Stand by for another run at the “S” word – “… as it turns out, conventional economics and sustainable development are two of the most unsound foundations for grand societal change – the type required for sustainability – that have been devised.”
That interesting bit of punditry comes to us via the BBC’s Green Room, featuring John Manoochehri. Here’s another tid-bit: “Sustainable development currently is like a kaleidoscope: all you can do is keep going and enjoy the pretty patterns because there is no conceptual framework, still less a map or timetable that might tell you what it all means.”
Ahoy! Isn’t it fun when somebody gets it right? Too bad the game slides back into techno-culture babble from there. We’re back to futuristic THX-1138 dreams of a “colossal investment in a material economy that cycles everything, and compels industry (more than consumers) to design and produce things as part of that cycle.”
Not that such a dream is inherently flawed. It just neglects the primary lynchpin of biology: carrying capacity.
Sooner or later the dance will come around to the Great Taboo: overpopulation. That is when the real fun begins.
posted by Mudd
One Response
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Thanks for your review. But why did you stop at the big which you think is techno-babble? The article continues:
“Cities need to be designed for conviviality and convenience, without so much useless infrastructure – transport, waste, parking – clogging everything up.
Citizens need to take a break from worrying about recycling and climate change (which they have been unfairly dumped with solving) by taking time away from soulless work for unsatisfying consumption”
neither of which are very techno. Overpopulation is important, but count me as one who believes that overconsumption is more important at the present time (if only because we have less experience at dealing with it than we do population control). Note challenging overconsumption, and challening that, is more or less as politicised as challenging overpopulation.
Thanks.