 |
The Future of Sustainability: Have Your Say! Week Two - “Human Wellbeing and Sustainability”
---- I agree with Dr Ashok Khosla' s assessment that sustainable human health and wellbeing is completely dependent on the sustainability and health of our habitat, both locally and globally. His first question regarding the elimination of poverty is crucial to this relationship, as in my simplistic acronym of the world's trilemma as the three Ps - population, pollution and poverty, and their possible solution via the three Es - ecology, education and ethics, referred to in last week's debate.
The processes of industrial civilisation have led to the ethically insupportable situation in which 80% of the Earth's resources are in the hands of the richest 20% of its population. Through affluenza and the growth fetish, the rich are responsible for most of the world's pollution, especially by greenhouse gases and consequent climate change, which is already having devastating effects on humans and many other species, with reduction in biodiversity. How can inequalities be reduced and the 'good life' promoted? Comparative demographic studies amongst developing countries have shown that wealth, measured by GDP, is not necessarily related to wellbeing. For example, the state of Kerala in India, Costa Rica and Cuba have a relatively low per capita GDP, whereas their health indicators such as maternal and infant mortality and life expectancy compare favourably with many so-called developed countries. On the other hand, some Middle Eastern countries with relatively high GDP fare poorly in regard to health indicators.
The best correlation with favourable health indicators, including slowing of population growth, lies not with GDP but with childhood education, particularly in girls. Moreover, in affluent "developed" countries there is little correlation between wealth and wellbeing. We need to reject the idea that acquisition of material goods and power are indicators of wellbeing. Sometimes the reverse is the case, with many affluent societies experiencing social isolation, compared with the lively community interactions which are often found in materially deprived societies.
So the best way to reduce poverty and inequalities is to promote literacy, further education and influence amongst females. Unfortunately there are many entrenched religious, cultural and political obstacles to such developments. One could argue that gender inequalities with a low "glass ceiling" also inhibit sustainable development in affluent countries, in which women, despite good educational qualifications, are generally grossly under-represented in positions of power and influence. In my view, women are inherently more sensible, are less likely to have their egos on the line, are more likely to institute policies for sustainable development of health and the environment, and (with a few notable exceptions) less likely to start wars than are their male counterparts. Perhaps I am making a case more for promoting the feminine principle (which is also latent in most men) than female power as such.
As several contributors have made clear, science and technology cannot alone solve the overwhelming problems that the human species now confronts. We may be able to learn something from pre-scientific Greek mythology. In creating the first woman, Pandora, Jupiter gave her a box containing all the noxious spirits which assail the health of humankind. In an access of curiousity, Pandora lifted the lid of the box, whereupon all the noxious influences escaped to plague the world. Left behind at the bottom of the box was hope. It is our prime responsibility to enable the children of the world to lift the lid of Pandora's box again to release hope, and with their innate and unrecognised wisdom, help us to achieve a more sustainable world. |