An extension of Watching Apocalypse

    Institional Strategies dealing with the human responsibility for eco system damage and climate disruption

    Ren's View

    Posts : 248
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Institional Strategies dealing with the human responsibility for eco system damage and climate disruption

    Post by Ren's View on Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:51 pm

    Most who talk the oxymoronic language of sustainable development date the concept to the report put forth by the Brundtland Commission in 1987.  Coincidentally this was towards the end of the Reagan Administration.  In the global economic flow of policies, the Reagan Administration marks the slap back action of corporations to the environmental movement that had reached an epicenter of revolution in the first years of the Carter Administration.  The details of how that revolution was quelled by corporate-induced strategies, such as those introduced by the Powell Memo, could take up pages and pages of this forum. 

    Instead of diving into that morass, I'll just note broadly that the very language of a term like "sustainable development" is a kind of unworkable compromise of two very different systems of thought.

    • To the radical ecological view that the environmental movement brought forward, some of which was represented in the first year or so of policies that Jimmy Carter felt comfortable voicing to the the body politic, 'sustainable' is an ecological notion.


    • To the industrial development notion of spreading wealth and prosperity world wide, development is an economic notion. 

    Now some people actually believe you can mate two different species, like a cat and a rabbit, and come up with a viable off spring.  In my view, that remains to be seen.  And by see I don't mean some sort of contrivance in a photo-shop doctored photo

    or a youtube video


    While the mating of such creatures was already in the works in some diabolical corporate laboratory, a burgeoning international ecological language of the seventies era was already being undermined by a legion of propaganda, derived from a variety of corporate-funded sources, even before Carter was elected. 

    By 1987, the world had the equivalent of institutional cabbits hopping around excreting little turds of institutional strategies digested from the inputs from science to deal with the environmental and climate effects of industrial civilization.

    The Brundtland Commission Report is one of those hybrid species.

    What follows is the banner of "sustainable development" taken up and waved smilingly by the United Nations, beginning in 1992, while international trade agreements (NAFTA, GATT) that would include no such ecological language were already in the works:

    United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

    This is the cognitively dissonant concept I would like to discuss.

      Current date/time is Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:52 am