The Future of Sustainability: Have Your Say!

Week Two - “Human Wellbeing and Sustainability”
Comment / Comentario / Commentaire

Dr Sohail Mahmood, Preston University, Pakistan

Moderating team: Dr Sohail Mahmood emphasizes that scaling -up ways of eradicating poverty, addressing issues of social justice and sustainably managing the environment are to be achieved through political rather than technical means. He agrees that industrialized countries do need to tackle unsustainable consumption and that this initiative should be lead from within these countries. He suggests that the future of sustainability requires a momentous spiritual redirection drawing on all the world’s traditions.

Dr. Sohail Mahmood es enfático en afirmar que las iniciativas de erradicación de pobreza, el tratamiento de la equidad social y del uso sostenible de los recursos naturales es viable a través de voluntades políticas más que de capacidades técnicas. Reafirma que los países industrializados necesitan detener el consumo insostenible y que este cambio de conducta debería surgir al interior de los mismos. Sugiere que el futuro de la sostenibilidad requiere un redireccionamiento fundamental hacia las tradiciones.

----

Question: How can we scale-up ways of eradicating poverty and sustainably managing the environment?

Eduardo has correctly mentioned social pressure as a factor in increasing knowledge of the issues and actions on sustainability. However, this is not easy. Poverty can be eradicated only by a well-organized political movement Most of us want this done but have failed to take political action in any meaningful manner. We can indeed eradicate poverty and at the same time manage the environment susutainably if and when we link up with political forces that can bring in forced change of behavior. .Wealth must be divided more equitably so that poverty can end. This is a political task not a technical one as such. This was correctly pointed out by Eduardo. The environment can be managed as well if bold action is taken. The over-exploitation of the world’s resources and the adoption of a simple lifestyle are again political issues. Only aggressive political movements can change the status quo of powerful vested interests causing the problems of inequitable wealth distribution and despoilment of the global environment.

Question: How can the conservation and environment community play more effective roles in addressing issues of social justice, security and human wellbeing?

Reply: The reply given by Eduardo makes sense. However, social inequity is not the greatest problem facing humanity but only one of them. He suggests that the problem faced sustainability is not really technical but political and economic. It is not countries as such but groups within countries that have created the problem for attaining human well-being and sustainability. Eduardo is certainly correct in pointing out the obvious: Powerful political and economic forces have indeed achieved dominance of the resources available and are shamelessly utilizing them for their own interests. These powerful groups are present all over the world. In essence, the problem is political and can therefore be solved only through political means. Mere understanding, although required initially, is not enough. Meaningful action is required to wrest power from these groups and interests. Again, networking of like-minded groups across the globe can be effective. The conservation and environment movement has to enter politics in a more meaningful ways. Teaching, preaching, and advocating from the sidelines of power and influence is simply not enough now. More organized action is an imperative today.

Question: Should IUCN be playing a role in responding to challenges of unsustainable consumption and wasteful production systems in industrialized economies?

Reply: Yes. Obviously, without playing this role the IUCN will fail in its mission Therefore, an adequately planned response to meet the challenges is the need of the hour. However, the response can only be led by groups inside the developed world or industrialized economies. People like us from the developing world cannot do much other than providing moral support as such. Since the IUCN is a global organization it would help if this moral support must indeed be s provided to our friends living in the industrialized economies. The point is that a response from within is much more important than a response from without. It is for those inside the industrialized countries to take the initiative which I believe they should.

How would you define the ‘good life’? How can IUCN help you achieve it? The greatest problem facing humanity is the lack of understanding of what constitutes the “good life”. In other words, the problem is human understanding of what life means in the first place. This brings in the spiritual dimension. However, we must refrain form bringing in the religious point because the debate is on-going in other forums not necessarily connected with the environment and sustainable development. For example, Islam strongly advocates believers to adopt the path to moderation. However, this path of moderation is also advocated by others not necessarily being influenced by Islamic religious philosophy. Gary Gardner very correctly calls us to adopt a path of moderation to do away with the “constraints to progress in developing countries” and simultaneously affects “restraint in developed countries”. Gary then lists the constraints dominating in the developing world as “lack of capital, income, jobs, or other assets”. But, here also we find missing the desire to adopt a life of moderation and simplicity. Countries like China, Pakistan and India, among others in the developing world, are bent on achieving the affluence of the developed world as fast as possible. Thus, the “affuenca” debate alluded by Dr Kosla is very real and indeed very painful because we know the fate that awaits us in these countries. We are not learning any lessons from the fate of the developed world. Gary says that in the wealthy world there dictates “an overemphasis on material wealth, on constant stimulation, on the latest technology”. I believe that an overemphasis on materialism and a desire of continuous “stimulation” is a spiritual disease that can be eradicated by a spiritual reawakening only while an emphasis on the latest technology is just misperceived and misplaced. We are in need of technology breakthroughs and the best that science and technology has to offer and there is basically nothing wrong with that approach. But the point made by Gary is that an over reliance on technology fixes is definitely more than an emphasis on knowledge and its best utilization. It is becoming a problem in the developed world and also in the developing world when we look at technology as some great and final answer to our problems of all kinds, including sustainability and the environment. Again, we have to firmly begin to believe in Gary’s oversimplification, as he himself put it, that “the challenge everywhere is to find moderation: to remove constraints to progress in developing countries, so that energy there is allowed to stimulate creativity, and to apply restraint in developed countries, so that open-ended energy--in the form of materialism, overeating, and other excesses--does not do us in”. This will again take a momentous spiritual re-direction of sorts plus a powerful political movement surmounting the opposition to a new and better world.

Indeed, a sustainable future challenges us to rethink ‘the good life’, and to develop alternative models of wealth and prosperity. The essential components of a good life are first spiritual fulfillment and meaning of existence to be had from other sources of religion and spirituality like Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, etc. etc. and a more profane, mundane and pragmatic sense of materialism in moderation. This message can sell simply because of the understanding that there is no other sensible course available to us as a race inhabiting this planet. Lastly, society can make the shift from over-consumption to a stress on quality and well-being through a bold political movement based on the spirituality of simple living, moderation, fulfillment and emphasis on the non-material aspects of societal life which emphasize spiritual values such as family, love of sharing, well-being of the community, life of contemplation, and sacrifice. Above all, we must learn to live simple and spiritual lives while consuming less and not more. For this the mind-set has to change.

The IUCN can and should team up with other like-minded movements and groups, both spiritual and political that believes that a spiritual reawakening is needed. Obviously this is a gigantic task but so are the problems facing us. A fundamental shift in direction is to be planned and executed by networking on a gigantic scale the like of which has not happened before.

Question: Over 16,000 species of plants and animals are listed as threatened with extinction on the IUCN Red List. What are the most innovative ways of communicating the links between human well being and species conservation?

Reply: A spiritual re-awakening emphasizing our place in the cosmos and our responsibilities as God’s best creation to take care of other creatures of God. We can indeed achieve progress without eradication of other species because this is our responsibility and we must face it. Other non-religious messages can equally work here that emphasis pragmatism, human ethical behavior and responsibility. It is rather stupid of us as a species to not care a hoot about the real possible destruction of over 16,000 species of plants and animals. The fact that should be troublesome to human conscience is the sheer number we are talking here. It is not a few but a large number that is now on the verge of extinction. The point is that we all do understand the there are certain commonsensical limits to such extinction of species. Surely, we do not want this to accelerate. Again, the message must be given out in bolder and more aggressive styles than done so far.