Sustainable Development and Human Welfare

Is sustainable development compatible with human welfare? Can we, as humans, all band together and cut down on the destruction of rainforests, conserve water, desert fossil fuels completely and use only renewable resources, and use certain farming techniques that keep the soil fertile? All of these things have to do with sustainability. Many people believe that the Earth's wealth of resources is not distributed equally among the human race. There are those individuals who believe that sustainability will only work if the population goes down or resource demand goes down. Others believe that sustainable development will have negative effects on the economy and certain human freedoms will be jeopardized, freedoms such as having a lot of children and using the environment as one wants to. Most people can agree that sustainable development becoming compatible with human welfare may indeed be a challenge.

Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, uses the Europeans as an example of a nation that is turning to sustainable development as a way of life. According to Rifkin, the thing that Europeans admire most about Europe is "the quality of life. Rifkin cites that Americans devote less than eleven percent of their Gross Domestic Product to social benefits while Europeans devote over two times as much.

Americans have come to be known as risk takers. This, according to Rifkin, stems from the fact that our earliest ancestors risked their lives by coming to a new land and starting their own lives from scratch. Ever since them, Americans have been risk takers and optimists. According to Rifkin, this optimism comes from our "faith in science and technology." Europeans, on the other hand, are more cautious when it comes to technology and science. The fact of the matter is that Europe has a longer history that America and as they produced numerous inventions over that time, they have become "more mindful of the dark side of science and technology."

According to Rifkin, Europeans have used the Precautionary Principle extensively when it comes to determining which new technologies and products should or shouldn't be marketed. One of the products that had been opposed extensively was GMO's and GE food products. A large number of farmers, environmentalists, and consumer organizations fought against the introduction of GE foods and governments were concerned. This led to a defacto moratorium on the planting and sale of GE foods. Eventually, the European Union handled the processing and distribution of GE foods very carefully. According to Rifkin, European companies have to prove that their chemical products are safe. If they can't, they cannot be put in the market. That is different in America where the consumer or the government has to prove that they cause harm. According to Rifkin, Americans do not follow the regulations that the Europeans follow because it will cost too much money.

Finally, Europeans value nature more than Americans do. According to Rifkin, Europeans spend more time visiting the countryside during their vacations than Americans do. Americans are far more likely to spend time in malls and hotels of the cities.

Ronald Bailey, an environmental journalist, cites that sustainable development will lead to a crash of the economy and even more serious downfall of the world's poor and the environment. Bailey says that the people in developing countries do not spend much time thinking about environmental issues. Instead, they think about attaining the good things that people in rich countries have.

Bailey points out increased scientific knowledge and technological advances have lead to longer life spans, less disease, more and cheaper food, etc. He continues by saying that this leads to environmental improvement. He believes that as societies become richer, their air and water will become cleaner, they will set aside more land for nature, etc.

So is sustainable development compatible with human welfare? Jeremy Rifkin says yes by pointing out that Europeans enjoy a higher quality of life. One of the major things he points out is that Europeans spend more time in nature than Americans do. Even the poor people there enjoy a higher quality of life because the Europeans give more money to social benefits. Ronald Bailey argues that the world's poor will suffer if so many regulations are put into effect. Also, the economy will become stagnant. Without wealth, their will be no innovation and this will lead to a decline in environmental health. It seems that Ronald Bailey is not as concerned about the overpopulation of the Earth as Rifkin is and Rifkin is not as concerned about wealth as Bailey is. One thing is for sure and that is both Rifkin and Bailey voice concern for the environment.

Source:

Easton, T. (Ed.). (2008). Taking sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues. Dubuque: McGraw-Hill.