by request

Is sustainable development compatible with human welfare?

The purpose of this essay is to argue both that sustainable development is and is not compatible with human welfare. In order to make this argument, first, I will define sustainability. Second, I will provide reasons for why it’s problematic within the context of environmental ethics. Third, I’ll discuss the benefits of sustainability. Finally, I’ll conclude that there’s not enough evidence to make a definitive determination.

Sustainable development has been defined by

Sustainability has the following complications: to truly live sustainably, there would have to be certain “mandatory minimums” in place—these could be minimums in terms of carbon, number of people on the planet, aggregate number of resources used, etc. For population, for example, Jared Diamond explains that population is one of 12 variables that are necessary to control in order to live more sustainably. Every new person has/makes demands on the planet’s resources. How then are we to achieve population reduction? Simply asking people to limit the number of children will be fruitless (pun intended). It would seem that some type of government programs that is enforceable would be necessary. There would also need to be a regulatory apparatus that enforce (police), adjudicate (courts) and punish (penal systems). Even if all of this was in place, however, the US could not enforce this across international boundaries. Thus, sustainability is problematic because it has the potential to undermine democratic processes and institutions. Any enforcement of population laws, for example, would necessarily conflict with broad democratic principles.

Sustainability does have advantages. Most importantly, if environmentalists are correct, then we are at a potentially species threatening juncture. Valuing human life, it seems to be an intrinsic good for the human population to survive. That said, even if these estimates are overblown, it cannot be denied that we’re facing extreme ecological conditions which adversely impact us. For example, the number of landfills that are at or near capacity has dramatically increased in the last 15 years. Consequently, well water and underground leakage has commensurately increased. This has placed people, particularly the economically disadvantaged, in an even more vulnerable position, as cancer rates (testicular, breast, bone) have radically increased.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE HERE. In sum, the benefit of living more sustainably is creating more healthy living environments and possibly thwarting ecological calamity.

Given the consequence to democracy, and the threat of extinction, there are no easy choices to be made. I don’t think that this question has a correct answer. There are simply too many variables and too many conflicting deontological interests. How does one, for example, weigh clean air against the possibility of electing officials that discharge the will of the people? Or, how can we accurately asses, “weigh” or measure clean water, lower cancer rates, etc., against the fact that we may be beyond the tipping point? We simply do not have the tools to make an accurate assessment of the issue.

Finally, I’ve argued that sustainability has pros and cons. At this juncture, frankly, I’m not sure what I believe. We simply do not have enough evidence to make an accurate determination of the issue.