According to the United Nation (Human Development Programme), inequality affects quality of life and well-being in all countries. It cripples

progress in health, education, income, and political participation. For example, when one looks at gender disparity in income, there is an obvious inequality (worldwide) between men and women in favor of men. For more on this important issue see The Quality of Life and Policy Issue among the Middle East and North African Countries (el-Aswad, el-Sayed 2019 Springer) recently published Link:Book The Quality of Life and Policy Issues among the Middle East ...

If there is inequality then we will not able to attain SDGs. Inequality affects many things such as quality of life, access to basic needs i.e., food, health, education and income. The inequality ultimately lead to poverty and social unrest.

makes it more difficult....more inequality means less of everything including the chance at sustainability which needs to be inclusive to work

In addition to the problem of inequality related to gender or women, two large groups of the population, children and rural residents, face a higher than average risk of poverty. They suffer from inequality of opportunities, which is aggravated by lack of access to social and economic services, resulting in lower human development outcomes. Policy makers should provide effective plans and initiatives to deal with this serious problem.

Well in the first place inequality means all fingers cannot be equal. So if we were all equal in terms of poor, since majority fall into this category, no development will occur and thus we don't want that. if those who are poor are reasons of lack of knowledge, then sharing the whole world resources equally will still finally end them poor and not change their state except they receive knowledge. And Talents and gifts differ, some use their for societal benefit while others prefer to use it for their own personal gain, Can equality really leads to sustainable development?

The main issue here is that inequality indicates or implies discrimination. Simply put, people (and organs of the body) are different, but each one has a specific role or function that must be recognized. Discrimination leads to belittling the role, function or status of an entity just because it is different, which is not good.

They are deeply inter-related. In a inequitable society, the rich can pay their way to keep their perks, while the poor do not care for Sustainability, as they have to first survive, to stay Sustainable.

Inequality keeps widening the gap between the rich and the poor. It is the weevil that destroys the fundamental foundation of sustainable development.

Now, the question is how to reduce (if not abolish) the problem of inequality.

Inequality represents "conflict of interests" among people and societies. "Conflict of interests" exacerbates deprivation of non-rich people as much as induces the sense of disability among poor and near poor people. A meta paradigm of morality is necessary to overcome conflict of interest.

Dear Nabeel Mahdi Al-janabi, Thank you very much for making very important inquiries on the Research Gate portal and inspiring important discussions on particularly important issues.

In my opinion, it is good that there was a discussion in the question of this query.

This is a very interesting and scientifically important topic.

Because the topic is very important so I still read the answers, I follow the interesting discussion.

Question:

What impact does inequality have on sustainable development?

this is a very important issue that requires scientific research.

It seems to me that it is good that there was a discussion in the question of this question.

The answers given are very inspiring. Therefore, I am still reading the answers, following the interesting discussion.

I invite you to further considerations, to continue the interesting discussion.

I wish you all good and best regards

In my opinion, inequalities in income and equipment in production factors in individual countries are a very important issue for the possibility of global implementation of sustainable development according to the concept of a new, green economy.

Is it time to change the civilization development strategy globally and focus on sustainable socio-economic development?

Yes, it is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth through destruction for future generations.

The 21st century is the last moment to introduce global sustainable development based on the development of renewable energy and ecological innovations. Sustainable development should be analyzed and measured in correlation with the analysis of economic growth and the share of individual sectors in the country's economic development, including the transformation of traditional energy sources into renewable energy, environment reclamation and recovery of recyclable materials, and ecological innovations.

I invite you to the discussion

In my opinion, in order to reduce inequalities in incomes and equipping production factors in individual countries, support programs for slower developing countries should be developed.

In my opinion, in the future the most important proecological technologies that should be improved and implemented are renewable energy technologies based on solar energy. Solar power plants should be developed. Commercial banks should provide loans for these purposes. However, in order for commercial financing programs to develop, the role of the State as potentially the main subject of financing large pro-ecological energy projects is also important. Similarly with nuclear energy, which is so very expensive to build, that without financial support from state finances, it would often not be possible to build a nuclear power plant.

In view of the above, I would like to ask you: How should the financing of the development of environment-friendly technologies be developed?

I invite you to the discussion.

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

Should international cooperation be developed to solve problems related to the global warming?

In order to solve the problems related to the global warming of the Earth's climate, international cooperation should develop to develop a common global strategy of pro-ecological activities and sustainable development of the new green economy.

In December 2018, the United Nations climate summit in Katowice took place in Katowice. COP (Conference of the Parties) on climate policy on Earth. UN climate summits, i.e. COP (Conference of the Parties) are global conferences during which climate policy actions are negotiated. Poland twice hosted them - in 2008 in Poznań and in 2013 in Warsaw. In December 2018, the climate summit is held for the first time now in Katowice in Poland.

During this summit, conferences are held, discussions are held on the need to develop a sustainable development policy and the need for development of ecological, renewable energy sources in order to generate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the future and ultimately reduce the average annual temperature rise on the Earth's surface. From the discussions it follows that it is necessary to develop eco-innovations, new pro-ecological energy sources, development of electromobility of transport means. It is necessary to develop and implement on a large scale renewable energy sources. In addition, it is important to increase the scale of afforestation, as forests and the flora contained in them absorb a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.

As part of this year's UN Climate Summit, the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24), 14th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 14) and the Conference of the Paris Agreement signatories (CMA 1) are held. About 20,000 people from 190 countries participate in the event, including politicians, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and scientific and business spheres.

Perhaps during this UN climate summit important and specific agreements, declarations and signed agreements on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will be taken. The present lectures show that in recent years the warming process of the Earth's climate has accelerated significantly and therefore, in the black scenario of future climate changes, the temperature on the Earth's surface can rise by 4 ° C to the end of the 21st century. If this happened, then the scale of climate-related cataclysms that are dangerous to humans, including droughts, floods, fires and weather anomalies in many places around the world, will increase many times. The problem is very serious globally and therefore a lot depends on whether international cooperation will develop in order to limit these problems and their negative effects.

In view of the above, I would like to ask you: Should you think that international cooperation should increase to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on Earth? In addition, another key question arises: how much of this international cooperation is possible, to what extent will real and effective measures be undertaken on the basis of the discussions and declarations undertaken to reduce greenhouse gases?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion

Data source: http://cop24.katowice.eu

In addition, I note the interesting discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

In the context of the possibility of implementation of sustainable development to the economies of individual countries, it is also important to develop eco-innovations in individual countries.

Does the activation of innovation and the creation of new technologies contribute to the sustainable development of the national economy?

In my opinion, the role of activating innovativeness and implementing new technologies in the industry is important for the effective economic development of the country and supports the sustainable development of the national economy.

In sustainable socio-economic development of the national economy, one of the most important issues is the activation of innovation and entrepreneurship in order to stimulate the development of business entities, especially those companies that based their business model on the implementation of new technologies, innovations, patents, including technical and engineering technology solutions. , production, logistics, IT, process, management, etc. Therefore, the role of engineers is very large in such organized development of the national economy oriented in economic policy on socio-economic development with particular emphasis on the activation of innovation and supporting the development of companies that their business model rely on new technologies, including engineering technologies.

I invite you to the discussion

Lets start by defining our terms. I'm using:

Sustainability is the ability of a community to all of the needs of all of it's people, using the resources and ecological services that come from the land/water it manages (or comanages) and the skills of its people, in perpetuity.

Both poverty and affluence degrade that - poverty by preventing needs from being met, and affluence by degrading the ecological services (and perhaps by creating an unrealistic definition of 'needs').

The sweet spot is a level of consumption that varies between slightly below and slightly above the biocapacity of the land being managed. The smaller the disparity, the higher the quality of life.

Intrinsic disparity in the social side of the community will mean there are subsets of the community that do not have all of their needs met (and perhaps can not have them all met). Sexism, racism, etc cause specific subsets to experience a greater or lesser burden. This creates instability, and reduces resilience. Each subset of a community will receive differing benefits from any given development initiative, but for the development to be sustainable, each identifiable subset must have a greater benefit than burden.

Rather than 'make' everyone equal, lets recognize that everyone is human, and that humanity alone grants them equal rights. You should therefore not have any authority over me that I don't grant you, and I should not have any authority over me that you don't grant me.

We find that when we give up some portion of our authority to our community, we end up having a higher quality of life (why John, in your example, had to hook up with some like-minded people). The smallest scale of hunter-gather communities tends to be in the low hundreds of people (smaller seems to be unviable). As societies become more complex, larger scale are necessary, until today, when 10s of millions of people are required to be able to provide the range of skills required to support such a community. People living in such a community have traded independence for co-dependence or inter-dependence, and have profited from it in the form of quality of life.

At the smallest scale, such as a family, communistic relationships are the norm. People have tried to extend that to larger scales with varying degrees of success, and in many cases, requiring varying degrees of enforcement. No one expects a family scale to operate in a capitalistic manner - that would be seen as highly abusive. As the group scale increases, the concept of capitalism makes more and more sense, and I think it would be unlikely that there is a community today of a thousand people that doesn't operate with money, profit, ownership, etc. (I'm a design engineer, not an anthropologist, so I can't say that as an absolute).

Around the world, most people live in a situation where someone else has authority over them that they have not granted. Some of it is overt (totalitarian governments, for example), some is subtle (white male privilege, for example). If you want to have stability in a time of crisis (eg, resilience), then you want to minimize the disparity of authority, or else the oppressed will take advantage of that instability to create chaos. Gated communities would become prisons.

You and I both have male privilege. How much time did you spend yesterday thinking about how to protect yourself from sexual assault? We both have affluent privilege. How much time did you spend yesterday wondering how you would be able to meet your needs today? We both have white privilege. And so on. What the privilege is doesn't matter much, but that it exists is a problem. It degrades the effectiveness of a community, by undermining the idea that we all have equal rights. The rights aren't supposed to come with caveats.

In Canada, for example, the last group of adult women to get the right to vote were 'granted' that right in 1969, so we can't stand too high on that moral podium, as we're only 2 generations into 'official' equality. And Canada is seen around the world as being more egalitarian than most (maybe Scandinavian countries seen more positively?). And institutional racism still exists both officially and unofficially.

I don't think we can achieve NO disparity in authority, but I do believe that it can be reduced, and that all efforts to reduce disparity will increase everyone's quality of life. Those of us with privilege are morally obligated to use that privilege to offer a hand-up to those without - it costs effectively nothing except some thought, and always produces a benefit.

Article Introducing the Investment Redistributive Incentive Model (I...