by Sunthorn Womjongporn

 

Posted on October 27, 2013 at 11:30 PM

 

 

 

Our world now is philosophically shaped by the mindset of segmentation, fragmentation and isolation leading to alienation and brokenness under the name of progress and development. In effect, this has created multidimensional crises in every aspect of our lives such as in health, livelihood, social relationships, environment and especially in moral and spiritual aspects of life. Based on all of those mentioned leading to unsustainable development which become a critical term is being debated among different sectors, different groups since 1980 up to present time.

 

Sustainable development has dozens of other names, all defined with scorn and disgust: economist, environmentalsist, ecologist, development planner etc. each one has its own definition, based on their own worldviews, background, like a blind man touch an elephant. This is true as Escobar highlights that the emergence of sustainable development as discourse (1995:194-196). Sustainable development is a part of a broader process of the problematization of global survival that has resulted in a reworking of the relationship between nature and society (1995: 194). International attention to the environment is the response to the twin forces of a development model which enhance environmental degradation and the emergence of environmental movements. However, the new environmentalism focuses on the global ecosystem rather than the sustainability of local societies. The definition of global is made by the power brokers rather than the poor. The proposition that we are all citizens of the earth tends to lead to the conclusion that we all are equally responsible for environmental degradation (the poor always pay the prices).

 

The idea of environmentally-friendly growth represented in mainstream sustainable development reproduces the central aspects of developmentalism and economism (1995: 195). Therefore the sustainable development discourse has built upon and replicated many of its features. Key themes are in the growth/development debate are repeated (Marc Williams).

 

Actually, the term sustainable development became the dominant leitmotif of the discourse of development planners, commentators and bureaucrats since 1980 up to present which based on two concepts: the first is the concept of basic needs and the corollary of the primacy of development action for the poor. The second concept involves the idea of environmental limits. The two basic concepts set and introduced by the mainstream development thinkers and seen the economic growth as the only way to tackle poverty, and hence to achieve environmental objectives. The Brundtland report’s vision of sustainable development is predicated on the need to maintain and revitalize the world economy.  This means, more rapid economic growth  in both industrial and developing countries, freer market access for the products of developing countries, lower interest rates, greater technology transfer, and significantly larger capital flows, both concessional and commercial (Brundtland 1987: 89).   

 

According to Brundtland Report, sustainable development policies encompass three general policy areas: Economic, Environment and Social.

 

But from the perspective of Cultural Diversity (UNESCO,2001) elaborate further the concept by stating that “Cultural Diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature”, it becomes “one of the roots of development understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence”. 

 

At the same time, there are many environmentalists have criticized the term “sustainable development” as claiming that economic policies based around concepts of growth and continued depletion of resources cannot be sustainable, since that term implies resources remain constant. It is argued that the term “sustainable development” is a term invented by business to show capitalism as ecologically-friendly, thereby placating people promoting environmentalist values. Radical theorists argue that sustainability cannot be managed within a capitalist world economy. The pattern of uneven development and their differential economic and ecological effects are the product of global market economy that has been emerging since the 16th century (Merchant, 1992: 23). The development at global level has become unsustainable, largely due to the patterns of over consumption in the advanced industrial countries. Therefore, in order to achieve sustainable development it is calling one’s has to look at our lifestyle of consumption. We have to live our lives based simplicity, moderation, and discipline must become a part of everyday life. According to Leonardo Boff, only simplicity will guarantee the sustainability of our planet.  Sustainable development from the perspective of Buddhist means “restraint, responsibility and self-control so that the process of living our lives can be intimate peace with nature. Buddha explained that life full of suffering precisely because we are tempted by the unlimited desires now enshrined in the Western definition of economic; and that the only way to avoid suffering is to avoid greed and lives decent life. The same with Mary Evelyn and John Grim, clearly religions need to be involved with the development of a more comprehensive worldview and ethics to assist in reversing this trend. Whether from an anthropocentric or a bio-centric perspective, more adequate environmental values need to be formulated and link to area of publicity and scholar of religion can be key player in this articulation process (Earth ethics Vol.10, No.1 Fall 1998).       

 

According to an article from website of Wikipedia mentioned that, sustainability of resources used requires that human activity, at minimum, only uses nature’s resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally as shows in the table below.

 

  Consumption of Renewable Resources

 

Consumption of

 

    State of environment

 

       Sustainability

 

More than nature’s ability to replenish

 

Environmental degradation

 

Not sustainable

 

Equal to nature’s ability to replenish

 

Environmental equilibrium

 

Steady-state Sustainability

 

Less than nature’s ability to replenish

 

Environmental renewal

 

Sustainable development

 

From the perspective of Cosmic Anthropology, sustainable development encompass of at least five main areas: Economic sustainability, Ecological sustainability, social sustainability, cultural sustainability and religion or spiritual sustainability.

 

According to Steve C. Rockefeller, living sustainability depends on accepting a duty to seek harmony with other people and with nature. The guiding rules are that people must share with each other and care for the earth. Harmony must take no more from nature than nature can replenish as shows in the table above. This in turn means adopting life styles and development paths that respect and work within nature’s limits (Earth Charter Project).

 

Sustainability is a call to ethical responsibility. It focuses directly on the values that are precondition to a just and sustainable world. We do not confuse these values with mere individual preferences. They arise naturally and continuously from the fact of our participation in community; every self is a social self; and every human community depends on nature of sustenance. Sustainability requires a respect for nature-its evolution, life support systems, and living beings-in all its intricacy, fecundity, diversity, beauty, and fragility. Respect follows when we humans not only recognize our dependence on nature, but take delight in it, and recognize nature’s intrinsic value (Stanley R. and colleague, 1995).

 

This reaffirmed by Posey and Dutfield that, the ecological crisis which emerge by unsustainable development cannot be solved by science and technology alone, since the roots of the unsustainable are largely lack of religion and spiritual dimension, the remedy must also be essential religious or spirituality. Schell also encourages us that creation-centered spirituality or religion traditions represent the appropriate spiritual paradigm for the wisdom and the earth survival in our time today (Mathew Fox, Original Blessing). 

 

All mentioned above, are different definitions and different roots caused of problems of unsustainable development from different views to different people. W are now looking for alternative sustainable development. It is believed that if we continue follow the mainstream economic development model as reaffirmed by many scholars, even economists that “sustainability cannot manage within a capitalist world economy”. There is a suggestion that cooperative will be alternative economic model as a moderate economic system that can help the poor people (members) to improve their livelihood and will enhance and strengthen civil society.

 

Basically, the principles of cooperatives based on the concepts, values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. The main concern is to help the members to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs (farmers Coops in global economy may, 1998). At the beginning the cooperatives really served their members based on their concepts, principles and values to meet their common benefit not only economic but as well as social and cultural. Sine the mid of 1980, the progress economy globalization market has progressed rapidly, particular agriculture sectors which the main factors pushing globalization in agriculture are the technological change and liberalization trade.

 

Due to the above changing process, the cooperative at primary levels are extension to fully enterprise and integrate into the economy globalization market and the cooperative become a profit center in its own right for only the benefit of its members and ignoring the social and culture dimensions as its own primary principles. Today, the cooperatives are under the pressure of both the government and multination farm corporations. The cooperatives are being concentrated in the hands of large companies, protected by patent rights as well as farm inputs; seeds varieties, livestock, technology and marketing. Thus, the trouble will put upon the agriculture cooperative’s members to access such farm inputs. The government itself withdrawal the support to the farmers and open the way to multinational farm corporations and global financial institutions monopolize the agriculture cooperatives as well as other cooperatives. In some developing countries, cooperatives have been privatized and commercialized oriented, and their members have shares in them. They are no longer tax exempt and members have no longer full rights to participate in the decision making and management.

 

Based on the above trend, there is a need to integrate different views, different approaches into different activities as Wilber calls “integral vision” an integral vision is a genuine theory of everything attempts to include; matter, body, mind, soul and spirit in self, social, culture and nature (all quadrant, all levels, and all lines), a vision that therefore embraces science, art, morals and spirituality (Wilber). According to Dr.Dejillas, there is a need to re-orient today’s cooperatives and civil society organizations to the objectives and principles of sustainable development. Cooperatives can ensure protection of the interests of their individual members only if, by undertaking their activities, they also engage in programs that promote sustainability of their neighborhood communities, society, and environment (Course outline, 2007). It is considered that the cooperatives have to link closely to civil society organizations because as Meier, and Stiglitz put it “civil society organizations with good track record can mobilize resources and play an important role to help the poor and underprivileged to help themselves in the long-run”.

 

According to His Majesty King Bhumibhol (Thai King) insists that the important components to achieve sustainable development should compose at least three main components:  Firstly, is that community organizations need to be encouraged. The government with the best of intentions is unlikely to be able to reach down to all the poor individual both farmers and non-farmers can consolidate into community organizations or forming groups in form of cooperatives to help each other in the areas of production, marketing, livelihood, education, social work and religion. Secondly, it is the role of large private corporations. These companies usually have a clear stance on their mission or goals. Among these are to be good public citizen by paying taxes and adhering to all the laws and regulations. It is realizing that all sectors have the capacities and possibility to contribute to society. The community organizations or groups of cooperatives should establish their network in order to achieve with their collective bargaining power, they will no longer suffer for price manipulation when selling their productions or buying the consumer products they need. Thirdly, is the role of philanthropic organizations, foundations and civil society organizations. Individual philanthropists and companies with the resources and intention to help the poor do not usually have the time nor the expertise to carry out this function. 

 

Development economists should therefore pay more intention to the role of community organizations large corporations and civil society organizations to alleviate the poverty problem. Allowing the operation of market forces and relying entirely on the conventional role of the government to help the poor is unlikely to be adequate. Living moderate life and self-immune are the internal factors which will lead to sustainable in the long run. The Thai King Bhumibhol encourages the roles of NGOs as well as other public-spirited foundations and large corporations to enhance the sustainable development process. Given the limitations of the government, the mobilization of such resources should not only contribute significantly towards the development objectives but also add to the social cohesion of the society by bringing together the “haves” to help the “have-nots”, because one of the roots of unsustainable development is “unequal in wealth distribution”.  

 

I would like to conclude that in order to achieve the state of sustainable development in the long run encompass at least five sustainability dimensions, that is the dimension of spirituality or religions sustainability, culture sustainability, economic sustainability, ecological sustainability and social sustainability. All are the foundations that will gear towards the well-being of human being, living being, non-living being as well as the earth and the planet as a whole. This is the main concerns of Applied Cosmic Anthropology (ACA) program which consider as very crucial role to play to response to our world present situations.  

 

References cited:

 

Peter Catkins: The Sufficiency Economy at the Edge of Capitalism; Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University “Capitalist” Western Economic.

 

Marc Williams: AID, Sustainable Development and the environmental crisis. The International Journal of Peace and studies. (www.gmu.edu./Williams.htm).

 

King Bhumibhol: Sufficiency Economy (New Theory). www.sufficiencyeconomy.org

 

Chirayu and Kobsak: Sustainable Economic Development through Sufficiency economy Philosophy (www.sufficiencyeconomy.org).

 

 Meaning, Principles and Philosophy of Coops. www.Wikipedia.org

 

 Ralph Metzner (Green Earth Foundation): The split between Spirit and Nature in European Consciousness.

 

Raina Cherneva and colleague: Culture and Sustainable Development (www.Culturelink.Special Issue 2000).

 

Bill Adams: Sustainable Development and the Greening of Development Theory, 1985.