the social globalization, that beyond any government will lead to a sustainable society. Yet again, it is easy to highlight issues, easy to vaguely state how those issues can be solved, and very difficult to organize and educate enough people to address the issues on a massive scale. I enjoyed this question because of its broadness and complete relevance to current political, economic, and social climate. Thank you Jacob. Sustainable development is a phrase which has generated a large paradigm shift since the 8Os because the idea been very challanging to the status quo.
While I am grateful for the shift it has enacted, I feel it is time to move on from this concept due to its ambiguity. Many organizations across the world rally behind the idea of sustainable development, but it has been so vaguely defined that it is easy for conflicts to arise, as a result of varied interpretation, under this single banner.
Instead it would be more useful for specific regions, topics, and issues to create more concrete ideas to define them. Clarity and specificity is needed in a era where we have evolved from considering a new paradigm, to enacting it. I love this idea and am interested in ideas people have that might encourage people on the local and regional level to address the issues that have been tapped as global issues- and also sustainable solutions people have to unsustainable problems. I can think of many movements, like food not lawns and buy local, that are already happening in my region of the United States.
I agree- it is time for more concrete approaches. I do think that SD is such a familiar term, though, that it would be a shame to discard it completely from the process. Its substance could be the canopy of the tree where fruits are discovered as more nuanced ideas become more clearly defined and applied. I like your tree analogy and I also agree with you; to completely discard SD would be to lose much of the momentum it has generated.
To assign such great meaning to any one statement seems troublesome. If we look at the words in the connoted sense versus the etymological one, we know that this term belongs to environmentalists. When we use this phrase, most of us are thinking of environmentally sound development or ecologically sustainable development. So I argue that we make the term our own. The beauty of language is that we can change and shape phrases and ideas into whatever we want. Lets not be confined by the definition of the term, but lets mold it into something beautiful. I would be proud to live in a world where people applied more foresight and responsibility into their growth.
The term is subjective to begin with.
- Le Petit Nicolas, cest Noël ! (French Edition).
- Green European Foundation.
There should be some general knowledge of the term but because there are so many opinions and ideas of what it may actually be there is no way to determine what is correct. This could mean then that there are many sub-categories, of sustainable development and we all apply it to this one broad category. This is also because of the varying ethical and economic views and capabilities of people around the world that allow for sustainable growth. This may cause a linguistic revolution! Personally, despite the lack of visible results, I believe SD as imaged by the Commission was and remains to this day a relevant and worthy goal.
I think the Commission got it right when defining and making prescriptions about the problem and I feel that the objectives set by the Commission are still a meaningful basis for action. I think the hold-up has taken place because, as the Brundtland members clearly knew, the changes necessary for SD require so much commitment and sacrificing of the status quo. But they are still changes that need to be made. The way I see it, the potential for SD to create a better world lies in its feasibility.
We need to develop and we need to do it sustainably, and it is possible to do both.
Debate: Is Sustainable Development Still Relevant? - Our World
Yes, we have not been able to muster the necessary political will as of yet, but as Gro Brundtland explains in her interview, public understanding and acceptance of sustainability issues are mounting, initiating action and putting pressure on leaders. It may be gradual but action will be taken to tackle SD objectives.
And this will only be expedited by the growing pressure exerted on societies by resource depletion and climate change, which, as increasing oil costs, recent floods and record heat have shown, we are already starting to face. Now one factor that may potentially hold SD back is the economic crisis facing much of the world today.
There is definitely a danger that the frenzy to promote jobs and economic revival at home will distract developed nations from the need to reorient their growth and consumption. This would not be good. However, there is great opportunity present in this situation as well, and I believe that should be the main focus at the international level right now; with this economic crisis developed countries have the opportunity to start new programs and initiatives merging economic and environmental goals to ultimately send their societies in a sustainable direction.
If at the international level now, we can get an agreement going between developed countries that will leave them working together to take advantage of economic problems for sustainable development purposes we might find ourselves in a great place to change the nature of our growth and our ecological impacts.
The massive responsibilities of industrialized nations have to be implicit in the concept of SD. And the way I see it playing out, it will be up to the developed countries to make the first move and take big action. And it should be this way, as the developed countries have the historical responsibility for the situation and need to gain the trust of the South. As it stands currently, the leaders of developed countries are too impeded by self interest and a lack of pressure to take this first step.
But many current issues today are prodding us forward and presenting us with rational opportunities to take action, prove our accountability to the developing world, and then get on track with the goals of SD. So I think it is still relevant, I think it sets high but reasonable objectives, and I think its provides us a good framework going forward, which thanks to growing public support, imminent environmental pressures, and the opportunities presented by our current economic problems, we might just be able to pursue with some degree of commitment.
The global environmental dilemmas are absolutely complex, but that is exactly why we need to understand all of the issues and how they are all integrated. Sustainable development can never be achieved without focusing on every issue that creates the whole of the problem.
All of the issues including environmental, economical, political, and social are evidence of disease in the Earth both on the land and in the inhabitants. Disease, quite literally, can also be read as dis-ease, and these four issues just mentioned are symptoms of dis-ease in Earth and dis-function of the systems within the Earth. It is worth investigating these different issues and creating solutions and strategies to fix them one by one, in order to restore the synergistic relationship between humans and the Earth in which they inhabit.
People in more developed parts of the world regard developing these countries as important or perhaps romantic.