Sustainable development and human freedom: balancing environmental conservation with material welfare

¶ … Sustainable Development Compatible With Human Welfare?

Julie L. Davidson, from "Sustainable Development: Business as Usual or a New Way of Living?" Environment Ethics (Spring 2000)

Researcher Julie argues that a radical conversion to sustainable development offers a way to make future humans freedom possible and consistent with the wider social and ecological good.

There are many logical points made to consider sustainable development. The main argument or weighting factor is freedom for the use of the environment's resources over future generations to come along with generations of many other ecosystems which will prolong the existence of the human race, and their social needs.

NO: Jacqueline R. Kasun, from "Doomsday Every Day: Sustainable Economics, Sustainable Tyranny," The Independence Review (Summer 1999)

NO: Economics professor Jacqueline R. Kasun asserts that sustainable development poses threats to human freedom, dignity, and material welfare. How does it pose a threat to human freedom?

Student's point-of-view / Justification

In the realm of sustainability can one only live on the existence of the present? Is that the question? Yes, individuals can only in the context of perception in societal ways. However, is that the path, we as individuals want to follow? Do we take the radical approach and use mother earth as our own, whenever and wherever needed. Or is it more likely that we take the conservative approach in which we utilize mother earth's resources and they replenish. I would rather take the conservative approach when it comes to ecosystems, the earth's atmosphere, and water processing to enhance the quality of social living among individuals in rural and urban areas. On the other hand, I would contemplate using the radical approach when discussing advances in technology to clean up waste and further energy uses in the manufacturing and business sector. How can we make this work? One cries for moderation of the earth's resources and the other cries we do not have enough. Sustainability is taking our freedom, dignity and material possessions from us. Does that really make us human or does it constitute greed, gluttony and selfishness.

Where do you draw the line? I would rather live on a subsistent lifestyle. For example, the Yamana Indians in South America have a subsistent lifestyle to the extent to which their ecosystems are intact and reliable for consistent daily nourishment through farming, or hunting for wild boar and sea lions. They also use fishing as a way to catch food. They survived from the land by taking care of their surroundings, and through farming practices, which create fertile ground for plant and harvesting crops. This lifestyle gives the Yanomana human freedom, dignity and material welfare. Who will live longer the one who creates an environment in which saves existing plants, animals and their surroundings and its content, humble and serene or the one who depletes resources faster than they can reproduce in which makes one happy and satisfied? Would this give us greater social freedom and economical good? No, that is called instant gratification. However, in a societal way, one might be stereotyped as an environmental crook to the extent that they are using the environment's resources for an immediate economical gain to further one's wealth and abusing many ecosystems, which are a necessity for living. For example, one can be perceived as an economical environmentalist, which no one can be allocated extra resources until they have been re-supplied or replenished to normal levels. Moreover, moderating resources does not constitute the lack of material welfare, dignity or human freedom but it creates the path for sustainable development. Sustainable development is the correct path for ecological and societal welfare.

A concept of sustainable development must remedy social inequities and environmental damage, while maintaining a sound economic base. These are the requirements for sustainable development to benefit human welfare. Consequently, it is essential to come to terms with the vital importance of sustainability in the global environment.

Firstly, the conservation of natural capital is essential for sustainable economic production and intergenerational equity. Market mechanisms do not operate effectively to conserve natural capital, but tend to deplete and degrade it.

Secondly, from an ecological perspective, both population and total resource demand must be limited in scale, and the integrity of ecosystems and diversity of species must be maintained.

Thirdly, social equity, the fulfillment of basic health and educational needs, and participatory democracy are crucial elements of development, and are interrelated with environmental sustainability. Taken together, these principles clearly suggest new guidelines for the development process. They also require a modification of the original goal of economic growth. Economic growth, especially for those who lack essentials, is clearly needed, but must be subject to global limits and should not be the prime objective for countries already at high levels of consumption. As Alan Durning has suggested, a moderate level of consumption, together with strong social institutions and a healthy environment, represents a better ideal than ever-increasing consumption.1

Guided markets may often be useful tools for achieving specific environmental goals, and there is an extensive economic literature on "internalizing externalities" so as to reflect environmental costs and benefits in the market.2 But in a broader perspective, it is the social and institutional processes of setting social and environmental goals and norms, which must guide sustainable development policy.

Therefore, goal setting in these areas such as, conservation, social equity and ecological perspective will not cause harm but rather create longevity in humans and other organisms in all ecosystems. For example, the Yanomana Indians live on a subsistent life style to the extent to which their ecosystems are intact and reliable for consistent daily nourishment through farming, or hunting for wild boar and sea lions.

We can use sustainability development to promote human freedom, material welfare and the dignity of people in society rather than destroying our global surroundings and inhabitants by using the radical approach of greed, gluttony and instant gratification of human activities.

The sustainable development is by and large the phenomena that speak in favor of preserving human and non-human elements of nature while in the way of making progress for the human needs and demands. We cannot, thus, overlook what the human needs and wants are as we cannot overlook, in the same way how these needs and wants makes endangered living for the future generations to come. But the idea of sustainable development in true course of events, and in true literary meaning does ensure that the material possessions of the nature would not be harmed, rather actions would be in the way in preserving the Mother Nature. The economic prosperity is directly linked with the sustainable development and the issue that the sustainable development threatens the human dignity and freedom, may be right if perceived from one point-of-view. However, if the issue of human dignity and material freedom is viewed through many standpoints, then the idea may be negated. This is true when the concept of material freedom is taken in to consideration. The future generations do get a share of the environment that we enjoy today in the course of sustainable development. But we must also not ignore the hue and cry that the political intentions of the one proclaiming the sustainable development is a better way to give the future generations their true share of the environment. Under this notion come the intentions of many who give the idea of economic restructuring. By economic restructuring the supporters of sustainable development approves of the sound systems of productions and consumptions that must entail human autonomy that in turns may yield sound human welfare system and communities that would in turn speak of the past and present perspectives. However, under these assumptions comes the challenges of ethics, that I have talked earlier about in terms of political intentions. The ethical challenges may be very difficult to meet under the political intentions of many sustainable development supporters. Then, under this situation comes the issue of compatibility of sustainability with human and non-human development to create a welfare ecosystem.

Hence, what seems in reality is that we, in this present time, are reacting to the theme of sustainable development and the efforts in this direction are merely a reaction to the changing environmental conditions. Any arguments in this regard may be useless as we are approaching a paradigm shift where things ought to happen, and may it better be by way of sustainable development.

Student's point-of-view / Justification

It seems everyone is point the finger at each other. You better control the population or else. There are many factors to consider when it comes to the global environment aspect concerning environment degradation, legal ethnic cleansing (Wars) and atmosphere depletion. Harrison and Hartmann both target the obvious but fail to realize the intentions of our own government. Hartmann does discuss the impact of military repression and resource depletion. Yes, the government does deplete and cause degradation to our environment. What else do they do that we do not know about? Are they creating biological agents to control population? How about the Acquired immune deficiency disease (Aids) or just recently the Sars virus (Severe acute respiratory syndrome)? Not to mention, the cry for democracy in foreign lands to create Wars. Consequently, killing innocent women, children and the so-called bad guys. Is this not legal ethnic cleansing by super powers of the world to eliminate nations or third world countries into nonexistence or extinction. However, is that how we control population instead of looking at the way the government handles our surroundings and its inhabitants. We can no longer sit back and trust the government when it comes to protecting the environment. We do not know all of their motives or their so-called acts of utilitarianism as they see it. Yes, we can provide more health service programs for women, family planning counseling programs and birth control for women in less developed countries but does that actually control population. However, they might not even take the birth control pills. Then, do we insert IUD's in women to reduce the number of births? I agree with Harrison and praise Thailand's population control program with its great success. In addition to the programs listed, we need to provide more educational programs for women in less developed countries.

The answer is not an easy one but limiting the population is part of the whole problem. Nevertheless, this will continue to have success and have a great impact on limiting population growth.

There are many pieces to the pie, which include consumption, waste disposal and technology. In developing countries, the amount each person consumes matters too and so does technology used in production and waste disposal. The advancement of technology raises the standard of living in developed countries and consumption increases. How do we then dispose of the waste products? We can use incinerators to burn the waste products, dispose of waste products in landfills or recycle the waste products. There are some waste sites that depend on getting tons of waste each day. It employs many people in their communities. Our increased consumption level is due to more yield income in our pockets. Yes, we have more money to spend on anything we want or we think we need and that goes for the consumption of food too. Do we really need to hoard food and eat until we are gorged? I think not. There is more than enough food to go around. For example, when the government pays farmers not to plant crops for harvest, and the land is just dormant and is not being used for any purpose while people in third world countries are starving. I postulate that is an alternative way the government is reducing the world population so we can have what ever we want. Is that utilitarianism, the greatest good for all? Or is it democracy life, liberty, freedom and happiness?

Are we really at our carrying capacity? Can that really be measured accurately? Anyone can manipulate the numbers to answer their own questions or the question of carrying capacity. The question is do we really want to do something about our government's actions in the environment and its surroundings and to preserve what we have left of our planet? We need to take a stand and fight for the human race and our existence in this world. Are you going to let the government get away with ethnic cleansing of our own people in United States? If you don't believe it, just think about the Vietnam War and the current war going in Iraq. The economy is recovering and U.S. soldiers are dying as we speak. Each one that dies puts money in everyone's pocket in the U.S. Believe or not this is an act of ethnic cleansing. Most of the Armed Forces are both African-American's and Hispanic's. It is all legal and humane in the eyes of the United States government. As they see it, it is an act of good against evil. Limiting population growth is a selfish act of the government to further its mission and place values on society as they see fit in order to control the world to meet their desires.

Consequently, there are many key factors in limiting population growth. There are many other pieces to the pie, which include consumption, waste disposal and technology. The advancement of technology raises the standard of living in developed countries and consumption increases. How do we then dispose of the waste products? We can use incinerators to burn the waste products, dispose of waste products in landfills or recycle the waste products. We can provide more health service programs for women, family planning programs, counseling programs and birth control for women in developed less developed countries. I agree with Harrison and praise Thailand's population control program with its great success. In addition to the programs listed, we need to provide more educational programs for women in less developed countries. We need more government accountability in the areas of environmental degradation, legal ethnic cleansing (Wars) and atmosphere depletion. Nevertheless, this will continue to have success and have a great impact on limiting population growth protecting the global environment and is a pleasant way of controlling population rather than legal ethnic cleansing. Do you know your government?

In some matters, yes, and in many matters, no; government does take a mandate from the general public at times of elections, but at time of doing something constructive or destructive, the government relies on its self proclaimed gurus or experts' opinions. The prior government points fingers at the precedent government and the show goes on without thinking about the root cause of the situation at hand and how does a situation must be tackled. In the present scenario, immense population growth is seen as the greatest obstacle in countering the environmental hazards. Population growth means reduction in resources that fulfill human needs and wants and demands. Resources, as we all know are scarce and in economics we learn that allocation of the scarce resources needs to be dealt with great care as even a slight imbalance would in many ways hamper the economic development of a country and in turn effect the over all world development. In my view, Hartmann is correct that the scarce economic resources and proper allocation of these resources and "undemocratic human system of labor and resource exploitation, often backed by military repression" are the true cause of much phrased about population explosion and the solution does not only lie with educating women of how to use programs that intend to put a stop to population growth, but in the ways where in the human labor system and the allocation of resources meet an equilibrium. Population control programs are not the only key to solve the problem of population growth and it can never be the only alternative left. These programs are there to make the public aware of what could be done to reduce the level of population growth. Yet, the real answer lies in the balance of resource allocation by the government, which is not backed by a military repression but a democratic notion and the appropriate division of the labor. The "carrying capacity" needs to be understood beyond and irrespective of the "political carrying capacity" if in the true sense we want to achieve at a solution to the issue of the exceeding population growth. U.S. does have resources and this is the reason that people come to U.S. For opportunities and as is said, "to give birth" to babies, but this occurs because back at their home they do not get the resources that are available here in the U.S., and this again points us towards the inappropriate allocation of resources by the governments that are often undemocratic while at the same time masking themselves as democratic.