Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich countries Jason Hickel Heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN’s new sustainable development goals (SDGs). The main objective is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyonce, One Direction and Malala are on board. It’s set to be a monumental international celebration. Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a fresh plan for how to save the world, but beneath all the hype. It’s business as usual. The main strategy for eradicating poverty is the same: growth. Growth has been the main object of development for the past 70 years, despite the fact that it is not working. Since 1980, the global economy has grown by 380%, but the number of people living in poverty on less than $5 (£ 3.20), a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion. That’s 17 times the population of Britain. So much for the trickle-down effect. Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet more growth. More progressive types tell us that we need to shift more of the yields of growth from the richer segments of the population to the poorer ones, evening things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why? Because even at current levels of average global consumption, we’re overshooting our planet’s bio-capacity by more than 50% each year. In other words, growth isn’t an option any more – we’ve already grown too much. Scientists are now telling us that we’re blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard truth is that this global crisis is due almost entirely to overconsumption in rich countries. Right now, our planet oy has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 “global hectares” annually – standardized unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is roughly what the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the US and Canada consume about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many times their fair share. What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues that instead of pushing poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of development. We should look at societies where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and consumption not as basket cases that need to be developed towards western models, but as exemplars of efficient living. How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a 1 comparable expectancy to the US and one of the highest literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita and only $ 6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia. Yes, some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yields improvements in quality of life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even literacy rates. But even if we look at measures of overall happiness and wellbeing in addition to life expectancy, a number of low – and middle – income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manage to sustain one of the highest happiness indicators and life expectancies in the world with a per capita income one-fourth that of the US. In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as appropriately developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to justify, excesses. The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong rallying cry in the global south, but it will be tricky to sell to Westerners. Tricky, but not impossible. According to recent consumer research, 70% of people in the middle- and high –income countries believe overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we should strive to buy and F less, and that doing so would not compromise our happiness. People sense there is something wrong with the dominant model of economic progress and they are hungry for an alternative narrative. The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong language. They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or – worst of all – de-development, which are technically accurate but off-putting for anyone who’s not already on board. Such terms are repulsive because they run against the deepest frames we use to think about human progress, and, indeed, the purpose of life itself. It’s like asking people to stop moving positively thorough life, to stop learning, improving, growing. Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady –state” economics is a step in the right direction and is growing in popularity, but it still doesn’t get the framing right. We need to reorient ourselves toward a positive future, a truer form of progress. One that is geared toward quality instead of quantity. One that is more sophisticated than just accumulating ever increasing amounts of stuff, which doesn’t make anyone happier anyway. What is certain is that GDP as a measure is not going to get us there and we need to get rid of it. Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organizing alternative visions around the indigenous concept of buen vivir, or good living. The West has its own tradition of reflection on the good life and it’s time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this road in his book “How much is Enough?” where they lay out the possibility of interventions such as banning and advertising, a shorter 2 working week and a basic income, all of which would improve our lives while reducing consumption. Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We can’t go on ignoring the laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of progress is not only an ecological imperative, it is also a development one. If we do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against poverty will evaporate, as food systems collapse and mass famine re-emerges to an extent not seen since the 19th century. This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery or imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of understanding and consciousness about what we’re doing here and why. READING EXERCISE: After reading the article, answer the following questions. 1. What is the main objective of the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations? - A key goal of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is to eradicate poverty by 2030. However, the SDGs include broader goals such as ending hunger, promoting health and well-being, ensuring quality education and achieving gender equality. Goal of equity, provision of safe water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, promotion of economic growth and decent work, reduction of inequality, building sustainable cities and communities, implementation of climate action, protecting life below water, and on land, and promoting peaceful and just societies. 2. What is the standardized unit that measures resource use and waste? - The standardized unit that measures resource use and waste mentioned in the article is "global hectares". 3. What is the standard response to eradicating poverty? - The article highlights the importance of addressing poverty through a range of strategies, such as promoting economic growth, improving access to education and healthcare, and implementing social safety nets for the most vulnerable populations. The article also emphasizes the need for coordinated and sustained 3 efforts from governments, international organizations, and civil society to achieve meaningful progress in reducing poverty. 4. What is the threshold of the Earth for adequately sustaining life? - Earth's thresholds for the proper maintenance of life are related to planetary boundaries, nine environmental systems critical to maintaining the stability of the Earth's biosphere. These limits include climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, etc. and represent a safe space for human activity.The limits are the processes that regulate the Earth's systems. These processes are analyzed. Adherence to these limits is essential to ensuring the long-term sustainability of human civilization and the planet's ecosystems. 5. According to the majority of people in middle-and high income countries, what puts the planet and society at risk? - Climate change, air pollution, loss of natural habitats and biodiversity are among the major threats to the planet and society, according to the majority of people in middle- and high-income countries. These problems have significant impacts on human health, ecosystems and economies and require urgent action to address them. 6. How many hectares should each of us consume annually based on the resources available in the planet? - Each person should consume approximately 1.8 hectares of the Earth's resources per year to sustain a balanced and sustainable ecosystem. However, the average global consumption per person is currently at 2.7 hectares, which is not sustainable in the long term. 7. What are two indicators of the quality of life given in the article? - Life expectancy: This is a measure of how long people can expect to live, on average, in a given country or region. It is influenced by factors such as access to healthcare, nutrition, and sanitation. Human Development Index (HDI): This is a composite measure of human well-being that takes into account indicators such as life expectancy, education, and income. The HDI is used by the United Nations Development Programme to rank countries according to their level of development. 4 8. What crisis in the planet would force us to slow down if we do not so voluntarily? - If we don't slow down voluntarily, the ongoing climate crisis could force us to do so. This article argues that climate change impacts such as extreme weather events, sea level rise, and food and water scarcity can lead to a global crisis that will force drastic reductions in resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. 9. According to Hickel, what must be done of urging poor countries to “catch up” with rich ones? - According to the article, Hickel argues that instead of urging poor countries to "catch up" with rich ones, the global community should focus on reducing overconsumption and shifting towards more sustainable models of production and consumption. He suggests that this could involve adopting alternative measures of progress and well-being beyond just GDP, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which takes into account factors like income inequality, environmental degradation, and social well-being. Additionally, he advocates for the cancellation of global debt and the implementation of fair trade policies to support developing countries in their efforts to transition to more sustainable economic models. 10. How would the different areas of the world react to the idea of “de-development?” - It suggests that the idea of "de-development" may face resistance from some wealthy nations and powerful interests that benefit from the current economic system. It also suggests that many people in the Global South may be more receptive to the idea, as they have experienced the negative impacts of unsustainable development firsthand. Ultimately, the article argues that a fundamental shift in our economic system and values will be necessary to address the multiple crises facing the planet and create a more just and sustainable world. 5 Name: Date Course,Yr.& Sec. Score: ASSIGNMENT Watch the video clip entitled The Magician’s Twin: CS Lewis and the Case against Scientism. Reflect on the notions of development that may evolve into scientism. Answer the guide questions below. 1. What is Scientism? - Scientism is the belief that science is the only or most reliable way to understand and explain the world and that the scientific method should be applied to all fields of study, including philosophy, ethics, politics and theology. The view that only scientific knowledge is valid or reliable, and that other forms of knowledge, such as those based on intuition, belief, or experience, are inferior or meaningless. Scientism often reduces complex phenomena to simple, measurable variables, ignoring the limitations of scientific inquiry and the value of other forms of knowledge. 2. How is Science comparable to magic? - In the context of "The Magician's Twin: CS Lewis and the Case against Scientism," the comparison between science and magic is not intended to equate the two in terms of their methods or outcomes. Rather, the comparison is meant to highlight a similarity in how they are both sometimes viewed or used by those who believe in them. According to some interpretations of the video, both science and magic can be seen as providing a means of control or power over the world around us. In the case of science, this can manifest in the belief that scientific knowledge can ultimately solve all of our problems and provide a complete understanding of the universe. In the case of magic, this can manifest in the belief that certain rituals or spells can be used to control or influence the world around us. However, the video also suggests that there are important differences between science and magic, particularly in terms of their underlying philosophies and goals. Science is based on a rigorous and systematic approach to understanding the natural world, whereas magic often relies on subjective experiences or beliefs that may not be grounded in empirical evidence. Additionally, the goal of science is generally to increase our understanding of the world and improve our ability to predict and control natural phenomena, while the goal of magic is often more focused on personal or spiritual fulfillment. 6 3. Why science more dangerous than magic? - Science can be more dangerous than magic because it deals with real-world consequences that can affect millions of people, but magic is usually confined to small-scale, personal situations. The speaker also points out that science can be dangerous if it indulges in a scientist ideology that overvalued ​scientific knowledge and methods at the expense of other forms of knowledge and wisdom. 4. What is the presented essence of modernity and its consequence? - The presented essence of modernity is the belief that science and technology lead to the progress and improvement of mankind. The consequences of this belief can lead to a loss of control over nature and appreciation of the natural world. Furthermore, it leads to the belief that everything can be explained and understood through science, leading to the rejection of other forms of knowledge and wisdom. 5. What do we need for the science to be good? - For science to be good, it needs to be guided by ethical considerations and a broader philosophical framework that recognizes the limitations of science. Science alone cannot provide moral or ethical guidance, and without such guidance, scientific progress can lead to harmful consequences. Additionally, science needs to be open to dialogue and criticism, and scientists must recognize that their work is not infallible or unquestionable. 7
