ECL/IAD 217

discussion questions for week 2

1. sustainability in general

1.1. Certain division occurs among participants in the sustainable development discussion. Although a dramatic example, sides often believe firmly that either humanity OR the environment has to ‘take a hit’ (be it hunger or deforestation) in order to ensure the viability of the specific population or ecosystem. As we investigate this idea further do we try and find a balance or is a consensus, compromise or ‘good enough’ not considered sustainable?

1.2. Our readings focused on the discourse surrounding sustainability, from the need for environmental ethics and ecological economics to sustainability science and ecological assessment. How does the discourse on sustainability meet with the pragmatic implementation of sustainable development policies and projects “on the ground”?

1.3. Could humans, at any point in evolutionary history, be considered by Goodland’s (1995) definition to have been environmentally sustainable? If so, is it true sustainability or human construction of the “noble savage” concept? If not, how do we go about constructing a large-scale plan towards sustainability/sustainable development which would include humans?

2. does ethics give us answers?

2.1. Although sustainability offers a more progressive alternative to the ecocentric/anthropocentric dichotomy, isn’t the concept of sustainability, in which human beings are to some degree claiming stewardship of nature, rooted more deeply in the anthropocentric discourse?

2.2. Ecological ethics seems very important, but how do we teach/learn it in our over-consumptive and somewhat unethical culture? Do law/policy/economic changes effect cultural changes over time (our current “conservation” movement) or do we need to entirely rethink our methods?

2.3. In Sharing The Earth, Peterson (p. 28) notes that “sustainability is a goal that should be sought only... [when] it promotes fundamental cultural values.” What are these values, who determines if the values are fundamentally valid, and how can we measure whether a culture’s value(s) promote concern for the future?

2.4. Who is going to set the standards/policy for an ethical sustainable development and how will it be enforced? Can we?

3. does attention to inequities on the global scale give us answers?

3.1. While I think it’s important to focus on the interests that developed and developing countries share in terms of sustainability and resource conservation, I wonder whether the “commonality” approach allows developed nations to assert their influence in the decision-making processes of other nations in the name of global common good. Does focusing on shared interests instead of competing rights make it easier for the interests of developed nations hold sway under the guise of the global “we”?

3.2. In “When self-interest is key to a better environment,” the author states that “perhaps the most straightforward example of ‘doing well by doing good’ is ‘ecotourism’”. Are we talking about “sustainable development” here? Very much related to my previous questions, in whose interest? QUESTION: Who is gaining from ecotourism - the rural, black South Africans who are trying to eke out an existence on their land, or the wealthy, white South African rancher who is able to subscribe to the journal Nature and intellectualize about the word “sustainable”? Are the Campfire programs in Zimbabwe the exception or the rule? In the case of South Africa, Madagascar, the Galapagos or wherever your ecotourism industry of choice exists, who benefits from “sustainable development” and who makes the real sacrifices?

3.3. I’m interested in examining the role of population pressure in environmental degradation. A lot of the information out there seems to point to local population “explosion” (e.g., “third world” populations) as a primary cause of this decline in environmental stability and sustainability. How accurate is this assertion? Don’t pressures placed on these resources by “first world” interests play an equal if not greater (especially in terms of the political and economic power they exert over developing nations) role? Why don’t more articles look at this side of resource depletion?

3.4. > What is meant by population stability? No growth? Negative growth (i.e. population reduction)? If we currently have more people than can be sustained at the top 10 or 20% of the affluent, is one goal of sustainability to reduce populations to a number in which current affluence can be maintained or to lower the top minority by redistribution?

3.5. If “the tacit goal of economic development is to narrow the equity gap between the rich and the poor” (Goodland 1995: 5) and yet the earth’s resources cannot support raising the bottom 80% of the population to the consumption standards of the top 20%, what does that mean for the standard of living of the world’s industrialized nations? What are the global social, economic, and environmental implications if industrialized nations do not decrease consumption?

4. does economics give us answers?

4.1. From “Costing the Earth: When Ecology meets economics”: Economy, Ecological economics, resource economics, agricultural economics, etc... People in development want to feed the world, conserve the earth, sustain natural resources, at all costs, but then only if economically feasible. Would we not be better off (or should we not consider) a system where ecology, nutrition, and quality-of-life are not measured economically? Is this even possible?

4.2. Valuing ecosystem functions was discussed in several of the readings and it seems that such a process may lead to more sustainable use of resources (as opposed to the often cited tragedy of the commons). But because ‘value’ and ‘price’ are not necessarily synonymous (except to economists maybe), will this kind of ‘valuation’ only lead to paralysis among scientists and policy makers? Is the Costanza et. al. study helpful?

4.3. Robert Solow, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, describes a paradox in viewing resources as an equity to be shared between current and future generations: “There is something inconsistent about people who profess to be terribly concerned about the welfare of future generations but do not seem to be terribly concerned about the welfare of the poor today.” Peterson (1997: 25) discusses conditions under which sustainability should not be allowed “to outweigh an improvement in securing an overriding value as justice.” What defines a sustainability project as appropriate? Should the conservation of resources and the quality of life for local people be viewed as equally important priorities?

4.4. In several of the articles concerning ‘ecological economics’ the economists make reference to property rights and their value. These property rights include such resources as grazing rights, fishing rights, etc. The economists argue that these rights must be tradable in order to maximize their efficient use. Is there any room in these economic schools of thought for the concept of a commons or must all of these rights be individually owned?

5. does ecology give us answers?

5.1. Rapport et al. (1998) describe recent efforts to monitor lakes and streams to effectively gauge ecosystem health. Does this approach run into the same problems as using of flagship species to indicate ecosystem health? (Mainly that findings based on any one species or system may not apply more generally to all components of an ecosystem).

5.2. I have learned in my own work how scientists (broadly defined) are often looked at as not meeting the needs of the community or as the selfish, “expert” researcher out to make money and a name for themselves (never to be seen again!). What is the scientific communities responsibility in re-defining their relationship to the community and furthering the ideas of sustainable development?

5.3. How can we make bridges between the “mismatches of scale between human responsibility and natural interactions” (by Lee in ‘Sharing the Earth)? Has science by human contributed to filling the special and temporal gaps within/between human and nature?

5.4. Since sustainability is NOT necessarily equivalent to stability we are indeed managing a moving target. What are the societal impediments to the flexibility needed to live within such natural fluctuations and disturbance? How does technology affect this flexibility?