Sustainable development

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

I’ve been reading a little on environmentalism here, and got a copy of Return of the Primitive. But I’m finding it strange however that it only presents two options: to “exploit” the Earth, or to live like savages. The environmentalist intromissions in my life are not like this. Instead, what I usually get is propaganda advocating sustainable development or less extreme campaigns. I usually get stuck arguing with these people, since their not proposing to cut off technology or literally return to nature, but progress and prosperity while preserving environment. Since I can’t find any Objectivist material on this issue, could somebody please point out what is wrong (if so) with this alternative?

[whYNOT]

Of course they are not going to advocate "cutting off technology"or "returning to nature"- that would mark them as eco-fanatics. Instead they probably prefer to be known as Utopians.

Whenever I hear one of these proscriptive plans like 'sustainable development' I want to know:

1. Who is going to enforce it?

2. Who is going to pay for it?

3. Who is going to benefit?

4. Who's morality is this?

The proposal is 'Economic development+Social development+Environmental protection.' One justification given is "Cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind, as biodiversity is for Nature." So we must be as concerned for the Pathan tribesman in Afghanistan, as we are for the Spotted Owl.

And pay for them - big time. How? By appealing to our collective guilt.

Says who? All these anti-Capitalist, anti-individualist, Authoritarian-Socialists, who have been in hiding since the Berlin Wall came down. Who have now emerged with the world-wide recession to gloat at the 'end of Capitalism', and have still another plan for the good of the world. This time they know better than to kill the golden goose; they'll just bleed it dry.

Our own good is to be left alone to conduct our lives rationally and self-interestedly, free of coercion to save the 'under-privileged', or for that matter, the spotted owl. Unless, of course, we choose to.

[Chris.S]

"Sustainable development" equates, and even puts above, the environment and potential later generations with current and actual human needs. It also assumes that humanity will only ever have the current level of technology, with no innovation or invention, yet keeping the same population growth, leading to "unsustainable development". What it does is cause stagnation because all new "development" must include keeping the environment in as pristine a condition as possible. That means zero "growth". Unfortunately for the construction industry (my industry), environmental sustainability tests and projects will soon be needed everywhere before a company starts building, further adding to the cost. The only time I agree with this sort of project is if building in a place may cause harm or other difficulties for the building or the owner in the future, and only for the purpose of preventing or solving those happenings.

The first 3 critiques in that wikipedia article you linked are good places to start I would say. However, John Baden seems to be trying to push some contradictions in advocating for "free market environmentalism".

In the end, a free market will solve any issues of "sustainability". Profit motive and new more efficient technologies will ensure that the world doesn't end because we killed too many trees or burned too much oil or mined too much metal.

[whYNOT]

"Sustainable development" equates, and even puts above, the environment and potential later generations with current and actual human needs. It also assumes that humanity will only ever have the current level of technology, with no innovation or invention, yet keeping the same population growth, leading to "unsustainable development". What it does is cause stagnation because all new "development" must include keeping the environment in as pristine a condition as possible.

That says it all, Chris. Nicely put!

[Chris.S]

That says it all, Chris. Nicely put!

Thanks. I think other people have said it better than I could, I'm just kinda putting it in my own words, since I will have to debate this kind of thinking in an upcoming class titled "Sustainable Development and the Environment". There's no course description offered, but I can guess what it's about...

[whYNOT]

Also it seems certain that 'sustainable', and 'development', are partially a contradiction in terms. In this context 'sustainable' equals 'controlled', equals 'limited', equals 'rationed', and even 'stifled'.

This is all based upon the nasty, altruistic, fallacy that the producers/creators in the world will just continue doing what they do, under any circumstances, because it is their duty.

All that is then required is to "put the brakes on them", just a little - and a little more, later perhaps.

That is when this conserve-everything -at- all- cost mentality will really hit the wall; not just because resources are embargoed, restricting the development of vital, new technology, but because those relatively few producers will have taken their capital and ideas and opted out of their slavery.

[L-C]

Translation device: Force force force force force force force.

Repeat for socialists and every other kind of non-Objectivist.

[Maximus]

Translation device: Force force force force force force force.

Repeat for socialists and every other kind of non-Objectivist.

Yes, and the same can be said for "Heathcare" and everything else coming out of Washington in the past six months, as well.

[Thales]

I’ve been reading a little on environmentalism here, and got a copy of Return of the Primitive. But I’m finding it strange however that it only presents two options: to “exploit” the Earth, or to live like savages. The environmentalist intromissions in my life are not like this. Instead, what I usually get is propaganda advocating sustainable development or less extreme campaigns. I usually get stuck arguing with these people, since their not proposing to cut off technology or literally return to nature, but progress and prosperity while preserving environment. Since I can’t find any Objectivist material on this issue, could somebody please point out what is wrong (if so) with this alternative?

A lot of Americans look at environmentalism from a practical stand point. In fact, I would say the vast majority of Americans are this way, and so they are looking for real solutions to alleged problems. However, these are just people who have fallen prey to wild claims of environmental doom and destruction, which is not surprising considering how imbued in the culture such propaganda is.

These people are not the people driving the movement. The people driving the movement are thoroughly anti-man and anti-capitalist.

[whYNOT]

These people are not the people driving the movement. The people driving the movement are thoroughly anti-man and anti-capitalist.

I totally agree. Those others, that silent majority you alluded to, who are looking for real solutions to alleged problems - well I am probably one of them, and so I gather are several Objectivists on this forum. What's different about us, is that we know who the real enemy is; and we know that unchecked free enterprise is the best solution to technological growth, the upliftment of poorer peoples and nations, AS WELL AS the protection of Nature, clean air and water and other environmental concerns.

If I cared more about that poor old Spotted Owl - and I am not completely uncaring about its fate! - I would raise the money, and use my own energy to do something about it. The private initiative of mankind has always been more effective and efficient than any government agency.

It may have been the thoughtful and courageous Lord Monckton who said something like the most shameful achievement of radical environmentalists is that they have tried to split us all into two camps : Pro Man, or Pro Nature. A false dichotomy indeed.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Whenever I hear one of these proscriptive plans like 'sustainable development' I want to know:

1. Who is going to enforce it?

2. Who is going to pay for it?

3. Who is going to benefit?

4. Who's morality is this?

I’m still not clear about the issue. I'm in a college which specializes on architecture, advertisement, product design, etc. They’re strongly promoting sustainable development on each one of the careers, not enforcing it. Individuals would pay for it voluntarily and apply it to their own efforts and products in the future if they want to. Each one of us here is going to benefit from it, as it is becoming a widely accepted idea, and profit motive would be an incentive (of course this is not even mentioned, it’s just my main reason) So, as a future graphic designer, is it legitimate to spread these ideas? How is this not a win-win situation? Nobody is urging me to give up technology, I don’t see the Government taking any actions to enforce sustainable development here, and I don’t see any problem with it being practiced privately.

What it does is cause stagnation because all new "development" must include keeping the environment in as pristine a condition as possible. That means zero "growth"....In the end, a free market will solve any issues of "sustainability".

Absolute zero growth just because of trying to preserve the environment? Could you please elaborate on how this is causing complete stagnation? Free market may solve issues of sustainability, but what if the rate of use of these resources is faster than the rate of discovery of all this great innovations and inventions you mention?

These people are not the people driving the movement. The people driving the movement are thoroughly anti-man and anti-capitalist.

Who specifically is driving the movement? How do you know? Most of my teachers laugh at the idea of renouncing to technology and returning to nature. They’re not trying to follow this evil, malevolent, anti-man environmentalist movement credo, in fact, many of them haven’t even heard of it, and still promote sustainable development. How do you know they’re been driven by it? And if they’re truly working on spreading ideas of development and progress, does it even matter?

[Jake_Ellison]

Give concrete examples of what you call sustainable development, and then we'll explain how it is enforced by government, how it does cause stagnation, and how it is philosophically bad.

Otherwise, you'll continue to talk about a floating abstraction called sustainable development that leaves the Earth in near untouched condition, but also allows everyone to be perfectly free and selfish, and never give up profits, advances or prosperity.

If it is your claim that such a thing exists, it is your job to describe it in detail. We can't prove that it doesn't exist, before you tell us what it is.

[DavidOdden]

They’re strongly promoting sustainable development on each one of the careers, not enforcing it.

In other words, they are trying to make it part of the general ethical culture of architects that there are certain things that they would not ever choose to do.

Enforcement then comes through the government. Permission to work as an architect must be secured from the state, and to get that permission you must refrain from "unethical" behavior. The board may dictate, at some point, that acts of "unsustainable development" constitute ethical misconduct, and you will lose your license. The state has given the architecture board the ability to define whatever conditions they want for excluding individuals from the practice.

This is a general fact regarding processions that must be licensed. The state establishes the legal framework and allows a board to set its own rules, which invariably rely on the notion of "unprofessional conduct" as the means of getting rid of miscreants. It would be easy to insert a clause into the definition of unprofessional conduct such as "knowingly and willfully participating in acts of unsustainable development". The government need not be persuaded that unsustainable development is bad, all you need to do is persuade other architects.

[Chris.S]

Absolute zero growth just because of trying to preserve the environment? Could you please elaborate on how this is causing complete stagnation? Free market may solve issues of sustainability, but what if the rate of use of these resources is faster than the rate of discovery of all this great innovations and inventions you mention?

Name a resource that has ever been used up completely before better technology or a better resource was discovered or invented? I would argue that a higher rate of usage is better for the environment because it causes suppliers to be more efficient in their production. Demand exceeding supply causes an increase in price, shortening the rate of usage. At first this action causes less usage because less people can afford the resource. But then profits from higher prices would be reinvested in better methods of resource production to increase the supply.

That's from just an economical viewpoint. Philosophically, environmentalists put trees and rivers and rocks and cockroaches above human life. If a man has a tree on his property and he decides to cut it down, he's a murderer. Man using the environment for his needs is evil. A skyscraper is a den of demons while a tree is a cozy place to live in for a few years. Unfortunately for these people, hardly anyone was adopting their views, so over time they've become less and less openly crazy, until recently they've couched their philosophy in the more middle-class-friendly political term, sustainable development. Similarly, global cooling turned to global warming turned to climate change.

Man must use the environment to sustain his life. The only sustainable development he should care about is his own, and the environment is included in that already in the way that a farmer must prevent soil nutrient depletion by rotating crops, or a logging company must think long-term profits by planting more trees, or an oil company must squeeze every drop of oil out of a deposit as possible. The needs of these people cause other people to develop better technology to increase efficiency and profits, and so on down the economy chain. Even if your teachers scoff at the idea of renouncing technology to live like cavemen, they've already accepted the idea by teaching it, they just haven't though it through. People and companies already develop "sustainably", contrary to what your teachers are selling you.

The kind of sustainable development preached in schools is the kind where the environment comes before Man's life. If a man has just enough money to build a house, and then comes up against all the ways he must preserve the environment by making his house ecologically friendly and sustainable, he cannot build the house he wants because the additional costs are astronomical. In fact, governments (at least here in parts of Canada, I'm guessing some in other countries as well) are bribing people with tax rebates so that if they renovate or buy a new car, these people will "go green". And even the bribes aren't working because the costs are still too high.

Guess why the costs are so high? Because the technology sucks - because hardly anyone is developing it - because there's very little profit motive. And whenever envirotech is implemented, it's a ginormous money sink at the cost of taxpayers because the taxpayers themselves won't invest in it, because conventional technology is still cheaper. The only real way to get this technology going is to use more and more resources at the highest rate you can afford.

As for government not enforcing or encouraging environmental agendas: I already covered the tax rebate issues, but there will also probably be plenty of clauses in your local building code that address environmental sustainability. An easy one to demonstrate here is the R-value, or ability to insulate, of the walls in your home. This is because better insulated homes uses less energy to heat and/or cool your house. Obviously using less energy saves a homeowner money. But is it really a function of government to tell people how well insulated their house must be so they can save money on energy bills? Why can't a guy with money to burn build a huge, less insulated breezy house?

[softwareNerd]

Suppose a farmer grows a crop and uses some seed for next year's crop. Now, imagine that next year, he uses up all his seed and also goes on a spending binge so he has no money to buy seed. It's a pretty good bet he's not being rational. Most people already act fairly rationally in these spheres. They evaluate their wealth and options, and attempt to engage in a "sustainable" lifestyle that can see them into a comfortable old age.

This notion is "common sense", and it is this picture of selfish, rational behavior that environmentalists want to conjure up when they speak of "sustainable development". What they really mean is that the individual should sacrifice his own sustenance for the sustenance of some others.

To make things worse, most of their theories are bogus and Malthusian anyway. So, most of the sacrifice ends up being for the sake of sacrifice itself.

Edited August 7, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Zedic]

Sustainable development is the best idea since the industrial revolution. There's a lot of reasons why, but before one can understand why, some assumptions need to be corrected.

These people are not the people driving the movement. The people driving the movement are thoroughly anti-man and anti-capitalist.

Can you give some names? Can you demonstrate to me that they're leading it?

It's not a centralized movement. It's rather ad hoc really. What you're saying is really just an ad hominem attack.

All that is then required is to "put the brakes on them", just a little - and a little more, later perhaps.

That is when this conserve-everything -at- all- cost mentality will really hit the wall; not just because resources are embargoed, restricting the development of vital, new technology, but because those relatively few producers will have taken their capital and ideas and opted out of their slavery.

That isn't necessarily what the sustainable development movement is. Like I said above, it's a non-centralized movement. An ad hoc collection of people who believe our current trends are unsustainable. Different people propose different solutions. On one extreme there are the anti-civ & neo-Luddites, to people who think that a lot of government regulation is necessary, some who think some is necessary, and those who believe none is necessary. But the folks here should learn more about this movement first before making knee jerk gut reactions based upon a particular sample they didn't like. Trashing sustainable development because of the worst examples is a straw man argument.

Another misconception is we shouldn't do anything until we have, in no uncertain terms, absolute scientific fact that what we're doing is necessarily going to harm us in the end. To begin with, science by nature is uncertain. The uncertainty is based upon the quality of the data scientists can obtain, the statistical analysis, and more. A whole book could be written on the uncertainty of science. In fact there have been, so look into it. Second, waiting until we know for sure often means waiting until it's too late because it's not until it is actually happening that we know how certain it is. It's a matter of looking at the available information and making the best judgement one can make.

The fourth misconception is environmentalist concerns are unfounded and fanatical. In some cases, yes it is. But there are people who are actually experiencing it first hand. They write about it in journals for any individual trained in the field to analyze according to scientific methods. There are also things that are so damn obvious anyone can reason out themselves. Such as, if we fish faster than sea life can replenish itself, then sea life will slowly die off. (duh) Well, we have the technology to capture thousands of fish at a time in massive nets, and we do that every day in oceans all over the world. There are records about how plentiful of salmon America's rivers used to be that we can compare to the reality today. Some marine biologists who have been doing field work for 50 years can tell how dramatically different the oceans are now. Sure, one can come up with a million reasons why any of the environmental concerns are wrong. But in the end that doesn't really matter. Because as we waste time trying to prove who is more correct, reality will come in and set its own terms.

The 5th misconception is that since people have made dire predictions in the past that haven't come true, nothing bad will ever happen. I don't think I need to explain why that one is wrong.

The biggest argument for sustainable development (in my mind) is the fact that the Earth's capacity to sustain its current balance is limited. If you stress something hard and long enough it'll eventually fail. (duh) So the question is, why should we irreversibly destroy nature's balance and scramble to find an artificial solution to sustain life after the fact? That's a lot of work and a complete waste. It's a lot easier instead to rethink the way we do things so that we don't ruin it to begin with. Also, if we destroy biodiversity we destroy opportunity. Nature has already "solved" a lot of engineering problems. Biologists find new and amazing things in the natural world all the time, and scientists and engineers often try to harness or synthetically engineer it into something we can use. We can learn more about medicinal compounds (found in plants) to new insights about life on the planet. The gecko's ability to stick to surfaces has been a source of fascination for scientists for years. If we could find out how they do that the possible applications are multitude. Destroying habitats and life for short term gain is really short sighted.

It's also a matter of quality of life. Many people find comfort and enjoyment in nature. Many people love to go out into the wilderness to relax. Other people love to go hunting. That sort of thing is under a constant state of shrinking as the ad hoc manner of our current ways tears it down for short term gain. A personal example of mine is when I lived in West Virginia I liked to go hiking in the forest by my house. When a logging company came and started tearing it down, it completely ruined it for me. But why should a single logging company stop just for me? Fair enough. But the destructive way they would log killed all the vegetation in the forest around where they logged. It got to the point that when ever it'd rain it would flash flood and my neighbor's houses would get flooded. Now I understand that doesn't follow the philosophy of Objectivism. But that's reality. That's the way the world works. You would think going to the authorities would fix that, because it should in principle. But in reality the lure of the dollar - or progress - is far more important. You can say "That is not Objectivist, that is not the way it should be done!" but that doesn't change reality. If only everyone could think as an Objectivist, it would be okay.

But with the sustainable alternative, we can still log the forests, but instead do it in such a way that the vegetation and younger trees aren't removed in the process. Even if we assumed everyone was Objectivist, there isn't any other alternative other than ceasing all logging in the area. Because it is the destruction of the roots and other plant life which makes the water run right off the soil and into the creek. As an added bonus, the integrity of the forest is maintained and people like me (who enjoy nature walks) can still walk around and enjoy its natural beauty.

Another quality of life issue is having a good working and living environment. Because there is no centralization to the sustainable development movement, precisely what that means differs from person to person. I personally identify with William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their sustainable development manifesto Cradle to Cradle. They describe an alternative which is 100% free market and 0% government interference. One of the many benefits in their designs are buildings designed to coexist within a natural environment. Instead of working in an enclosed building lighted by florescent lights, it's lighted by natural lighting from the sun. They also plant plants and encourage the local ecosystem to thrive in the general area. Employees respond to that by being generally happy and more productive.

Maintaining diversity in general is good for the human soul (I mean that figuratively here). If everything was the same all over, and biodiversity was decimated because we took it for granted and made no effort to maintain it, then most humans at least would feel it psychologically. Most humans enjoy diversity and would get bored if all cultures were the same the world over, if we had no lions, elephants, or coral reefs. Just because some people don't care for any of that doesn't mean no one should have it. But we also don't need to stop all progress to maintain it. We simply need to rethink the way we do things. That is what the sustainable development movement is trying to do.

Another important part of sustainable development is redesigning manufacturing, in what McDonough and Braungart call "eco-effective" manufacturing. Instead of simply tearing up the planet to access materials, in a sustainable development framework resources would be exploited but in such a way that the source of our resources isn't destroyed in the process. We will take nature's example and use resources in such a way that we encourage it to thrive instead of leaving it barren.* (ie, instead of stripping a forest barren, we take what we need but leave the general integrity there so it can regrow faster.) Another important factor is closing the waste loop. We can indefinitely "up-cycle" our materials indefinitely. The way things are done now is we design things to be used once and thrown away and buried. That's either very short sighted or just plain irrational. Why only use it once? Why not manufacture with the products entire future in mind? Instead of throwing it away, how about we reuse the materials? The reason why recycling doesn't completely work is because the quality of the material is degraded in the recycle process. The sustainable development alternative suggests that our products are designed so that the materials can either be "recycled" (or "up-cycled" as McDonough and Braungart put it) indefinitely (so that the upcycled material is of equal quality as virgin material) or biodegradable. The other piece of the manufacturing puzzle is remove all toxins from our products and the manufacturing process (unless a way can be found to contain and upcycle them so they're not slowly gassed out or leaked into our bodies). That way artificial toxins from manufacturing and waste don't get into the water cycle or food chain and eventually into our bodies.

*Precisely how depends upon what's being extracted. I leave it up to those interested to research for themselves the various ideas which are floating around (some even being used in practice).

Lastly, and this is probably the part members here would have a problem with but I'm saying it anyway. Instead of facing nature with fear and the desire that it must be dominated and oppressed, we instead live symbiotically with it. That means, we incorporate the surrounding ecosystem into our lives. Instead of living in a pavement jungle, we allow a lot of room for plant and animal life to grow and live. We also use it to our advantage. Instead of spending billions to treat our water, why not let nature's natural filtration system do it for free? Instead of spending so many thousands or millions to artificially regulate our temperature, let's harness the use of trees, solar energy, and other surrounding parts of the local ecosystem to our advantage. But to do that necessarily requires the above eco-effective manufacturing.

It's a rather complicated topic which I can't easily do justice to in a few paragraphs. But the main message is that diversity is good, use nature to our advantage, and let's think more long term than short term. I also propose that none of this can be achieved by government mandate. It can only happen if individual entrepreneurs and innovators work together (or alone) in solving all these problems. It's certainly not easy, but it's definitely worth a try; It's good not just for humans and business but also good for, at least to those of us who care, the environment. That's also another point. Some of us really do care about the environment. But just because there are so many extremists out there doesn't make it right to lump everyone together.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Zedic

[PatriotResistance]

Sustainable development is the best idea since the industrial revolution.

Thank you, Zedic. You said what I wanted to, and in much more detail.

I think people in this thread are reacting to historical environmental extremism, without a good understanding of what sustainable development is about. In fact, it's such a huge topic that I think we would all struggle to find a good all-encompassing definition. There is no doubt that the movement has it's share of e-wackos involved. But on the other end of the spectrum is building technology, materials and processes that create new industries and jobs. Would you rather work in a building with stale air and the constant hum of mechanical equipment, or one with high quality fresh air that is cheaper to operate. The free-market is working here, guys.

Oh, and here's an example of one of William McDonough's most famous projects, the Ford Rouge Dearborn Truck Plant.

There's much to like and hate about sustainable development. One of my pet peeves (as an architect) is LEED (Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design). LEED won out over a number of other systems for implementing and documenting sustainable practices in building construction. And, IMO, they suck. It's a hugely bureaucratic, consensus-based system that, IMO, stifles sustainable development. And it's unaffordable for any but the most elite clients.

[DavidOdden]

Sustainable development is the best idea since the industrial revolution.

What is "sustainable development"?

[SD26]

The 5th misconception is that since people have made dire predictions in the past that haven't come true, nothing bad will ever happen. I don't think I need to explain why that one is wrong.

The other side of that coin is that "bad things" have happened and will continue to happen without human intervention.

And I'm with DavidOdden, what is "sustainable development"?

[whYNOT]

{ There's what appears to be a reasonably fair and neutral description of 'sustainable development' provided by the OP, linked to Wikipedia.}

Zedic, you raise some good points. I will certainly look into William McDonough's publications.

But, before you assume that O'ists, or even the few you read in this thread, are automatically always against environmentalism, or making "knee jerk, gut reactions" consider this: there are hardly any Objectivists who would want a denuded Earth, just so that mankind can survive.

The thing is, that we have confidence in the mind of Man.

The O'ist position is that what Man has done, Man can correct (if allowed) - and improve. I, and I'm sure the majority, strongly advocate disparity of species and life. But not at any cost. Not as the highest value.

As long as it is the effort and ingenuity of individual men that is allowed free reign, I have not the slightest doubt that we can literally 'eat our cake, and have it' in this area.

As long as scientists and innovators can operate freely; as long as the market can represent the Choice of consumers, independent of State interference, or of those ( few, but influential) genuine loathers of their own, and others' Minds; well I, for one, have limitless 'faith' in that ingenuity, and their self-interest, and even their self-restraint.

Look, we all know that environmentalism is here to stay. There are a lot of reasons why industry and business will learn to conserve, or even by-pass the use of certain raw materials and certain production methods, and the biggest is their own survival: again, SELF-INTEREST. Another reason is fair and even- handed legislation. Or even the love of natural beauty that we all share to some degree.

The opposition you are seeing here ( to s.d.) is principle - based, not practical- based. (Innovators, like those you mention, could well be precisely the thinkers that O'ism admires).

O'ists know too well how Big Government, and hate- filled individuals, can hijack the best of intentions towards their own ends. The threat may seem minimal to most innocents, but the doctrines always result in force - one way or another. At the very least, if nothing else, appeals to rationality and freedom, can limit the excesses of these groups.

Zedic, you did make me reconsider, and resolve to check my facts further, and for that, thanks.

[softwareNerd]

{ There's what appears to be a reasonably fair and neutral description of 'sustainable development' provided by the OP, linked to Wikipedia.}

The problem is that it is a very fuzzy notion. It is defined to resemble the notion of "maximization of long term value", which makes a lot of sense in many contexts. However, it is unclear whose value is being maximized. The reason is the unclear is pretty simple: you're meant to sacrifice your own value for the sake of someone else value. (See my previous post in this thread.)

[Zedic]

I have to say, I wasn't expecting such a welcoming reception. I'm most encouraged to hear whYNOT say he will reconsider. (I'm glad I could help!) I'm a strong proponent of innovation leading the way to change. I also value the natural world and diversity, but I don't agree with those who say it must be saved at all costs. Mainly because I believe it can be conserved while we still thrive as a society. I think the reason why so many are fanatical about it is because they don't believe that it's possible. I think if more of them saw hope that a stronger balance can be struck, the rhetoric will calm down and they'll be more rational about it. Only the minority are so far gone that they want to see nothing else but a total destruction of civilization. But they're an extreme minority, something that we see in any group.

Thank you, Zedic. You said what I wanted to, and in much more detail.

I'm glad to hear my afternoon wasn't wasted writing it up! lol

Oh, and here's an example of one of William McDonough's most famous projects, the Ford Rouge Dearborn Truck Plant.

They go into that story in more detail in their book "Cradle to Cradle". As it turns out, the President of Ford is big on sustainability and environmentalism. I liked Ford before that, but now I think it's a pretty awesome company.

The opposition you are seeing here ( to s.d.) is principle - based, not practical- based.

I can understand that. I have been ranting for years about the problems of environmental extremism. My main purpose was to show that it's not all so anti-man or anti-capitalist. I'm happy to see that I was fairly successful at that.

(Innovators, like those you mention, could well be precisely the thinkers that O'ism admires).

That's good to hear. As things are now, I'm planning to go back to school and get either my Masters or PhD in computer engineering. I want to design not only a superior computer technology, but something which also follows the tenants of sustainable development. As it stands now, the precious metals and other materials are put together in such a way that it's either very expensive to remove safely, or when done the "easy" way often leaves poor Asian people sick from heavy metal poisoning when they burn the plastic to extract the metals. Also, when electronics are buried in the dump, heavy metals leak out and into the water system causing health concerns. E-waste is a serious problem, but innovation is the best solution in my opinion.

But to answer the question, "What is sustainable development?" The very name implies that current development isn't sustainable. (I personally agree with that premise.) Sustainable development is the movement to find a sustainable alternative to what we do now. Meaning, instead of depleting our resources, we continually reuse them in an ongoing process that closes the waste loop. Instead of going from cradle to grave, it goes from cradle to cradle. Further examples can be found in my previous post and in other sources.

[Capitalism Forever]

An ad hoc collection of people who believe our current trends are unsustainable.

I agree that many of our current trends are unsustainable, I just don't see why that is supposed to be a problem.

I didn't read the rest of your post because I don't have the time for it. Could you provide a brief summary of your position please?

[2046]

But to answer the question, "What is sustainable development?" The very name implies that current development isn't sustainable. (I personally agree with that premise.) Sustainable development is the movement to find a sustainable alternative to what we do now. Meaning, instead of depleting our resources, we continually reuse them in an ongoing process that closes the waste loop. Instead of going from cradle to grave, it goes from cradle to cradle. Further examples can be found in my previous post and in other sources.

So it is socialism. The premise is Marxist dogma that "our resources" are communal and the government has the power, authority, and duty to own, control, ration, and distribute according to what the government deems is necessary.

Nice.

How about you go "sustain" your own development? What's stopping you? Why steal from me to do it?

[DavidOdden]

But to answer the question, "What is sustainable development?" The very name implies that current development isn't sustainable. (I personally agree with that premise.)

This fails to address the question of what you mean by "sustainable". Concretely: what are a couple of examples of current development which you claim are not "sustainable"? How do you determine that a particular development is sustainable?

Meaning, instead of depleting our resources, we continually reuse them in an ongoing process that closes the waste loop.

You hinted at two examples: fishing and logging. They have in common the fact that they pertain to biological resources. So let's examine your reasoning there. First, any problem of unsustainability especially in the case of fishing is directly a consequence of the failure to follow capitalist concepts of property to the resource being exploited -- fish are simply "out there", not owned or ownable by anyone, rather it is owned by "the people". This socialist view of the resource plagues logging to some extent, but to a significantly lesser extent. Since (at least at present, as long as private property still exists) this is a flaw of limited scope but one which exacerbates the problem of "sustainable development", this limits the extent to which "unsustainable development" is a problem.

Second, in your two examples there is a pointed difference between fishing and logging. With fishing, there is a clear (but decreasing) tendency to harvest and move on, which is not ver significant in logging. Your objection to logging in fact had nothing to do with sustainability. An objection based on unsustainability would be based on the conclusion that the trees were harvested and not replanted, but that was not your objection. Instead, it was based on a muddled property idea that a company has a duty to prevent flooding on your property, by limiting what they do on their property (not "our" property). In other words, this is just another instance of the standard environmentalist anti-industry stance, and it has nothing to do with "sustainability". Thus, we're down to fishing as an example.

Finally, let's take seriously the idea that "continuously using our resource" defines "sustainability": this underscores the anti-man Luddite nature of the "sustainable development". By definition, the goal is to produce in a manner that does not consume resources, and this is impossible. (Consequently, according to the ethics of "sustainable development", production must stop). Man can stop consuming wild fish and only consume farmed fish, but farmed fish do not come from nothing -- fish must consume resources in order to grow. Trees can be replanted, but in order to grow, they must consume natural resources (nutrients). We can stop taking iron from the earth, and instead constantly recycle those already extracted Fe molecules, but to do so requires lots of energy, which implies again the consumption of resources. The insistence on zero effect production is standard enviro-extremist (im)morality -- demanding that man stop existing because he has an effect on the universe.

Objectivism demands long-range thinking. But Objectivism cannot support "sustainable development", because the latter requires one to ignore reality -- production without consumption of resources is impossible. My suggestion is that you entirely abandon the socialist perspective on production, which is the clear cause of "depleting resources". Look to those areas where capitalism has freed man from the deleterious effects of "shared resources" thinking -- fishing (and fish farming); privatization of timber lands and systematic programs of reforestation.