Is the plea for sustainable development feasible and sustainable? More importantly, is it possible to keep it sustainable within the current socio-economic format? Integrating sustainable development into our lives is both urgent and inevitable. However, is the present strategy of conducting empirical case studies on the dangers of development an effective way of addressing this urgency? Unlike any other peril the world has faced so far, the present untenable form of development poses a danger that is as unpredictable as it is absolutely catastrophic in nature. It affects not only individuals but also entire societies. Not confined to any particular time or to a region, it threatens to destroy the entire world as we know it.
Harmful developmental practices are so pervasive and intricately interwoven with different aspects of human life at present that replacing them seems almost impossible. They operate outside the purview of freedom and choice. In fact, the majority of people are not aware of how they are unwittingly caught up in using the products of and contributing to the current form of development. Even products such as solar energy or electric vehicles that are offered by those advocating sustainable development use a lot of resources from hardcore elements of development, especially the hardware. There is a wide chasm between the implacable pace of development and the plea for sustainability, with the latter’s chances of success looking increasingly bleak. However, people are not sufficiently convinced about the immediacy of the dangers. There is an urgent need to present a comprehensive picture of the extensive range and reach of irresponsible developmental practices and to correlate them with the effects on our daily lives and with the near future.
We are stuck between the inescapable need for sustainable development and the impossibility of at least reducing the scope of the present harmful practices. Those advocating for sustainable development have made serious attempts to highlight the dangers of global warming and the ensuing ecological crisis and demonstrated the utter ruination that they will bring about. Despite this, neither the empirical evidence of the dangers of uncontained development nor the scary picture presented of the inevitable destruction has been able to convince either the producers or the consumers to change their ways. Unless people are convinced about the imminent need for action to avert the looming crisis, there is no hope for survival.
Although the potential threat is massive and global, most empirical studies, by their very nature, focus only on specific aspects. However, compiling various specific studies does not lead to a complete picture of the impending catastrophe. For instance, chemical fertilisers are used to increase agricultural production, pesticides for protecting the crops, and preservatives to prevent spoilage during storage and distribution. Despite the wellknown hazards of using these chemicals, which are dangerous both to soil and human health, people still continue to depend heavily on them in modern agricultural practices. It is disheartening to see that even the most educated and enlightened sections of society are not able to envisage the catastrophic danger to humanity due to the consumption of chemically-contaminated food, or the havoc wreaked by global warming on the climate, leading to devastating natural calamities, or the dangers of air and water pollution. The list is rather long.
The empirical studies that are used to show the dangers of development arise from empiricism, a dominant school of philosophy formulated by Francis Bacon. Interestingly, it was Bacon who also provided the foundational ideas for what ultimately evolved into the modern form of development. He rejected the classical formula where knowledge is related to liberation and instituted an alternative formula where knowledge about nature is for use and exploitation by human beings. So using empirical case studies to critique modern development may not accrue desirable results. Scientists and social scientists, who are actively working for sustainable development, need to explore non-empirical and non-modern resources to present a strong critique of unsustainable development. It is possible to explore, in a selective manner, non-modern, traditional philosophies consisting of both classical and folk theories that present a non-exploitative attitude to nature. Such rich imaginative accounts can help in effectively presenting before the people the massive, unprecedented calamity and irreversible damage caused by development. There is a need to veer away from using empirical methods to critique development, which is itself a product of empiricism, and move towards non-empirical and metaphysical theories to present the critique.
How was it possible to sustain during premodern times what is now threatened by modern development? Exploring this need not be tantamount to endorsing the social evils justified and legitimised in non-modern theories and societies. On the contrary, this can lead to identifying the intellectual resources available in non-modern societies that allowed them to both sustain and nurture nature while also legitimising social evils like untouchability and slavery. Similarly, there is a need to recognise that while modern societies have endangered nature, they have also managed to eradicate many of the earlier social evils.
In this new debate, both virtues and vices of the modern and the premodern are critically evaluated. Both the empirical and the transcendental provide an alternative basis for the formulation of the critical discourse on sustainable development for nature and society. This critical scrutiny and assessment of the empirical and the non-empirical would explore the manifold aspects, extending the purview of the present debate on sustainability. This can provide a basis for relaunching sustainable development.
(A. Raghuramaraju teaches philosophy at the Indian Institute of Technology Tirupati)
