It seems I’ve fallen into an echo chamber I thought I actively tried to sneak out of. I learned about the UN definition of sustainable development (adopted in 1987) early in my Biology degree. Over time, in different projects I’ve been involved in, that has been the definition of sustainable development we have used: “activities that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Basically, the idea that our generations’ grandchildren (and further) should also be able to enjoy a healthy planet as we have (wait…have we?). I know, it’s not the best definition in itself and its weaknesses have been amply debated, but I did believe this was a universally accepted concept of sustainability so far. But I was wrong.
A few weeks ago the ninth edition of the tve Global Sustainability Film Awards took place (virtually) and, partnering with Difficult Dialogues, provided 5 days of thought-provoking panels to accompany the awards. So thought-provoking that here I am a few weeks later still pondering on all those conversations.
After what has probably been a challenging year for everybody, I encourage you to go check out the available films on their webpage to lift your hopes up. There are so many inspiring people and projects going on around the world – things might not be as bad as we might perceive!
But let’s talk about those panels
As I said before, in my personal experience the UN definition of sustainable development has dominated. However, as I listened to some panelists from an economic and business background, I realized not only that this definition does not appear to be on the table, but that “sustainability” is really being used and molded to satisfy what anyone wants it to be. Has it become only a marketing catchphrase outside of academic circles?
As it turns out, it’s not only outside of academic circles either. We discussed this throughout the week with some friends and colleagues. It seems those of us that have been working on Conservation in one way or another over the past 10 years generally agree on the use of the UN definition, but some friends from the Biotechnology and Agricultural Sciences did not use or even know about this definition. Some even said they have never operated with a strict definition of “sustainability” in mind.
I’ve heard some arguments around “as long as we do good, we don’t need a definition”, but I beg to differ. Maybe we can have different culturally-adapted definitions, but we need some definitions! Many well-intentioned things backfire. Defining a term makes it possible to establish boundaries, measurable goals, and assess risks. Otherwise, where are we going and how do we know when we got there? How do we reassess?
Diverse Voices
Even though I value everybody’s opinions and I mean this with the utmost respect: these panels were pretty white. The panels that discussed innovation, business, and “Life in 2050” left me with a bittersweet taste. The briefly mentioned idea of the “United States of the World” was particularly upsetting, considering the history and current state of the Global South and, well, the world. Instead of watching a virtual conference from a different country, I sometimes felt we were talking between different planets.
Sustainability is not strictly environmental, or, rather, environmental is not only the physical and biological environment. As much as we scientists continue to study and try to understand the natural world, coupling the complex networks of an unequal and diverse society is a must – and not an easy task.
As a middle-class Guatemalan, I recognize the privileges I’ve always lived with, but by no means has this made me wish for things to remain the same. The entire opposite. Traveling through my beautiful country can be extremely heartbreaking, yet the “2050” panel gave me the feeling that things are not going to change any time soon if businesses in the Global North that require raw materials from the Global South continue to ignore the network of international and local drivers that allow so many injustices to remain in place. Certifications are no guarantee.
Innovation?
Replacing fireworks with drones, and other frivolous examples like that one are just continuing to put profit over life quality. It keeps feeding this idea that “more is always better” and this very western entertainment-seeking society that will never be satisfied.
Don’t get me wrong, technology is amazing and I strongly believe we can use it for a lot of good – there are already many examples (though this deserves its own and constant evaluation of actual and potential negative impacts!). But why is the idea of “innovation” still about producing “more and more” even if with different materials? Noor Veenhoven herself said in one of the panels that “innovation is not in itself sustainable”, and I agree based on these panels, but I also think it could be.
Innovation itself is not a synonym of “tech” or “more”, rather “different”, I would say (and we now have a good list of innovative, profitable, and responsible ideas and projects to binge-watch on the GSFA webpage, for example). Innovation can be towards including the concepts of life quality and human rights within what we do, adapting and respecting what life quality means for different cultures, and not just measuring “success” through one economic index that assumes infinite resources that do not even exist.
We carry on as if we were immune to this destruction.
Tony Juniper
I do believe businesses (and governments) have an enormous responsibility towards what society comes to believe is “needed” and “must be consumed”. Most things we think we need and consume are really unnecessary. Luxuries do not equate to improved life quality. Why are we not valuing life quality as much as owning frivolous “stuff”? Ahh, the marketing abuse of human psychology.
Like Juniper mentioned, we have been misled to believe that economic growth will solve everything, but we keep destroying the resources that make “the economy” exist in the first place. If we keep on just substituting stuff we will keep reaching the same problems with different materials over and over again. I dare say with increasing mental health issues as long as we keep supporting these ridiculous measures of “success” and what “needs” are. Why not provide opportunities that add to life quality and improve the myriad of other activities and products that we DO NEED and most of the world still does not even have access to?
Good intentions seem to be out there
But good intentions have never changed anything. Actions might not always be easy, but to paraphrase Solitaire Townsend, we need to be willing to change our behavior if we want a better future. And we all need to do so.
Cases of “climate anxiety” and related mental health problems are becoming more common to experience and hear about, particularly (but not exclusively) by those of us who work on these topics and read about this every single day. Sure, this might contribute to some other bias, but it does not mean the problems aren’t real.
Do something about what scares you
Solitaire Townsend
So what do we do?
Something that still resonates from that first panel on “Changing the Mindset” is the idea that a change in mindset comes after a change in actions. This confused me at first, “isn’t it the other way around?”, I thought. I mean, how do we motivate someone that’s not mentally on board with an idea to take any action towards it? My actions towards a less-waste life have been led by my understanding of these networks of consequences and the accompanying feeling of personal responsibility. How can we transmit these types of feelings? And, would these feelings be enough to drive everybody into action? The idea of “social responsibility” for some companies still seems to be received as a burden or an obstacle. Individual actions matter a lot as well, but for some people, some of these feelings are more overwhelming and paralyzing rather than driving into action.
Then I thought about two things that have been very “in” over the last decade: (1) waves of communications around establishing habits and (2) influencers. For many of us establishing habits is not easy, and at first, we must force ourselves into those actions for a minimum number of days. So this idea of “Actions first, mindset later” made sense now. Besides, people are always influenced by others and our social nature drives us to imitate others to gain a sense of belonging or acceptance into a certain social group. We sure are interesting animals!
I don’t really have a roadmap or answers to the above questions, but if there’s something I would recommend we all take from this, is to keep doing what we believe is right because we never know who is watching and who we might be inspiring into action.
Spreading the word
It was mentioned several times how most of our problems are a problem of perception and disconnection. Finalizing the week with a panel on the power of communication to hold the powerful accountable was the perfect cherry on top that we needed. As Humphrey Hawksley shared, we are allowing brutal things to happen to the point where reporting on child labor is “just not surprising enough” to be published. However, we also need to keep communicating because “we cannot fix something unless everyone knows what’s going on” (Clare Rewcastle).
The biggest threat is ignorance
Mark Wood
Part of why this page exists is because I believe we scientists have the responsibility to share the knowledge we have access to. Everybody deserves access to this information. Particularly as most businesses and governments seem determined to keep putting profit over absolutely anything else, taking advantage of others’ naivety and ignorance. Events like the GSFA are also important: spreading the word while celebrating the power of visual storytelling; opening spaces to have important and difficult discussions among not just one sector but mixing entrepreneurs with scientists with communicators with economists and more; and to top it off, the increased accessibility that virtual events permit.
Even if I was determined to continue with science communication before, I am now more convinced than ever that this is necessary. Through all the available media we must keep making all the world’s corners visible (and I don’t mean just the bad things!) to narrow down the crisis of perception and nature-disconnection we live in.
Final thoughts
The ambiguity or lack of a definition of “sustainability” allows governments and businesses to keep blaming someone else for their responsibility or doing things the same way. As this review points out, multi-dimensional changes in attitudes, institutions, and social structures are necessary. Despite the lack of a definition we can all agree on, it seems to me that under all possible ideas, sustainability is about our own survival – so why put profit over that?
Most things that give us a short term economic benefit tend to be catastrophic in the long run, and we have the entire human history to look for examples. Things that are good for the economy, in the long run, are also good for us. The way I perceive it, the UN definition of sustainability contemplates the feelings of responsibility and of being held accountable for our own actions as we think long-term and selflessly about future generations, even if we won’t be there to see it.
Besides the mixed feelings upon realizing the diversity of interpretations of innovation and sustainability – and how we sometimes seem to live in different worlds -, the entire week gave me an overall and dominating feeling of hope and energy to keep going. Let’s start thinking long-term with “the solutionist mindset”; let’s try out “the helper’s high”; and let’s continue to spread the word (and stick to the facts!). We will get through.
But tell me, what is “sustainability” to you?
Did you learn something new here? Consider supporting me on Ko-fi and get a personalized doodle!
[kofi]
Recommended:
- Mensah, J. & S.R. Casadevall. 2019. Sustainable Development: Meaning, History, Principles, Pillars, and Implications for Human Action. Literature Review.
- de Olde, et al. 2016. When Experts Disagree: The Need to Rethink Indicator Selection for Assessing Sustainability of Agriculture.