Sustainable development is a phrase that's being bandied around everywhere these days. It's promoted by the United Nations as the answer to every problem in every aspect of human activity: sustainable development in agriculture, sustainable development in banking, sustainable development in tourism, sustainable development in education, and more. Let's get this right. Sustainable development is just another effort by the left to take commonly understood words and re-define them in support of an irrational, misanthropic and morally defective ideology. Socialism!
P.T. Barnum would have been truly impressed with this trompe l'oeil, for what better way to deflect attention away from themselves, the real perpetrators of the economic mess in which the world finds itself. And now, because they've adopted and promoted this phrase - sustainable develoment - and tout it as a philosophy, we're to believe the economic incompetents who run these socialist governments, including the United States, have an economic vision that can be implemented with them in control and it will work to humanities benefit! We desparately need to explore this.
Just as when they use the phrase “it’s for the children” when they want some pesticide banned - after all, who could be against something that's "for the children" - they resort to these emotional appeals to prevent you from looking deeper into what they’re really promoting. Their policies haven't been "for the children", it been “to the children”. For over 50 years those policies have devastated the children of the third world terribly.
Correspondingly, we had better look more deeply into the phrase “sustainable development” when they talk about economic development. After all - who can be against sustainability? After all isn’t sustainability something that can be done over and over again! Who can be against development? Isn’t development about creating more and better ways to live! What can be wrong with any of that?
Let’s think about this for a second. The words sustainability and development can easily be defined separately, but can they be defined as a phrase? Are they even compatible as a philosophy? Ask ourselves this question. Is anything sustainable if there’s development? We will explore that!
What happens when the two are combined and defined illogically and in a way that will generate a diametrically different goal than either sustainability or development would mean independently? What happens when the real goal isn’t the leftist mantra – we can fix everything if the world just adopts our vision of sustainable development and give us the power to define it, and unendingly re-define it, as we see fit to meet needs that only we can understand and implement according to some unknown formula? What if the real goal is global governance under the auspices of the United Nations?
Independently both of these words are easily definable. The trick is to put these words together in order to create a phrase that is so meaningless anyone can attribute any philosophy to it they wish and call their policy “sustainable development”.
In reality the term sustainable development as a philosophy is a logical fallacy because it has no logical foundation. Who decides what’s sustainable, and for whom? Who decides some practice or other is or isn’t worth developing?
There are no identifiable parameters for a universal definition or modalities of action to which everyone can agree. As a result there can be no logical foundation from which to make viable verifiable determinations for what needs to be done. That leaves opinion - not facts, not science, not history, not results – just someone’s opinion as to how the world should function. Make no mistake about this. If the world accepts this there will be no level of individuality that will be tolerated, including the real foundation for economic sustainability or development – personal property rights.
Here in the United States that is now, and has been, the thrust of these people from the beginning. The elimination of personal property rights by use of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, via their agents of tyranny at the EPA, the Wildlife Service and the Army Corp of Engineers.
They claim sustainable development is to support current and future generations. Both of which are completely incomprehensible for central planning purposes, especially by bureaucrats who’ve never had a real job. Who knows what future generations need? Who knows what developments will arise that will change the needs of society today. Who knows what developments will be thwarted by central planning meddling? Who’s to say what’s best for current or future generations, and how do we know their goals and plans are benign?
Especially since - as a group – the sustainable development mob thinks – mostly privately lest the world find out how insane their vision of the world really is – the world has between four and six billion too many people. So why does anyone think a massive infusion of regulations and taxes implemented by an unconnected, unaccountable, unconscionable United Nations bureaucracy dominated by tyrants should regulate sustainability?
The reality is that sustainability has no need of government at all. Actual sustainability is self regulating! Either something can be done or it can’t. If it can’t be done people will stop doing it and attempt some other way of achieving a needed goal.
That makes development self regulating also. Development occurs when a need arises, and as in all developmental processes there will be successes and failures. That’s how the light bulb came into being. Edison tried 1000 compounds as a filament and failed, but he took each failure as a success because they now knew what wouldn’t work. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."
What regulation from a central authority could have made that happen? What if central planners didn’t want this development to happen? What if central planners had decided electric light bulbs were destructive to the economic interests of candle makers and declared light bulbs as a threat to current and future generations?
Who was the most antagonistic opponent of the electric light bulb? John D. Rockefeller! Why, was he a supporter of sustainability or development? I guess you could say he was a supporter of sustainability – because his company, Standard Oil of New Jersey’s number one product was kerosene, which was used to light the nation’s buildings, and the electric light bulb would not be sustainable for his business model. Remember, gasoline was a by-product of kerosene production and was thrown away because it was so volatile and there were few cars. Once again – the reality of history is this - nothing is ‘sustainable’ if there’s development.
Now we find these promoters of sustainable development claiming sustainable development isn’t possible without equality of genders. Really? Why? Whether or not our particular societal paradigms practice equality of race, equality of gender, equality of class or not, there is no ‘sustainable’ proof that has anything to do with sustainability or development. Great political and economic empires came into being without practicing anything that could be construed equality in any arena.
The world’s history demonstrates the largest obstacle to sustainability or development is government! The very people who are promoting what they call sustainable development are the very people who stand in the way of legitimate economic sustainable or development with massive infusions of regulations, fees, taxes and penalties for doing anything with which they disagree.
What if they decide drinking wine is a threat to the needs of today’s society? What if they decide growing grape vines or the making of wine will not be tolerated? What if they decide theatrical entertainment should be restricted in order to more directly focus on producing the things the central authority decides is most important? Both of those things occurred in ancient China.
These aren’t stupid people. They’ve been educated in the best universities in the world so they must have studied history….but did they really? In order to really understand world economics we need to study the history of China!
According to the book Wealth and Poverty of Nations, “by about 500 BCE the Chinese had learned to improve the supply and use of water by means of artificial devices and arrangements; were making use of draft animals (above all, the water buffalo) for plowing; were weeding intensively; and were putting down animal waste, including night soil, as fertilizer. All of this required prodigious labor, but the work paid off. Yields shot to a high of 1,100 liters of grain per hectare, which would have left a substantial surplus for the maintenance of nonfood producers.”
Printing and paper was invented by the Chinese around the 9th century, but the difficulty of ideographs versus an alphabet made printing or even learning difficult. “for all that printing [in China] did for the preservation and diffusion of knowledge in China, it never “exploded” as in Europe,. Such publication depended on government initiative, and he Confucian mandarinate discouraged dissent and new ideas”. (WAPN pg 52)
The Chinese use of gunpowder started by the eleventh century (two to three hundred years before it appeared in Europe, and probably brought from China) but never advanced beyond their use as incendiaries because the “Chinese would seem to have been more afraid of rebellion from within than invasion from without. More modern armaments might fall into the wrong hands, and these including those of the generals.” (WAPN Pg. 53)
So it appears the central authorities decided gunpowder was not to be developed any further for the benefit of a sustainable society…Right? Or was it for the benefit of the central authorities?
The control of the Chinese population by a central authority – The Emperor, who was presented as “The Son of Heaven”, making him a semi-divine being in the eyes of the Chinese – feared innovation as a threat to his rule. As a result a nation that was scientifically 500 years ahead of the rest of the world stifled innovation with regulations and an unyielding bureaucracy until the rest of the world surpassed them. That’s been the history of central planning all over the world.
While there have been times when in the short term it has worked to meet a specific need, as a permanent arrangement to meet societies needs – it’s a disaster!
Their rhetoric about "sustainable development" gives the impression this will benefit society providing for all of humanities needs. But what happens when this central authority decides to change it to "sustainable consumption"? All they promote in all their schemes and international treaties lead to that - sustainable consumption - and they will decide what and how much will be consumed and by whom.
After he took power in China communist dictator Ma0 Tse Tung decided he needed armament but he didn’t have the capital to purchase it. So to fix that economic problem he decided to sell the food needed by his Chinese countrymen to get that capital. Over thirty million innocent people starved to death and Mao said that was the beginning and more may need to die in order to attain his goals. What was he sustaining? His power at the expense of humanity!
The left is not a lover of humanity, sustainable development as a policy defined by them and under their control, will not be benefit humanity. We have the history of leftism, and that history is incontestable! There really is good and evil in the world and there really is such a thing as right and wrong. What needs to be demonstrated over and over again is the left isn’t just wrong. It’s evil!
The Sustainability Project: Part I
The Sustainability Project: Part I