Jim Lewis wrote:
> I prefer the term "ecologically sustainable." Standing by itself, without a
> host of qualifiers (or apologizers), "sustainable development" comes very
> close to being an oxymoron.
Since the publication of the Brundtland Report (Our Common Future) in 1987, I
have seen the term: "sustainable development" used possibly 10 thousand times.
To me it has always had a clear meaning, vis:"
"business as usual" or "sustainable destruction" or "never-ending growth and
development."
I tend to agree with Jim that it is very close to being a true oxymoron. Those
of you who use the term as if it had some ecological validity should propose how
we could attain sustainable development in New York City or Tokyo, or Jakarta,
or in Calcutta. Recently, the optimists out there have used the term
"sustainability," which is equally suspect and potentially misleading.
"Ecologically sustainable" seems quite clear to me, but to have this kind of
ethic would mean a lot of roll back of the most destructive activities of the
Human - industrial agriculture, human numbers, mega-pollution, etc. etc.
There was another excellent oxymoron introduced in this group a couple of days
ago by Chris Perley, namely "unethical preservationism." One can make a strong
ecologically based case that the preservation is Nature is the highest form of
ethics. To me, terms such as "unethical preservationism" is part of the general
body of anti-environmental hate literature. Another term for your lexicon of
examples of ad homenum argument/labelling.
Ted
--
Ted Mosquin, Lanark, Ontario, Canada.
<http://www.ecospherics.net> (literature on ecocentric/ecospheric ethics)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|