Good Morning. I really like your question, it gives me the opportunity to express what I think about it. First; It seems to me opportune that we decide if this is really the model that we must assume as a paradigm of planetary development. I think yes, it has very valuable elements, but it needs to be reconceptualized so that it adapts to the characteristics of all the countries on earth. Some countries need to grow to be able to develop, even compromising the resources of nature. But this growth has to offer riches to compensate future generations for the possibilities that will be lost when the resources sustaining current economic activities are exhausted. This analysis does not fall within the logic of sustainable development. Other countries do not have the economic resources to protect their national producers, their markets depend, in many occasions, on traditional productions that are ruined by the big transnationals that invade the nations with these characteristics. The concept of sustainable development does not say how to get out of that crossroads. In the great powers of this world it is decided what we consume, how to dress, the cars we use, the phones we talk about, the other part does not even know that the new information and communication technologies exist. These elements do not enter the concept. That is why I believe that the first thing we must do is assess whether this theoretical model, according to the "Our Common Future" Report, is useful for developing development strategies. Logically, I can give ideas about what should be done, but they would always be from the opinion of a person. Concepts are the nodes of development, let's begin by defining adequately what is sustainable and what we want to sustain in the present and in the future.

Thanks Juan, I appreciate the sincerity of your point of view. I agree that concepts are development nodes, and that we need to start by properly defining what is sustainable and what we want to sustain now and in the future.

Many sustainability authors agree that sustainable development can't be achieved whilst policy makers continue to prioritise economic growth/development over the social/environmental dimensions. In other words, there can't be infinite economic growth in a world with finite resources. In future, we will need to adopt policies based on efficiency (e.g. doing more with less) and sufficiency (moderation in production/consumption).

Dear Rosario, I have the same covenants. Thank you.

All humans aspire to improved well-being. GDP has been used as a (flawed) proxy to measure well-being, since it can be measured to the cent, but it doesn´t account for many dimensions of well-being, and doesn´t allow to predict environmental or social collapses.

Simon Kuznets, the inventor of GDP, actually specifically warned against using it as a measure for well-being. The environmental problems (climate, biodiversity, resources depletion etc) are all directly derived from the material-intensive and contaminating nature of our economy.

So what measures do we need? A few ideas:

1- Change the way well-being is being measured (plenty of proposals out there, see for example https://neweconomics.org/2014/09/wellbeing-manifesto-flourishing-society)

2- Dematerialize the economy as much as possible (many would argue for degrowth, but I don´t think that´s needed. See for example: https://twitter.com/mliebreich/status/1057242736645062656)

3- To dematerialize, industry must focus on closing energy and material loops applying techniques from industrial ecology and circular economy

4- Stop investing in carbon-based energy now. Renewables are already cheaper in many situations.

5- Invest in agroforestry and sustainable agriculture (apart from climate it has many social, economic, water and biodiversity benefits).

6- People need to start valuing stuff that is less material-intensive: cultural activities vs buying stuff (think theater vs video-games; hike in the forest vs flying around the world etc.) Here religious leaders, cultural sector, advertisers with the help of regulators have a big role in shifting values.

7 - Specifically in the field of climate change, see for example drawdown.org for ideas on how to set priorities

8 - In the area of circular economy see work done by Ellen MacArthur foundation

Thanks a lot Arno, We have the moral obligation, as intellectuals, to make known, in any way, these truths. How many people have to know and understand the reality until it's too late.

Good afternoon Cornel Ionescu. Your question continues to generate my ideas, so I decide to provide other elements that I consider necessary in this analysis. First place; For there to be the possibility of achieving sustainable social development on the planet, there is a need for government structures that facilitate the participation of citizens in decision-making. To this end, governments must guarantee systems that allow citizens to enter democratic structures, there may be such institutions in all countries, but if there is no way to reach them, they will not work. But, in addition, we need citizens with the capacity to make decisions, and for that we must train them so that they can decide with knowledge about the processes. Second place; We must find a balance between natural resources and human, technological and financial resources. Natural resources are not factors of development, they are only conditions of this. That is why we must guarantee resources to develop the technologies that are needed for growth that can contribute to sustainable development. This is a responsibility of national governments. Third place; we must educate citizens so that they can assimilate the advances of science and technology in such a way that the transfer of technology becomes a factor of development in the world. Fourth place; ways must be guaranteed to protect the ancestral communities of the planet, mostly owners of traditional knowledge capable of helping to safeguard the planet from the monopolistic destruction of the large transnationals that invade small economies and destroy national identities. This is a responsibility of the governments of each country. Fifth place; we must protect the genetic diversity of the planet, with the advances of science and technology we are running the risk of staying with an artificial planet, with a second nature that will not be the heritage of those who genetically manipulate living organisms and create substitutes for all. This is everyone's responsibility. This topic is exciting, that's why I think we can continue the debate until we reach a global consensus and that someone listens to us and decides to make the changes we need to achieve a sustainable world.

Human memory loss is not sustainable. Memory is required to innovate. Whereas, satisfying needs and societal comforts have been a concern throughout history, they are limitless with innovation as long as the sun shines (our energy source). Electronic artificial memory is replacing memory development creating a slow castration of innovation. My audio summary and text can be reviewed at RelatingtoAncients.com.

Numerous literature in sustainability confirm that the achievement of sustainable development heavily relies on conscious efforts by policy makers to continue to prioritize the progression of the economy over the social, cultural and environmental aspects. Similarly, there are no unlimited economic progression all over the universe with limited available resources. In time to come, it will be necessary to embrace policies on the bases of efficiency and sufficiency.

I welcome you, Juan, for you and the Cuban people. To know that I visited Cuba, I was in Varadero and Havana. I have excellent memories. I agree with what you say. What do we do with the world government, with interference in the affairs of other states? All the best!

Dear Gary I hope we wait until it's too late!

With consideration

Yes, Ammal, you're right. And I hope. All the best

There is a truism that no problem can be solved until it has been adequately defined. As Sustainability is perceived as a wicked problem, it is defacto inadequately defined. Brundtland provided a description, and it was taken as a definition, which then allowed hundreds of additional refinements that are, in some cases, completely counter intuitive and contradictory.

As a first step, Sustainability must be understood better. It is a holistic concept, which is hard for people to grasp. Many people want to focus only on specific subsets, because they happen to line up with their expertise. But an optimal solution won't have each piece maximized - that's not possible. Instead, there has to be trade-offs, and that requires understanding what we're really trying to achieve.

These are my working definitions of what I think we are trying to achieve, though they are apt to change as more gaps get filled in (for instance, I have to learn something more about eco-feminism to refine the thought of 'management', and understand community dynamics better)

Sustainability = the ability of a community to meet all the needs of all its citizens, using the skills of the population and the ecological services from the biomes it manages, in perpetuity.

Economic Sustainability = the ability of a community to meet its needs through internal trade arrangements and co-management relationships with other communities, so that no skills, resources, or ecological services are required to be purchased from outside of the community and its partners, to meet needs, in perpetuity.

Social Sustainability = the ability of a community to ensure that all of the needs of all of its citizens can be met in less than 24 hours per day per capita, while encouraging the unique customs, arts, and social institutions that provide the community cohesion required for the citizens to function effectively as a group.

Ecological Sustainability = the ability of a community to maintain the ecological services being provided by the landmass being managed by the community, including a non-declining portion of each biome that acts as neither a sink for wastes nor a source of resources.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308955102_Stimulus_of_developmental_projects_to_landscape_dynamics_in_Uttara_Kannada_Central_Western_Ghats

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313486918_Modelling_the_forest_transition_in_Central_Western_Ghats_India

First of all, the goal of significantly increasing the scale of implementation of the principles of sustainable development in economic processes is necessary to carry out a full pro-ecological transformation of the energy sector consisting in the conversion of classic energy based on burning minerals into renewable energy sources and the development of electromobility. In addition, it is also necessary to improve waste segregation and recycling, replace plastic in packaging with biodegradable materials, develop organic farming, improve rainwater retention systems, reduce the level of environmental pollution, etc.

Greetings,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

"Sustainable development is a development that meets today's needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs". That is definition of UN. But do we save our forest, river, land etc for our children?