No matter how vast they may be, all resources are limited. And all resources are interconnected. So, when talking about resources, it is better to speak in terms of utilization rather than consumption. Consumption is largely a concept of economics, and it therefore tends to limit our thinking on the subject. In other words, consumption may not accurately reflect the possible range of uses and methods of using a resource.
Any type of developmental activity – or even mere survival activity – is bound to strain multiple resources in multiple ways, both directly and indirectly. So, the goal of utilization (be it sustainability or anything else) cannot and does not exist in a vacuum. That goal is invariably connected with political, social, economic, and legal factors. With such a range of variables, it is inconceivable that sustainability can be attained in any meaningful, long-term sense. In other words, sustainability is simply not sustainable. The notion of sustainability goes against the very laws of nature. There is no such thing as physical immortality. Nothing and no one lives forever.
As the way in which attempts to achieve sustainability are implemented would inevitably depend on political, social, economic, and legal factors, so the notion of sustainability comes packed with various unstated assumptions, a hidden (or perhaps just unclear or obscured) agenda. Prominent among the unstated assumptions is the sacrosanct belief in Adam Smith's invisible hand, nowadays interpreted to mean market forces rather than Providence (as Adam Smith originally conceived it), although both are equally and conveniently vague. (Under capitalism, both "invisible hand" and "market forces" are utopic rationales for greed.)
Sustainability is a cowardly, unworthy goal for human beings. In theory, it is largely retrogressive and reactionary. In practice, it tends to be inhumane and ultimately self-defeating (regardless of any clever marketing slogans or good intentions). In short, from an ideological perspective, sustainability is a very poor choice, almost a non-starter. The only reason it has gained traction in the world is that it currently serves the interests of wealthy capitalists by exploiting common fears and sentiments among people in the developed world. The moment that advocates of sustainability start to point out that the biggest obstacle to sustainability (other than nature itself) is the unbalanced distribution of wealth – the over-accumulation of unutilized, under-utilized, or poorly utilized resources by a relative few – the irrational notion of sustainability will lose favor with capitalists and quickly be replaced by another popular dogma.
Any type of developmental activity – or even mere survival activity – is bound to strain multiple resources in multiple ways, both directly and indirectly. So, the goal of utilization (be it sustainability or anything else) cannot and does not exist in a vacuum. That goal is invariably connected with political, social, economic, and legal factors. With such a range of variables, it is inconceivable that sustainability can be attained in any meaningful, long-term sense. In other words, sustainability is simply not sustainable. The notion of sustainability goes against the very laws of nature. There is no such thing as physical immortality. Nothing and no one lives forever.
As the way in which attempts to achieve sustainability are implemented would inevitably depend on political, social, economic, and legal factors, so the notion of sustainability comes packed with various unstated assumptions, a hidden (or perhaps just unclear or obscured) agenda. Prominent among the unstated assumptions is the sacrosanct belief in Adam Smith's invisible hand, nowadays interpreted to mean market forces rather than Providence (as Adam Smith originally conceived it), although both are equally and conveniently vague. (Under capitalism, both "invisible hand" and "market forces" are utopic rationales for greed.)
Sustainability is a cowardly, unworthy goal for human beings. In theory, it is largely retrogressive and reactionary. In practice, it tends to be inhumane and ultimately self-defeating (regardless of any clever marketing slogans or good intentions). In short, from an ideological perspective, sustainability is a very poor choice, almost a non-starter. The only reason it has gained traction in the world is that it currently serves the interests of wealthy capitalists by exploiting common fears and sentiments among people in the developed world. The moment that advocates of sustainability start to point out that the biggest obstacle to sustainability (other than nature itself) is the unbalanced distribution of wealth – the over-accumulation of unutilized, under-utilized, or poorly utilized resources by a relative few – the irrational notion of sustainability will lose favor with capitalists and quickly be replaced by another popular dogma.
No comments:
Post a Comment