Two good questions. An article written in 1994 that is still right on.
“Sustainable Development is one of those terms that seems to have leapt into our vocabulary from nowhere Five years ago no one, apart from a few green philosophers, had ever heard of the term. Today, thanks largely to the publicity it received from the 1993 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio, it has become common parlance. Politicians speak passionately about the need for it and the steps we must take to achieve it; corporations bend over backwards to show their dedication to it; while the media enthusiastically tries to explain what sustainable development means.
But what exactly does it mean? At the last count there were over a hundred different definitions of the term, and there has been much debate over their varying merits and relevance. But one principle common to most of them is that it we should leave the planet in as good a state as we found it. The Brundtland Report’s definition is typical. It defines sustainable development as ‘development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’
The goal is certainly worthy. Many argue that it is also an imperative. If such principles are not put into practice we could do irreparable damage to the planet’s biosystem. But amidst all the clamor for sustainable development, few stop to ask whether it is possible. The consequences of an environmental catastrophe are so frightening – the end of civilization as we know it; perhaps the end of humanity itself – that people seldom question whether our current conceptions of sustainable development are adequate or realistic.
Here I wish to challenge some our deeply held assumptions about sustainability and what it will entail. The reason for doing this is not to create a feeling of hopelessness – although I shall indeed argue that current approaches do not contain a lot of promise – but to bring to light critical aspects of the issue that we might otherwise have overlooked…”
Read the rest: