Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sustainable development

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I continue not to have enough time to read Zedic's rambling posts, but has anyone received a meaningful answer from him to the question of why lack of sustainability is a problem? Because until that happens, all this discussion is about how to solve a problem that has not been shown to exist.

It's a bit like someone complaining that the English language has more than a dozen different vowels and proposing that we should learn (or be forced to learn?) to speak without vowels. Until he has explained why he thinks vowels are a problem, why even begin discussing his proposal? And no, something like "Because all human languages have at least one vowel" does not convince me that vowels are my enemy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I continue not to have enough time to read Zedic's rambling posts, but has anyone received a meaningful answer from him to the question of why lack of sustainability is a problem? Because until that happens, all this discussion is about how to solve a problem that has not been shown to exist.

It's a bit like someone complaining that the English language has more than a dozen different vowels and proposing that we should learn (or be forced to learn?) to speak without vowels. Until he has explained why he thinks vowels are a problem, why even begin discussing his proposal? And no, something like "Because all human languages have at least one vowel" does not convince me that vowels are my enemy!

He thinks the human race is too stupid to live if left to individuals pusuing their own goals and is going to extinct itself if we don't all do what he tells us to do. (which undoubtedly involves some kind of altruism)

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sustainable Development = One foot hard on the brake , one foot on the gas.

Which will happen first - burned brake linings; or seized engine ?

'AllMenAreIslands' posted

"If you wish to invest your time & resources in "sustainability" that should be your prerogative."

I share this view :- sure, 'S.D.' COULD have some merit for a SPECIFIC situation/individual, and for the SHORT term.

That's his choice.

It is the enforced 'Policy' ( by State, N.G.O.s, and United Nations ) that should be fiercely and rightfully resisted. It always reduces to the old story of collective guilt that we are supposed to feel for those unborn generations : Did you leave the planet in the same condition you found it ?

Loathsome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because until that happens, all this discussion is about how to solve a problem that has not been shown to exist.

If you consume anything at a faster rate than it restores itself, you have a problem at some point. The question is when. For many resources, it is no issue. For some resources, it is (like fish, lumber, maybe oil). Look at my fishing example. Is that not an issue of sustainability? Can the level of consumption be sustained indefinitely (like until the Sun explodes)? No, it can't. If you run out of fish in 3 years, you have a problem, don't you?

When sustainability is a problem, you can do a few things: a) reduce consumption :pimp: alter harvesting methods c) harvest more elsewhere

Reducing consumption is not an option unless better resources are discovered. Altering harvesting methods would work well, since you can keep using your current property. Harvesting more elsewhere may work, but having to move when you run out isn't too efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I share this view :- sure, 'S.D.' COULD have some merit for a SPECIFIC situation/individual...
I do not think so, in the sense that the concept is meaningless in that context. In a specific context, the individual should try to maximize his long-term value. This is not what "S.D." is about. In fact, this is the clock of rationality that it seeks to cloak itself in. If it is a useless concept that adds nothing new to the notion of long-term profit maximization, then it should be thrown out as useless.

That's his choice.

It is the enforced 'Policy' ( by State, N.G.O.s, and United Nations ) that should be fiercely and rightfully resisted.

S.D. is immoral, even if it is not enforced by law. We should resist the idea that people who advocate voluntary S.D. are moral; they are not, unless they are mistaken. They are advocating an immoral pursuit. Secondarily, we should uphold their right to be immoral as long as they're not violating any one else's rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When sustainability is a problem, you can do a few things: a) reduce consumption :pimp: alter harvesting methods c) harvest more elsewhere
I think this really underscores the problem with the SD mindset. You've limited the options to those pertaining to "harvesting", when the focus should be on production.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this really underscores the problem with the SD mindset. You've limited the options to those pertaining to "harvesting", when the focus should be on production.
Exactly right. I am thankful all the past generations of man did not think this way. We'd still be using our rationed candles, while carefully "sustaining" the animals that produced the tallow. From cradle to cradle, in shared misery. What a pessimistic -- and false -- view of history and of the nature of man! Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at my fishing example. Is that not an issue of sustainability? Can the level of consumption be sustained indefinitely (like until the Sun explodes)? No, it can't. If you run out of fish in 3 years, you have a problem, don't you?

Ok, how many thousands of years have humans been eating fish with no regard for "sustainability"? Certainly the population of humans has increased too.

Are we out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, how many thousands of years have humans been eating fish with no regard for "sustainability"? Certainly the population of humans has increased too.

Are we out?

How many thousands of years have humans been eating fish at a slower rate than their reproduction? The consumption was absolutely sustainable, so it wasn't an issue. Now that harvesting and production methods have increased (and thus enabling advancement in technology and increases in quality of life), it is an issue (a matter of concern) if fish aren't able to reproduce fast enough. However, there is no need to consume less. Fish farms and other fish breeding methods can increase the total population of fish. This is what I mean by altering harvesting methods. You would acknowledge that once your lake is out of fish that you won't be producing anything? Is anything I said there bad or wrong?

You've limited the options to those pertaining to "harvesting", when the focus should be on production.

But the reason I think it should be thought about is in order to maximize production. The bigger concern is production. I was only talking about when sustainability is an issue. It is simply closed-minded of environmentalists think the only thing that can be done to survive is to simply slow production and reduce consumption. That's what leads them to think force is legitimate. Because they realize rational people will not and cannot decrease consumption. I've said repeatedly that the only reason I give sustainability some amount of thought is because of production. Sustainable development is not an absolute (as certainly many environmentalists think), but it is something to consider.

I do not see how SD is a meaningless concept, as SoftwareNerd stated. It is a way to maximize long-term production and profit if thought about properly. To suggest the idea is immoral is just bizarre and an emotional and irrational knee-jerk reaction. SD can be, but is not always, an anti-man, anti-production idea. Many people seem to be saying "Only an environmentalist would think that", which comes across as an argument of intimidation.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many thousands of years have humans been eating fish at a slower rate than their reproduction? The consumption was absolutely sustainable, so it wasn't an issue. Now that harvesting and production methods have increased (and thus enabling advancement in technology and increases in quality of life), it is an issue (a matter of concern) if fish aren't able to reproduce fast enough. However, there is no need to consume less. Fish farms and other fish breeding methods can increase the total population of fish. This is what I mean by altering harvesting methods. You would acknowledge that once your lake is out of fish that you won't be producing anything? Is anything I said there bad or wrong?

Which is it? An issue or a matter of concern. And who is developing those standards?

My lake is of my interest. Why are you concerned about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see how SD is a meaningless concept, as SoftwareNerd stated.
Alright, let's see if you can give a proper definition to "sustainable development". We know it cannot be "production that consumes no resources". Don't give us a paraphrase like "development that can be sustained".

I suggest that you start by realizing that, rationally speaking, the purpose of production is not to grind out specific objects, it is to create objects that have a use for man. Therefore we don't care if we run out of whale-oil for whale-oil lamps, because we can just get our lighting from something other than whale-oil lamps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is it? An issue or a matter of concern. And who is developing those standards?

My lake is of my interest. Why are you concerned about it?

I meant matter of concern. I was just clarifying what I meant by "an issue". Your lake is not my concern, you can do whatever you want to it.

I hope this would be a proper definition of what I mean by sustainable development:

When you maintain development or consumption (for housing, technology, food, whatever) at a rate that is slower than the rate resources are renewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you maintain development or consumption (for housing, technology, food, whatever) at a rate that is slower than the rate resources are renewed.

And what force are you going to use to enforce the decisions when action is taken against individuals for "violating" "consumption" or "renewal" of the resources? Who's making the decisions against those minorities? You?

Edited by SD26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what force are you going to use to enforce the decisions when action is taken against individuals for "violating" "consumption" or "renewal" of the resources? Who's making the decisions against those minorities? You?

I never mentioned force or enforcement. I clearly stated earlier that "unsustainable development" isn't always bad. Just as "sustainable development" isn't always good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never mentioned force or enforcement. I clearly stated earlier that "unsustainable development" isn't always bad. Just as "sustainable development" isn't always good.
If we start with a certain amount of wealth, and end with more wealth plus more wealth-creation capacity... then that is great... that is what long-term value-maximization is about. Could you provide one example of a situation where "sustainable development" would be in contradiction to this wealth-maximization approach, and where "sustainable development" is still the practical choice?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this would be a proper definition of what I mean by sustainable development:

When you maintain development or consumption (for housing, technology, food, whatever) at a rate that is slower than the rate resources are renewed.

Why? Maximizing profit means "maintaining development and consumption at a rate that will maximize the value you gain out of your work, over your lifetime, or any period of time you wish to have profits for, from an enterprise". The reason that is right is because it is selfish, it is meant to allow a person to gain the greatest possible value from his work.

Why would anyone, ever, replace that with something arbitrary, like making sure resources stay exactly the same? Why would anyone, ever, sacrifice an ounce of that value, to make sure the level of resorces is exactly the same at his death as it was at his birth?

And why that, why not something else, like sometimes making sure everyone gets the same ammount of resources I use, or sometimes making sure half my production is burned at the altar of the godess of the tree creatures? Why is sometimes your rule so much more important than my tree godess rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give us a concrete example of where "sustainable development" is not good.

The most obvious would be if your goal is preserving the Earth for it's own sake or for future generations.

Another is if you have so many resources on your property or area you are allowed to harvest from that you won't be "running low" until years after your death or even longer. Some resources may take so long to renew (crude oil) that there is no reason to even attempt sustainable development. The question of sustainability would still be relevant, but only to identify if it is time to figure out how to consume more efficiently, change the price, or look for new resources. Of course maximizing profit should be anyone's goal, but I'm just suggesting sustainable development is a way to maximize profit when used in the proper context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most obvious would be if your goal is preserving the Earth for it's own sake or for future generations.
But this isn't sustainable development.
Another is if you have so many resources on your property or area you are allowed to harvest from that you won't be "running low" until years after your death or even longer.
Again, this isn't sustainable development. And, you fail to show that this is not good.

I think the biggest evil of SD is that it is, apparently, a total mind-killer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to try to wrap this all up for myself: I think there are two areas of morality involved here.

One is the anti- progress, anti-mind, range-of the-moment immorality that is evident within the ranks of environmentalism;

The other is the 'doing good' by force, of the Statists and collectivists - the immorality of intrusion on Individual Rights.

The salient point is not necessarily which is worse. IMO, it is this: that the first can not exist or expand without the second. It is the power of the State that leaves us vulnerable to the insanity of the environmentalist.

As long as SD is the choice of the individual, I see no threat to anyone. To take it to an extreme, if a certain person wishes to worship Gaia, or Buddha or whoever, one will question their sanity, or morality. But it's no skin off your nose. Also, if a private enterprise wishes to 'husband' its resources in the short term, without rational long term goals, one may question their morality and practicality - or their chances of survival.

On the micro level, don't we actually practise simple Sustainable Development to some degree? Selfishly? Whether in the home or your factory it is common sense that waste is inefficient and uneconomic. Applying systems and methods to gain the most out of the least, is logical and profitable -- how and where is the contradiction, if this runs concurrently with rational 'forward thinking' ?

One might decide self-interestedly to use less electricity, and install low-wattage lights (these are,after all, the result of technological innovation). But to be forced by State edict - isn't this about to happen in the U.S. ? - to scrap the cheap tungsten bulb, is authoritarian and anti-Capitalist.

To re-cap, left to private initiative, or in one's personal capacity, one may make whatever conservation efforts/ improvements one deems of value ---- just don't expect my support; and do not ever impose any kind of force on me. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this isn't sustainable development.

I think plenty of environmental groups have manipulated what it should mean. I don't see how it must be used in a collectivist sense. There's no reason for sustainable development to mean anything beyond the words 'sustainable' and 'development'. Throwing "future generations" and "leaving the Earth in its present condition" into the definition doesn't need to be done. What it should mean has been obliterated, like so many other words.

Again, this isn't sustainable development. And, you fail to show that this is not good.

I think I misunderstood what you asked before. Sustainable development in that case would not be good. Unsustainable development in that case is necessary, for every reason you've stated earlier about SD being bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think plenty of environmental groups have manipulated what it should mean. I don't see how it must be used in a collectivist sense. There's no reason for sustainable development to mean anything beyond the words 'sustainable' and 'development'. Throwing "future generations" and "leaving the Earth in its present condition" into the definition doesn't need to be done.

You defined it to mean preserving resources exactly the way they were when you found them.(actually, better than they are) When I asked why, you only threw two things into the answer:

1. Earth and future generations bla bla bla, which you yourself dismissed

2. Well, sometimes there are so many resources on a property, that it doesn't matter how much you harvest, there will be enough for when the owner is long gone.

So why would that owner at nr. 2 need to keep in mind the concept of "sustainable development", which you defined as consumption at a rate that is slower than the rate at which resources are being renewed. What does someone have to lose, ever, if that rate in fact stays faster, constantly, but just fast enough that the resources only run out when the person decided he no longer wants to profit from the enterprise. (some would aim for the day they die, some for the day their grandchildren die, others for the year 5000, but why would anyone, ever, aim for forever, for keeping the rate of consumption slower than the rate of renewal?

Even for a corporation, investment in new technology is what assures sustained profitability, not a focus on keeping specific resources constant. It is ridiculous, even for a logging company, to set it as their goal to never allow consumption to dip bellow resource renewal. The fact that it does anyway (which I understand is the case, most of the time), is a result of increasing demand for paper products and furniture, not a decision by the CEO to adhere to "sustainable development". In other words, that rate of renewal would be just as high without the concept of "sustainable development", because there is something called expected future demand, that is derived completely from the goal of being profitable, and bypasses sustainability. The second demand fell, sustainability would no longer be accomplished, and no one should even waste a beat on that irrelevant byproduct of their decision-making.

Including sustainability into the list of sub-goals a company sets for itself to take into consideration, would be like me including the sub-goal of spending 10 minutes in this chair, under the goal of giving you my best reply. No, I never considered paying attention to spend 10 minutes in the chair, even though I did end up sitting in it for that time.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think plenty of environmental groups have manipulated what it should mean.
Please enlighten us as to what you think it should mean. The evidence of the senses shows clearly what it does mean -- it is anti-man, anti-development, anti-life environmentalism. If you don't like what they have done with the concept, at the very minimum you need to propose a redefinition.

You know, I presume, that the term "sustainable development" was created by Brundtland Commission, which was an organ of the UN.

There's no reason for sustainable development to mean anything beyond the words 'sustainable' and 'development'.
If that is how you define "sustainable development" -- with no other context -- then everything is sustainable development, and the concept is completely empty. "Sustainable" has no implication w.r.t. duration or effect; if you can do something for a minute, it is "sustainable" for a minute. If you can create a product at great expense, it is still sustainable.

If there is no clear distinction between production that is "sustainable" and that which is "unsustainable", then it is impossible to determine whether pursuing "sustainable development" is good or evil. So we're faced with two theories of SD -- first, that it refers to a physical impossibility of production without consumption, or second that it's a floating abstraction not concretely distinguishing one kind of production from another. Given the fact that the overwhelmingly accepted definition of SD is in fact the environmentalist definition, it seems to me that there is no virtue whatsoever in employing this highly abstract and confusing term, and implying that we in any way support SD. Rather, we should support efficient and long-range profitable production. If that is our goal, then it starts to make sense to ask concrete questions about the optimal size of salmon pens, the best means of controlling the salmon louse, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Let's try this, at the risk of confusing the issue further. Do ya'll think that inherent in the idea of sustainable development is the supposition that the resources you are either consuming or depleting are not yours or not entirely yours? I think this is an important key that both sides here are missing.

To concretize, if I object to slash-and-burn agriculture of the rainforest am I not saying, at least implicitly, that I have a stake in that resource? Leave aside for the moment the question of whether I truly am a stakeholder or no. I'm trying to keep this simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...