Issue 2: Is Sustainable Development Compatible with Human Welfare?

Issue 2

Is Sustainable Development Compatible with Human Welfare?

Authors: Jeremy Rifkin and Ronald Bailey

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. sustainable development – “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 20-21)

b. profligate – shamelessly immoral

c. confab – short for “confabulation”, which means discussion

d. vacillates – to change opinion or stance.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, argues for the positive viewpoint. He claims that by the history of our continents, America and Europe are fundamentally different. Americans pursue individualistic success and “the American dream”, while Europeans settle for communal happiness and quality of life. Americans are 28% wealthier than Europeans, but, he claims, Europeans have a higher quality of life because they are not competitive.

Because of this, our viewpoints on nature and its sustainability vary as well. Europeans look more to the interconnectedness that nature provides while Americans see things individualized or packaged in compartments.

Europeans employ the precautionary principle, and Rifkin champions this policy as the best way to protect nature and life form well-being. Americans, however, have never signed this policy into law and will most likely not do so in the future.

Ronald Bailey, an environmental journalist, provides the negative side of the argument. He believes that economic growth is the only way to eradicate poverty and improve the environment. He says, “[p]overty eradication is clearly crucial to preventing environmental degradation, too, since there is nothing more environmentally destructive than a hungry human.” (p. 30) He mocks the ‘Greens’ who, after the World Summit on Sustainable Development, complained that they failed to accomplish anything because he says, they wished for the summit to “set the international agenda for sweeping environmental reform over the next 15 years.” (p. 29)

What they desire, Bailey claims, is an end to economic growth and globalization. Globalization, they say, is the bane of the developing world. Yet, the UN reports that “[d]uring the 1990s the economies of developing countries that were integrated into the world economy grew more than twice as fast as the rich countries. The ‘non-globalizers’ grew only half as fast and continue to lag further behind.” (p. 30)

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

Show me a soccer or football game as they call it, game and then tell me again that Europeans aren’t competitive.

He praises Europe for their spoken commitment for the entire paper, but very briefly acknowledges that Europe’s actual commitments remain weak and not concrete. People and governments can say all they want and it will sound good, but it is actions that make policy and decide the changes that occur. All he could give as an example was Europe’s opposition to genetically modified foods, which they finally decided to use after many regulations and tests, labeling, and additional research after the product made it to the public.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

Rifkin seems to flaunt over the Europeans and his narrow view that they are all nature-loving conservationists, filled with unity and interconnectedness. Europe has its own problems, and I don’t buy this at all.

I do not think that anyone has the right to regulate our reproduction or capitalist interests because they are concerned about sustainability. The economy cannot stagnate so that future generations have a world to live in, because the world the future would receive would be degenerated and poor, desolate and weak. I would rather the future inherit wealth and strength, security and national pride, with the desire to explore more frontiers – just like our ancestors did and we do now, as Americans.