1

BJB, 4NOV12

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND PLANETARY HUMANISM

Ganesh Prasad Das The relationship between sustainable development and planetary humanism is not easily seen. I made an humble attempt to see it for myself and I wish to share the same with you. To anticipate my findings, global governance emerges as a solution to environmental hazards and sustainable development, whereas issues concerning development and environment constitute one aspect of planetary humanism. The term sustainable development came into currency in the 1980s. For some thinkers like Turner and Pearce, sustainable development, in itself, is easily defined. It is simply development that is sustained through time.1 Some regard it to be a contradiction in terms like the idea of squaring a circle. The takes are not as straight as these. The expression is a vague one as it means different things to different persons and organisations. But the vagueness of the term is not vicious. One is in an advantageous position if one does not insist on its definitional precision. The U.N. Commission on Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission) filed a study report on sustainable development in 2006. The Commission defined the term as the development that meets the needs of current generation without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs. Leaving aside a precise definition, if one looks at practice, one is at a loss to agree upon a criterion for evaluation of a product as green, environmentally benign, or socially responsible. We might have to limit ours satisfaction by saying that green is green! As a matter of fact, there is much green hypocrisy. United Nations Habitat has released a report on 17th October last on the state of worlds cities, which, for the first time, exposes that the trend of city planning and urban development is always to protect the rich. In many cities urban planning has been controlled by the real estate business. Cities that report to the interests of the better off or only focus on strategic economic interventions in specific spaces, tend to create enclaves of prosperity for a select few.2 In the context of India, these words would sound palliative, because real estate tycoons control not only

real estate business, but also mining, industry, education, media and politics. They buy and sell the Himalayas, Lavasa, Lonavala, Khandala; forests, rivers and everything on the earth, down the earth and above the earth. On the five-point parameter for ranking cities, that is, (i) productivity, (ii) infrastructure, (iii) quality of life, (iv) equity and social inclusion, and (v) environmental sustainability, Mumbai and Delhi are only half way to prosperity, their ranks being 52 and 58 respectively among 95 cities of the world. Other cities of India do not merit mention in this U.N. Habitat report. Sunita Narain, a leading social activist, has filed a report about two up-coming cities, Indore and Guwahati, in her editorial of the recent CSE News Bulletin. Both cities have no water culture. Both are drowning in their wasteThey are yet to build their homes, roads and water and sewerage systems. They can execute a plan, which allows them to modernize but with quality of life intact and even better. This requires not to want to grow in the way Delhi, Mumbai or any other old growth city has.3 About the capital city of Odisha you all know and I know by suffering. I have written about its desperate state at different times. But let it suffice now to remind you that its planners dream to see it come up in the image of Mumbai and Delhi! Mayarani Praharaj concludes her research

project (Urban Sprawl: Its Impact on Peri-urban Areas of Bhubaneswar) with the observation: The growth on the existing pattern could lead to unsustainable development unless proper management systems are introduced on priority.4 John Robinson takes on the idea of sustainable development for a critical assessment. He observes that the sustainability argument is advocated by both the utilitarian (conservationists) and spiritual (preservationists) approaches. According to him, the idea of sustainable development fosters delusions. Sustainable development is an oxymoron and it pursues a wrong agenda. The Brundtland formula does not fix these problems. The central message of the Brundtland report is that the social dimensions of sustainability must be integrated with the bio-physical dimensions. Broad partnership is needed. Sustainability needs to be an integration concept cutting across fields, sectors and scales. If sustainability is to contribute to a better life, it must address profound issues of opportunities, distribution, material needs, consumption and empowerment.5

It needs to be appreciated that sustainability is an on-going process, not an end. It is a process of community-based thinking. What is required is integration of environmental, social and economical issues in a long-term perspective. We may assess sustainable development in small proportions around our habitat. Road bridges over Kathajodi and Kuakhai came into being in 1950. Those over Mahanadi and Birupa were built a decade later. During the last decade of the present century, the second and then the third bridges over these four rivers have come up in quick succession. This is a small chunk of the pan-Indian development scenario of road communication and ancillary things like SEZ, sprawling shopping malls, high-rise habitats, etc. There is huge use of stone, iron and cement. Hills and hillocks from Chandikhola to Jaraka are either leveled or going to be leveled to the ground, thanks to money and machine power. This affects ecology and rainfall. We do not yet have seeds or saplings to grow them. After a decade, we might not find material to mend and maintain the structures that we construct now without sagacity. Neither people would be sustained, nor these artifacts. I have two typical reactions from the gen X. One is from a young man at Kuakhia roadside market. Asked about why people are building houses over fertile paddy land, he said, What a fool you are! Where would people stay? Another is from a prospective research scholar at Ravenshaw University. When I said that rainfall is affected due to destruction of hills and hillocks that constitute parts of the Eastern Ghat Mountain range, his reply was, You do not have knowledge of geography! They do not contribute to the rainfall pattern. One simple question to the former: People would stay under the roof, but what would they eat? As an ad of Sonalika Tractor has it, The plate might be made up of silver, but there would be nothing on it to eat. One simple question to the latter: Why, during the last 3 or 4 years, we are being told by the meteorology department that the westerly disturbance is affecting the cycle and character of seasons in Odisha? Hills and mountains are not rigid, poreless and dead elevations. They contain soil, on which trees, small and big, grow and small green forests are formed on them. George Perkins affirms in his book, The Earth as Modified by Human Action, the contributions of a forest. According to him, it (a forest) has hygroscopic and thermoscopic influence. It exerts climatic action, partly as dead and partly as living matter. There could be one single response to both of my above posers. It might be said that further technology would fix the troubles of the working technology. Such an optimistic and

ambitious approach to the problems that we are already suffering from is anticipated by Carl Stevens Coon, who says sarcastically, The way scientific knowledge is accelerating these days, I find it entirely plausible that sometime in the 23rd century, some biotechnician with a sense of humor will actually go ahead and create a pig that will fly!6

So, no single approach will, or indeed should be, seen as the correct one. New developments in information and communication technology offer the potential of engaging various communities in exploring alternative futures in new and exciting ways. Sustainability is an emergent property of a dialogue about what kind of world we collectively want to live now and in the future. In this dialogue more and more people, and indeed people of the whole world must get involved, evolve guidelines and abide by them, not make a caricature of them as we do it often in this country. The Brundtland Commission focused a good deal of attention on social and economic conditions in developing countries and their connection to environmental degradation. It argued that ecological sustainability cannot be achieved if the problem of poverty is not successfully addressed around the world. It finds that both over- and under-consumption are problematic (who consumes how much?). Carl Coon has authored a chapter entitled Planetary Humanism in the Green Book Project of Washington Area Secular Humanism (WASH). Here Planetary Humanism is an agendum, whose main plank is political. It is global governance. The contention of the proponent is that this is urgent for solving the problems of different orders and intensities like the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism and environmental degradation. These are thought to be solved on an international, not national basis. He observes that many people fail to see the forest for the trees. There is, he says, short-sightedness that keeps them from envisioning a situation in which humanity as a whole has achieved peace with itself and the environment.7 He wrote this in early 2006 to make people aware of the myopic administration of George Bush in U.S.A... So, this is a revolt against power of a nation, whose governance is shortsighted, lackadaisical and highhanded. They rather kick a door down than persuade the person behind it to unlock it.8

Paul Kurtz regards the idea of planetary humanism as a new paradigm for the 21st century. He floats this new agendum for the future to serve the planet from the crises of destructive wars and disasters of ecology. The need to overcome the ancient religions, ethnic and nationalistic dogmas of the past and to enunciate a bold new planetary humanism for the 21st century and beyond.9 It may be mentioned here that the idea of a world government was set off after the conclusion of World War II. The Government of United States (who alone possessed the bomb at the time) put to Stalin in 1946 a plan for world government that was prepared by two Jews, Bernard Baruch and David Lilienthal. Bertrand Russell was a strong advocate of the idea. For him, UNO is defective. UNO cannot lead us towards a world government while the veto is retained.10 He was convinced that a much more desirable way of securing world peace would be by a voluntary agreement among nations to pull their armed forces and submit to an agreed International Authority.11 The old postulation of world government was to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons. The new postulation of such global governance seeks to solve many more important problems besides this. Some of these are: (i) there would be no over-emphasis of merit of ones own country, (ii) there would not therefore be any terrorist activity, and (iii) there would be no private ownership of raw materials essential to industry. In the words of Kurtz, The current era is one in which a host of trends and developments are forcing countries to cooperate on a global basis to cope with problems that are threatening all humanity. The threat of nuclear war and other conflicts in an era when weapons of mass destruction are becoming readily available is one of the more obvious such developments; the nuclear threat is increasingly linked to the parallel migraine of international terrorism. Growing migration and refugee problems are another cluster of threats to the stability of nations all over the world. And then, of course, there are the problems of overpopulation and the increasingly adverse impact of human activity on the environment, threatening the very water we drink and the air we breathe, not to mention the survival of most other lifeforms. Economic globalization, meanwhile, holds out the prospect of an enormous increase in material welfare, but for whom? All these issues require international cooperation, and many of them can be approached effectively only if the cooperation is global.12

In September, 2002, The Online Newsletter carried an article, Forget socialism and protectionism - here comes planetary humanism. It said that not only is a new global governance system arising, so is a new political point of view or ideology. It referred to two contemporary contending ideologies: corporate capitalism, and the witches brew of socialism, anarchism, identity politics, technophobia, and economic protectionism and mentioned that a third point of view was arising all over the world.13 Paul Gilroy referred to it as Planetary Humanism in his book Against Race. Planetary Humanism, an extension of liberal humanism, blames human consciousness - rather than capitalism or globalisation - for the problems we face. It seeks to bring governments, corporations, and civil society organisations together, emphasis TOGETHER, to address those problems seriously. Its planetary because it encourages us to care equally about all peoples, whether Tennesseans or Tanzanians. Its humanist because it encourages us to welcome contributions to human well-being from a politically and culturally disparate mix of sources -- soft power and hard law, intermediate technology and biotechnology, wind energy and nuclear energy, nonprofits and transnationals. The Independent, London, carried a criticism of Gilorys contentions for planetary humanism as unsatisfactory. It said,

The problem of promoting a humanist agenda today is that we live in deeply antihumanist times. In the eyes of many, the 'arrogance' of humanism is responsible for most of the ills of the world, from third world poverty to environmental depredation. And where once antihumanism was the province of reactionaries, today it is at the heart of supposedly 'progressive' movements - antiracism, anticapitalism, environmentalism. Disillusionment with liberal humanism has led many to give up on the project of humanism entirely. Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in a famous preface to Frantz Fanon's book The Wretched of the Earth, is nothing but an ideology of lies, a perfect justification for pillage; its honeyed words, its affectations of sensibility were only alibis for our aggression.14 Merrill Singer in an article, Eco-nomics: Are the Planet-Unfriendly Features of Capitalism Barriers to Sustainability? feels that a planetary perspective is the need of the day. It is the need for an eco-nomic transcendence of capitalist society, that is, the creation, in the wake of the ever widening and interacting ecocrises of capitalism, of an alternative

approach to achieving an ecologically sustainable and socially equitable human way of life on Earth. Needed for this initiative is a truly planetary perspective15 He supports J.B. Fosters view that sustained economic development over decades is not the same thing as environmentally sustainable development as the costs of economic growth can be borne by people other than those who reap its rewards.16 It is in favour of an ecosocialist society, not in favour of world governance. The latter might turn out to be autocratic and more disastrous. As Merrill Singer puts it, ecosocialism starts with the understanding that we live on a fragile planet characterized by a closed system with limited resources, and that without careful monitoring and control it is quite possible to destroy the foundation of human social existence on Earth. Further, a sustainable society is only achievable as a democratic and justice-based arrangement, as authoritarian social systems tend to be exploitive not only of people but of the environment as well. As a result, the united struggle for sustainability and social and environmental justice offers a context for the forging of the ideas, relationships, and strategies needed for the creation of a viable ecosocialist society.17 Population control is a robust problem entwined with sustainable development. The problem has multiple dimensions. Joel E. Cohen discusses the question How Many People Can Earth Hold? in an article of even name.18 Different answers from different concerns to this difficult question could be put as under: Ecologist: When a natural resource is consumed faster than it is being replenished (like ground water), an asset is being depleted, to the potential harm of future generations. Technologist: If new knowledge and technology can produce an equivalent or superior alternative, then future generations be better off. Taxpayer: Which depleting natural resources are substitutable by technology yet to be invented, and which are not? Will there be enough time to develop an alternative technology and, when it exists, to implement it without avoidable pain and suffering? (No answer from ecologist or technologist.)

The ethical dimension of the problem is disturbing. Nearly two decades back, the ethicist Daniel Callahan saw the problem thus: Excessive population growth raises ethical questions, because it threatens existing or desired human values and ideas of what is good. In addition, all or some of the possible solutions to the problem have the potential for creating difficult ethical dilemmas. The decision to act or not to act in the face of the threats is an ethical decision. This could be a theme for separate discussion. Markets are global, culture is global, morality is global; facilities, utilities and services are world class. Can then losses, woes, terrorist activities, catastrophes remain local? If ravaging of nature is there worldwide, natural calamities would also naturally be there worldwide. Holocausts like the never-before-experienced superstorm Sandy that battered the East coast of US last week (like the one that tore Odisha in 1999), even as cyclone Nilam hit the East coast of India, are chiefly due to human causes, that is, due to exploiting too much the eco-system by warming it, shaving forests, heavy mining, wrecking mountains, polluting air, water and earth. Not only the biosphere, but also the litho, the hydro, and the atmosphere, are invaded and polluted in various ways. The eco-system does not have a national identity; it is global and cuts across geographical boundaries drawn up by man. The news headline was Superstorm in US. Actually, the superstorm and its allies are all in us all those living in the small global village. On the one hand, the trend is for small territories - the U.P. scenario being an instance - for easy governance and, on the other, the need is for the entire planet as one territory for holistic development. This is paradoxical. Global governance, as at present, appears far-fetched, next to impossible. However, there could be global concern whenever there is any decision by any government anywhere regarding development on land, beneath land or beyond land. Politically, countries alone and ethically, land alone cannot be the sole concern. The attitude of the West Growth is ours, waste is yours must sink. The idea, Us vs. Them, must be burnt to ashes.

I have tried to follow Wittgenstein avowing that philosophy puts everything as it is, but does not freeze a decision. One who needs a decision about sustainability everybody needs it is free to derive/ arrive at the same in this reflective space, while keeping ones total situation in

full view. My conviction is that the Judiciary, not the Legislature, nor the Executive, is doing it ably. Philosophical activities of this sort surely help such makers of decisions and destiny of the world. Expressions like secular, transparency, inclusive growth, and sustainable development, are, I think, no better than floccinaucinihilipilification, especially when they are mouthed by politicians and echoed by their toadies. The message conveyed by some ethicists and activists alike is: Think globally and act locally. If one tries to understand the message, one would be at a loss. This way of saying hides the thought, which is quite otherwise: Think locally and act globally. It is a faade for acting in selfish and parochial manner. As is thought, so is action. Lokasamgraha and sarvabhutahiterata are messages of Indias tradition. The ideas of planetary humanism could be an approximation of these ideas. Accordingly, its message should be, Think globally and act globally.
--------------------

REFERENCES:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Sustainable Development: Ethics and Economics, 1992. The Times of India, Bhubaneswar edition, October, 19, 2012. CSE News Bulletin, October, 18, 2012. Posted in a website. Website. Planetary Humanism. P. 136. P. 138. Humanist Manifesto, 2000: A Call for a New Planetary Humanism. Kurtz expired on 20 Oct., 12. Has Man a Future, Penguin, 1961, p. 94. Op. cit., p. 72. Free Inquiry Magazine, Vol. 25, No. 1. This theme is developed in his book, One Planet, One PeopleBeyond Us vs. Them, Prometheus, 2004. Allegation is afloat that in India crony capitalists are dictating government policies. CNN-IBN News Channel, 31.10.12. A remark is also in the air that India is a banana republic with mango people. First Post, 9 October, 2012. 11 June, 2000. Website. Sustainability, 2010. Website. Discover Magazine, November, 1992. <><>0<><>

14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Formerly, Professor of Philosophy, Utkal University and Senior Research Fellow of ICPR, At present, Visiting Professor, Ravenshaw University, Cuttack.