What is sustainable development? 6

[kbits]

I have to get this question out of my head: is sustainable development really a code word for "Environmentalism"? So what comes to your mind when you see the words "Sustainable Development"?

Organic, perpetual motion machines that operate and repair themselves without expense? Living, breathing structures made entirely from plants? Technology born from and relying on infrastructure produced and self-replenished by Mother Gaia? New computers wired by the very nerves from our own human nervous system? I can't help but think of those things, but I don't understand those as the be all, end all of sustainable development.

I think, thus far, our development in the USA and elsewhere has been sustainable. Rigid pavement, concrete highways were sustainably planned. Typical gas-guzzling SUV's hogging parking lot spaces are sustained by the world. Mass-produced, Acme PC's, one for every person on earth, are being sustainably dreamed into existence. But in some past, present or future moment, the next sustainable-minded product produced cannot be sustained. Without hundreds of thousands of natural gas fuel stations, NGV's will never be sustainable, and therefore, not "green". Buildings made from recycled junk are not only too expensive to build out of pocket, but also too expensive in terms of time. The capacity to build these en masse does not exist, and therefore that sort of green technology is not sustainable.

My definition of sustainable development involves not only "green" technology, but more importantly the know-how to build, operate and maintain it. Development is sustained not only by the earth and environment, but also by the beings who rely on it for life. As engineers, we are the ones who design and build the world we occupy. We train people how to run it. We organize the maintenance crews. We pray for funds to keep it going. So are we confident we'll be able to develop and transform technology in order to ensure that we develop sustainably? Anyway, what makes any development sustainable, if sustainability is even possible?

 

[MadMango]

I think PLM.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[owg]

With a suitable definition of sustainable development, many examples are available. However if we mean it goes on for ever, there have not even been any examples of sustainable agriculture yet. The closest was Egypt, covering about 6000 years. However the Aswan Dam put an end to that.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[josephv]

Some of the ancient agricultural terraces built by the Incas are still being used today.

http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/terraces/

 

[bvanhiel]

Imagine a closed system in which only the energy from the sun enters. Now figure out how to live in that closed system without choking yourself with your own waste. That's what sustainability is about.

It doesn't mean that the system needs to regulate itself without human intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

-b

 

[kbits]

I like the example of agriculture as sustainable development. So what then is the suitable definition for "Sustainable Development"?

I can think of a lot of examples of what I believe is sustainable development, which is any development that is built, operated, and maintained by humans. But sustainable development is a term I hear often associated with straw bale houses and stormwater recharge.

 

[rb1957]

pre-industrial agriculture could be considered to be sustainable by pretty much any definition. you grew stuff with what you had, harvested it, kept some for seed the next year, kept some fields fallow so they could "recover" ... sustainable.

industrial agriculture possibly isn't sustainable ... needs chemical additives, phosphates, etc. But, we need this output to supply the mouths we have.

fishing could be sustainable (if the fish population was maintained, or increased), but modern practise demonstratively isn't.

mining could be sustainable, if you could recycle the finished product (like iron/steel).

petroleum exploitation clearly isn't sustainable, as we're using it up faster than its being made. we may keep finding more, we may have enough for another 100 years, but we're depleting the resource.

 

[moltenmetal]

kbits: there's nothing sustainable about "development" if "development" is equated with "economic growth". Economic growth is a pyramid scam- a geometric series which CANNOT be sustained, period.

Some argue that anything which doesn't grow is "mined" and hence is fundamentally unsustainable. Though you can maximize the availability of some mined resources such as metals by recycling them, ultimately there's some unrecoverable loss in that process that must come from new resources. The only thing to do here is to minimize use in the first place.

Human beings don't need to apologize for their existence to the other organisms on the planet, but we do owe them a duty of care. Present generations only have to ask forgiveness of future generations if they squander and waste rather than USE the earth's resources. Defining the difference between wasteful use and necessary use is inherently a value judgment and hence very tough for people to agree upon. However, if the only measure used of the difference between waste and necessary consumption is whether or not we can "afford" it in market dollars and cents, the planet is ultimately screwed.

We engineers have a responsibility to make society aware of the impacts of their actions and to present to them all the alternatives that technology can provide, with the costs and benefits clearly identified. But ultimately it's not up to us to choose for them. To lead by example, certainly, but not to make the choices.

 

[0707]

From Wikipedia

“Sustainable development is a collection of methods to create and sustain development which seeks to relieve poverty, create equitable standards of living, satisfy the basic needs of all peoples, and establish sustainable political practices all while taking the steps necessary to avoid irreversible damages to natural capital in the long term in turn for short term benefits by reconciling development projects with the regenerative capacity of the natural environment. The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into four constituent parts: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, social sustainability and political sustainability.

Criticism of the term
Many environmentalists have criticized the term "sustainable development" as a contradiction, claiming that economic policies based around concepts of growth and continued depletion of resources cannot be sustainable, since that term implies resources remain constant. Resources such as petroleum are consumed much faster than they are created by natural processes, and are continually being depleted. It is argued that the term "sustainable development" is a term invented by business to show capitalism as ecologically friendly, thereby placating people promoting environmentalist values.
However, technologies such as renewable energy recycling and the provision of services can, if carried out appropriately, provide for growth in the economic sense, either without the use of limited resources, or by using a relatively small amount of resources with a small impact. In the latter case, even the use of small amounts of resources may be unsustainable if continued indefinitely.”


Besides one says that the hell is full of good intentions, I believe more in good intentions than in bad, sustainability and its Criticism is a fish with the tail in its mouth, it is a kind of discussion trying to explain who comes first? The egg, or the chicken?

Western Nations are facing big unemployment and industries dislocations, because globalisation world market mainly seeks the profit, no matters the price. Developed countries invented the consume society, unemployment means no money for these societies, who will by the super plus products of globalisation in the short term? In my opinion it is time to anticipate scenarios and act accordingly in a planned way to avoid big society convulsions.

Luis marques

 

[Tropx]

kbits: there's nothing sustainable about "development" if "development" is equated with "economic growth". Economic growth is a pyramid scam- a geometric series which CANNOT be sustained, period.

I disagree. Economic growth (as defined by GDP growth) is absolutely essential for sustainable development in developing countries. The standard of living in those countries will never increase if the people cannot produce something (goods / services) that can be traded with the world.

The more interesting question then is how do we redefine GDP to include the environmental impact of our development and invent an economic model that will accept this definition? This is the only way to get the masses to follow the correct direction. If the market cost of green items is lower than the market cost of dirty items then more green items will be consumed.

 

[GMcD]

I'm with Moltenmetal- here is a letter to the Editor from a local sage, that I have tacked on my cubby at work:

"It is tempting to assert that anyone who believes an economist deserves what he gets. The problem is that we are all affected by the nonsense they peddle.

The fundamental problem that invalidates everything they say is their unwillingness to to take into account the value of natural services – clean air and water, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, forests and the hydrogen cycle, grasslands, pollinators etc. This value has been conservatively estimated to be on the order of $33 Trillion per year. Its continuing unrecompensed exploitation means that capital, not interest, is being spent – on the advice of economists. An implication of this fact is that growth – any growth – is unsustainable.

Economists prattle on about the “importance of growth” in order to “get sustainable increases in our standard of living” and are probably not even aware of the contradiction in that statement. (Note the emphasis on standard of living, not quality of life).

It is simply impossible to have a “sustainable increase” in anything. As Richard Douthwaite, an economist who is not for sale, observes in “The Growth Illusion”, growth “has enriched the few, impoverished the many and endangered the planet”.

Wake up folks. You cannot have it all – at least not for very long.

 

[kbits]

I appreciate everyone weighing in on what makes development sustainable, or that any sustainable development is even possible. I admit, the wikipedia article makes sustainable development seem even more impossible, that I believe the article was written from a library of an elite university. With so many factors involved with creating the path for sustainable development, we might as well just let nature run its course and continue consuming what we can.

 

[sms]

moltnmetal "Though you can maximize the availability of some mined resources such as metals by recycling them, ultimately there's some unrecoverable loss in that process that must come from new resources. The only thing to do here is to minimize use in the first place."

Or, find new resouces. If we assume the earth as a closed system then that is a problem. But there are plenty of resource and space for the human organism to expand, just not here.

As engineers we need to figure a good way to A)generate power without green house gases, B)Capture green house gases and either sequester them or make them harmless (say breaking the C's off the O's), C) Develop a cleaner way to power our society, D) Open up the rest of the solar system for human habitation or E) all of the above.

There is plenty of extra room, and all the resources we could ever want, just around the corner, say in the asteroid belt....

I guess I'll step back into the box now...


-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

 

[kbits]

Okay, I'll stick my neck out to the people of the developing world... all products that are "green" today eventually become "dirty" or life-threatening tomorrow. A strawbale house would seem fruitless if the last field of straw would have to be consumed in order to build it. I don't know, green products in India might be the key for that country to develop, whereas the West might continue to rely on dirty products, while someone figures out a way to get us off this planet and onto the next, and on and on through space and time. Universe, beware of humans in search of products.

 

[rb1957]

one important consideration is the change from the present to "sustainable" ,whatever that is, is going to meant the unsustained future of many of the world's inhabitants (alot of us will die off ).

of course, the counter is that projecting the present into the future indicates that all a humankind will become extinct. (and the sun will burn out, and the universe will extinguish itself ... )

 

[Grubbyky]

I think the definition of sustainable devolopment is something like: Meeting today's needs without compromising the ability to meet future needs.

The scope of sustainability generally includes social, economical, and environmental.

I don't understand how anyone can hope for sustainable development with exponential population growth still occuring. The trends for any biological population growth always drop off sharpley when the population cannot be sustained by the habitat. The question about sustainable development should really be: What will kill most of us off, famine, disease, war, other, or all of the above?

The bright side is that the massive die off is inevitable, and our actions may have accelerated the process and did not cause it.

 

[xnuke]

Dr. Albert Bartlett has some interesting writings and streaming lectures on the subject. Check out his homepage at

http://jclahr.com/bartlett/.

xnuke
"Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.