For a long time, the concept of sustainable development has been heralded as one to sustain and ensure a better life in the future. However, there is only so much that it can ensure. Could you please point out certain limits of sustainability and sustainable development as a concept and empirical model?
Dear jayakhant,
Sustainability can only be limited by the amount of non-renewable sources that go into its development. For example, the recent study shows that the amount of non-renewable sources for construction of windmill will lead to excessive mining of iron, and requirements of concentre and plastic
https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328
Obviously this is a difficult question, if you accept sustainability as a theoretical model you will have to assume its postulates, you will find here principles, laws, categories, dimensions, variables, etc. That is why the first thing you should do is to assume the concept and systematize from the science to which your theoretical postulates belong. As for limits, I don't think they exist because the concept gives a perspective that leads to the holistic or dialectical analysis of the reality that the concept reflects. That is why there are no limits on sustainability. For example, in the ecological dimension you will find that the use of non-renewable resources must be proportional to the appearance in the socioeconomic systems of substitutes for the activities that will disappear when these resources cease to exist. . As you can see here, categories of the ecological are interrelated with the social, the economic and the political, obviously in such an analysis there are no limits. For me the problem is not in the concept, it is in the theoretical perspective with which it is assumed.
Hi,
in my eyes this becomes pretty political. In a capitalistic society that is based on economical growth but takes place in an endless world sustainability is very difficult- if not impossible (obviously depending on what kind of sustainability you're thinking of. driving an 250hrs engine electrical car charged by charcoal power isnt sustainable at all...)
you could look into "the limits of growth" and combine that literature search with "sustainability". I guess you'll find a lot of new insights there.
Yes absolutely there are limitations. As a good example I can mention the sanctions imposed on Iranian business activities are important barriers for sustainable development in Iranian industries as the do not access the required tools.
If we are going to propose a fully sustainable model, so yes, there are many limitations and constraints that can make it impossible to apply, at least today.
>>>
There are many factors that should be taken into consideration:
1- Public Policies, how much are public policies willing to support environmental, social and or economic sustainability?
2- Economic Growth: The capitalistic governance of our global economies, developed and developing (I even and especially include China in this), puts many economic limitations to the sustainable solutions proposed. A sustainable solutions that does not result in economic growth and financial gain to the business applying it (not necessary maximum profit though) will not be applied
3- Technology, Science, and Research Constraints: Not all emerging technologies take the concept of sustainability into consideration. And no technology (even clean energy technologies) is fully sustainable
4- Social Awareness: I don't think that I need to explain that the majority of the public, especially in developing countries, has the least awareness of the importance of supporting even social-sustainability solutions.
>>>>
I recommend applying the concept of Relative Decoupling of X (economic etc...) development from Y (environmental degradation, etc...). In which The intention is that more development from X happens for a lower increase in Y. This way, a proposed solution is not totally or necessarily sustainable, but more sustainable than the main stream generic alternative.
As community scale increases, effectiveness (how well needs are met within the community) declines but efficiency (how much effort is used to meet needs) improves. There will be an optimal community scale for sustainability that is dependant on culture, social cohesion, technology, and resource/ecological service availability. For complex First World communities, that may be well over a million people. For hunter-gatherers, that may be as little as 150 people.
Poverty will occur when it is impossible for people to meet all of their needs, regardless of how much time they use at activities that would be expected to meet their needs. Subsistence will occur when people do use all of their time at activities expected to meet their needs, and their needs are still not entirely met. There would be a peak in quality of life that is at the community managed biocapacity (the amount of consumption that would occur if there were no imports of biocapacity or exports of Ecological Footprint, and no substitution).
It is really very hard to get any positive results for implementation.
Sustainability is the ability to be maintained at a certain level, and this level varies among different systems.
The revel should be called as the limit of sustainability.
Unfortunately, there are still many barriers to sustainable development, system, business, financial, mental etc.
Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Dear Jayanth Deshmukh,
Sustainable manufacturing does not release toxics into the environment. Sustainable energy production does not depend on increasingly scarce natural resources or result in large climatic changes. Sustainable development does not compromise the living conditions of future people and nonhuman species. The principles of sustainability are the foundations of what this concept represents. Therefore, sustainability is made up of three pillars: economy, society, and the environment. These principles are also informally used as profit, people and planet. Sustainable development cannot exist as some static equilibrium state that can be regulated by reference to constant limits and some simple notion of balance between the various dimensions. The most concern is ecological limits to the physical scale of economic activity, limits to the economic welfare to be derived from growth of economic activity, and social limits to economic growth. Catastrophic occur , if balance is not made appropriately.
Limits for substantiality development
1. Ecological limits-The ecologists’ concern was with the physical limits to economic growth.
2. Economic limits -Material economic growth is now confronting both source limitations (scarcity of natural resources) and sink limitations (saturation of the natural capacity for dilution and neutralization of pollutants and wastes). Non-material economic growth has been increasing in the recent past; this relative dematerialization of the economy is evident in the increasing share of the services sector in the GNP (although not all services are immaterial, many are much less material-intensive than the agricultural and industrial sectors of the economy) and the higher energy and resource efficiency of the new and emerging knowledge–intensive technologies. Though, a key theme in the limits to growth debate has been a rejection of this positive link between growth and welfare.
3. Environmental limits-Then, environmental limits perceived to be either non-existent or automatically self-delimiting.
4. Social limits-demographic growth and material economic growth must eventually stabilize, cultural, psychological and spiritual growth is not constrained by physical limits. Socio-ecological system is considered correct if the values of the indicators are maintained within the limits defined as the “safe range”.
5. Natural resources are finite and that there are limits to the carrying capacity of the Earth’s ecosystems.
6. Limited scale of economy and population;
7. Food limit-The supply of food and non-renewable resources were, however, taken to be absolutely finite. Not surprisingly, exponential growth within finite limits resulted in systematic breakdown; the expansive nature of compound growth also meant that the finite limits could be raised by a factor of four without significantly affecting the results.
Ashish
Dear Jayanth Deshmukh,
Sustainable manufacturing does not release toxics into the environment. Sustainable energy production does not depend on increasingly scarce natural resources or result in large climatic changes. Sustainable development does not compromise the living conditions of future people and nonhuman species. The principles of sustainability are the foundations of what this concept represents. Therefore, sustainability is made up of three pillars: economy, society, and the environment. These principles are also informally used as profit, people and planet. Sustainable development cannot exist as some static equilibrium state that can be regulated by reference to constant limits and some simple notion of balance between the various dimensions. The most concern is ecological limits to the physical scale of economic activity, limits to the economic welfare to be derived from growth of economic activity, and social limits to economic growth. Catastrophic occur , if balance is not made appropriately.
Limits for substantiality development
1. Ecological limits-The ecologists’ concern was with the physical limits to economic growth.
2. Economic limits -Material economic growth is now confronting both source limitations (scarcity of natural resources) and sink limitations (saturation of the natural capacity for dilution and neutralization of pollutants and wastes). Non-material economic growth has been increasing in the recent past; this relative dematerialization of the economy is evident in the increasing share of the services sector in the GNP (although not all services are immaterial, many are much less material-intensive than the agricultural and industrial sectors of the economy) and the higher energy and resource efficiency of the new and emerging knowledge–intensive technologies. Though, a key theme in the limits to growth debate has been a rejection of this positive link between growth and welfare.
3. Environmental limits-Then, environmental limits perceived to be either non-existent or automatically self-delimiting.
4. Social limits-demographic growth and material economic growth must eventually stabilize, cultural, psychological and spiritual growth is not constrained by physical limits. Socio-ecological system is considered correct if the values of the indicators are maintained within the limits defined as the “safe range”.
5. Natural resources are finite and that there are limits to the carrying capacity of the Earth’s ecosystems.
6. Limited scale of economy and population;
7. Food limit-The supply of food and non-renewable resources were, however, taken to be absolutely finite. Not surprisingly, exponential growth within finite limits resulted in systematic breakdown; the expansive nature of compound growth also meant that the finite limits could be raised by a factor of four without significantly affecting the results.
Ashish
1. Economic policies of countries
2. Social awareness
3. Public concerns
4. Technical constraints
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology