Development is defined as a gradual process of unfolding and fuller working out during which potential is realized. In terms of the environment, development means altering the surroundings in a way that supplies the demands of humankind. A question arises as to how humans could interact with nature so that it would not only offer benefits at the moment of action but indefinitely. It is still unclear whether sustainable development is a feasible idea or an unattainable ideal that corporations like to toy with. This paper will discuss the possibility of sustainable development within the framework proposed by Blewitt and examine the concept from Biel’s standpoint of entropy.
Blewitt argues that understanding sustainable development is impossible without understanding the concept of globalization. The researcher notes that while some people like to deny that this process has now been taking place for years, the consensus is that globalization is real and ongoing. According to Blewitt, globalization is linked to rapid economic growth due to capital accumulation and division of labor throughout the last century.
With a leap towards global prosperity occurred the capitalization of the environment: humankind decided that they could put a price on so-called natural capital – resources such as air, water, and minerals. While extensive development with no regard to what the future might hold was working out, soon, people were confronted with the harsh reality. While man-made resources are manageable and predictable, when it comes to nature, uncertainty and irreversibility come into play.
For that reason, Blewitt proposes a solution that entails a shift from capitalization to the humanization of the environment. The author calls his approach ‘adaptive management’ in which human intellect and practice are not applied to nature but seen as part of it. Humankind is inseparable from its environment, and it is no longer acceptable to let greed and irresponsibility wreak havoc on natural capital. According to Blewitt, the primary goal of a sustainable plan would be limiting economic growth so that it does not surpass the world’s resources (Blewitt 2008). Actual measures could encompass setting short-term goals such as local and regional water and land conservation and long-term goals like planet survival.
At that, it is critical to abstain from turning sustainable development into a business strategy: the concept needs to have a human face. It means that social and personal well-being cannot be taken out of the equation, and economic growth cannot occur at the expense of quality of life. Safety and prosperity compel individuals to think above and beyond survival and fight for greater causes.
Biel provides an interesting contribution to the discussion about the possibility of sustainable development. While Blewitt touches upon the dangers of uncontrolled economic growth, Biel goes even further being exhaustively overt in his critique of late capitalism. In his book ‘The Entropy of Capitalism,’ the researcher argues that by the new millennium, the said economic system has mutated into a parasitic form that feeds on the chaos it has created (Biel 2011).
Biel describes capitalism as a closed system that operates on the principles of thermodynamics. While the system suppresses the creative impulses of resistant masses, it causes entropy which it pushes into the future and onto the global periphery – developing countries. Thus, capitalists built internal security structures to keep the masses in line and external imperialist structures to drain human and natural resources from elsewhere (Biel 2011). These two concurrent tendencies undermine the sustainability of the entire capitalist system. The real crisis has become apparent when capitalism causes environmental depletion, thus, revealing the need for alternative solutions.
On par with Blewitt, Biel sees the way out in humanizing the economy. Again, he makes a far more radical point while defending his point of view: he does not fall for abstract humanism but unapologetically stands for socialism. Making capitalism ‘greener’ might not be helpful at all as it only postpones the catastrophe. A prime example of a capitalist environmentalist is Al Gore who has been perpetuating sustainable development for ages as part of his political campaign. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if we should trust the intentions of someone who belongs to the tiny but very powerful demographic of political elites. Sustainable development requires radical measures, which might not be convenient for those at the top.
Blewitt concludes that the answer to today’s most pressing issues was found decades ago. To him, Marx was a true visionary who predicted the looming economic and environmental crises. Thus, socialism could stand a chance against the pervasiveness of capitalism and increase the likelihood of following through with sustainable development. As long as capitalists own the means of production, they are free to use natural resources as they wish.
If the masses seize their power back from the elites, they will ensure not only social equality but also the reinforcement of true green politics which do not merely appease those in power. While Blewitt’s reasoning makes sense, I cannot say that his views are somewhat utopian. If masses seized the means of production, the chaos that would ensue would eliminate any possibility of making positive changes. Further, ordinary people are not anymore responsible than politicians, and I highly doubt that they would be thoughtful and knowledgeable enough to ensure sustainable development.
Making changes to the world with consideration for the future of upcoming generations is called sustainable development. In recent years, sustainable development has become a trend, for the lack of a better word. The world’s largest organizations are putting the concept at the forefront of their mission and vision. Two prominent authors, Biel and Blewitt, put forward their ideas concerning the possibility of making development sustainable and both find the concept workable. While I agree that humankind is capable of managing resources in a way that would not cause massive devastation, I agree more with Biel than Blewitt.
Sustainable development is possible if people put globalization to good use, and the world’s leaders unite forces to set short- and long-term goals and decide on local and global imperatives. Blewitt’s critique of late capitalism is convincing, and yet, I have to disagree with the way he gives too much credit to the average citizen. Mass protests and resistance would cause too much destruction to the existing structures of environmental control.
References
Biel, R., 2011. The entropy of capitalism. Brill, Boston.
Blewitt, J., 2008. Understanding sustainable development. Earthscan, London.