Resetting Our Goals?

I have shared the author’s sentiment about the concept of “development” for many years now.  Much of what Rist said truly resonated with me; I too, believe it is very common for the public to latch onto vague terms that they do not truly understand (e.g. synergy).  Similarly, our society has a tendency to support ideologies that contradict mounting evidence, typically because it is just a prevalent view in our society, or a “religion” as Rist explained: “our belief in ‘development’ is still too strong to be undermined by scientific certainty”.  I believe this is especially true with our feelings towards capitalism, consumerism, development, and compassion for oppressed groups (e.g. natural world, impoverished people).  I have witnessed substantial backlash when I express even the smallest amount of disagreement with these concepts.  It is so engrained in our society that many people cannot image another way.  If we are not thriving for development, then what is the purpose?  It is very difficult to see that it is not necessarily advancement but a step backwards.  I believe there is a pattern in western nations that we determine a problem that is caused by our way of live (often our “development”) and yet we are unwilling to change that way of life.  We believe by just doing that way of live better (i.e. developing further) that we will fix the problem.  This is a common view of anthropogenic climate change.  Although we know that our behavior is causing the destabilization of the planet, we are unwilling to change, and many even believe that it is right not to change because technological development (you know, that thing that got us in this situation in the first place) will provide us the means to end climate change in the future.  I strongly believe that reverting back, or un-developing, will not only solve the problem but create better quality of life and more wide spread human contentment.  The problems of development are self-perpetuating.  The ideologies associated with development teach us that it is good to transcend the natural world, thus detaching us from the natural world that we are destroying.  The more disconnected we become, the more difficult it is to see the impacts of development and the more apathetic we become to the harm of other creatures and the environment as a whole.

Although I had already agreed with most of the article—it was as if the Rist was poetically and succinctly saying all of the things I had believed but could not properly convey-- I had never considered the contradictory nature of the term “sustainable development”  which Rist explained: “it is impossible to bring together a real concern for environment and the promotion of ‘development’. ‘Sustainable development’ is nothing but an oxymoron, a rhetorical figure that joins together two opposites such as ‘capitalism with a human face’ or ‘humanitarian intervention’.”  This essentially sums up my strongly held view on environmental problems; however, it is surprisingly a rare view among the self-proclaimed environmentalists I have met  (which is a considerable amount as I am an environmental science major).  This reinforces my previous statement that it is difficult to people in western societies to escape the religion of development: even those who are deeply concerned with the state of the natural world and understand that its current state is caused by our behavior, still support further development.  It is as if we cannot see any other way.

LEED certification plaque in the Repass building
at the Duke University Marine Lab

So more tangibly and related to my study off-campus experience: 

The concept of environmentally-conscious development (i.e. sustainable development) is salient at the Duke Marine Lab.  The Lab focuses on conservation of marine ecosystems and general sustainability at the institutional level: many of the buildings are LEED certified, recycling is implemented, etc.  There are currently four or five construction projects underway, so development is generally accepted and commonplace (though, again, it is claimed to be sustainable).  Yet, I see a serious disconnect between the sustainable perception claimed in the development and the same perception in individual, small-scale action.  Although the Marine Lab claims to concerned with conservation, individual acts do not support this same mentality.  On a daily basis I see entire buildings lit up late in the night when no one as been in them for many hours – both with the students and the academic buildings.  Simple things like turning lights off are not seen as important and most people do not think about it.  Similarly, although recycling is available and there are bins in most of the buildings, I still witness a considerable refusal to recycle.  If there is not a recycling building in the immediate room (but, say, right outside the room), people will still throw recyclables in the trash.  Also, people will open the windows while having the air conditioning on a high level, take very long and hot showers, leave the water running, etc.  Therefore, this is my issue with the concept of sustainable development.  When changes are implemented at the institutional level (the developmental level) it often has no impact on the individual.  We cannot solve environmental issues without a true, engaged concern by the individuals.  This is what “development” fails to address or regard as important.  Furthermore, I believe that this is not an isolated incident that could be solved by simply educating the people; I believe that this disconnect is intrinsic  in notions of environmentally-conscious development.  Just like Rist said, you cannot have development and sustainability.