“Sustainability” Sydney Williams
http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com
Sustainability is an over-used word. Or is it? Googling the word generates over three billion hits, almost three times the number of hits generated by its parent, sustain. It is a relatively new word, first appearing in the United Nation’s 1987 Brundtland Report, which defined sustainable development as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It generally refers to climate and the environment and what man is doing (or not to doing) to sustain it, along with racial, gender and equity issues. Wikipedia defines sustainability as “a societal goal that relates to the ability of people to safely co-exist on Earth over a long time.” (Sustain is defined: to support, uphold, or strengthen.)
In 2015, the United Nations adopted a collection of 17 interlinked objectives called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include: the elimination of poverty, reduced inequalities, climate, peace, justice, decent work, responsible communities, and strong institutions – all goals with which no reasonable person would disagree, but also words whose definitions are amorphous, and which can vary with user. Nevertheless, woke universities and colleges have been quick to add “Sustainability Institutes.”
But might the word be more inclusive? We must harbor our resources and protect the environment. But we must not constrain man’s propensity to create and adapt. It was underestimating man’s capacity to innovate that led to Thomas Malthus’ faulty prediction in 1798, that population growth would exceed resources. People need the freedom to express ideas, and the freedom to go where aspiration, ability and dedication take them. For that they need a sustainable political environment, which allows for individual freedom, functions under the rule of law, includes property rights, and provides access to free markets.
As Governor Stevenson is quoted in the rubric above, we should not, in our quest for sustainable climate destroy (or ignore) the political, social, and economic paths that have brought us this far. Sustainability needs to apply to individual freedom, our system of free markets, population growth, and to a defense system that ensures the safety of our nation and its people. Freedom is at the core of our democratic society.
Yet, while concerns for climate, environmental, racial, equity, and gender sustainability in the U.S. have waxed, concerns about freedom and families have waned. The Human Freedom Index, an annual report that measures human freedom in 165 countries, is co-published by the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute of Canada, and Switzerland’s Liberales Institut. It is the most comprehensive measure of freedom yet created. It assesses categories like rule of law, security and safety, religion, and freedom of expression. For 2022, in terms of personal freedom, the United States (the “land of the free”) ranked 24, just behind the Czech Republic and Italy and just ahead of Uruguay and Spain. As for family formations, a Pew Research study shows a steady decline in the rate of growth over the past forty years.
While regional and class differences have made for uneven progress, broadly speaking Americans have, over many years, enjoyed increases in standards of living, as measured by GDP per capita and life expectancy. This has been largely due to free-market capitalism, yet a June 2021 survey by Axios and Momentive showed that only 49% of young Americans (18-34 year-olds) held a positive view of capitalism, while 51% held a positive view of socialism. This repudiation of capitalism by youth suggests ignorance of our history, and a lack of awareness that, according to the 2019 Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finance, more families than ever own, in some form, publicly traded stock – 53% versus 32% in 1989. It is troubling, as well, that labor force participation has declined from 66.3% in 2003 to 62.5% in 2023. If we cannot sustain an economic system that has benefitted so many, living standards will inevitably decline.
It is possible that concerns about the sustainability of climate have negatively impacted population rates, especially in the developed world. Total Fertility Rates (TFRs), which measure the average number of births to a woman over her lifetime, have been declining worldwide for several decades. The world TFR in 2000 was 2.7; today it is 2.4. (2.1 is deemed replacement rate.) most of the decline is in East Asia countries like Japan, South Korea, and China, and in Europe and North America. In 2022, the U.S. TFR was 1.64, versus 2.1 in 2000. The decline is worldwide. Forty years ago, the continent of Africa had a TFR of 6.5; today it is 4.2, and the United Nations predicts it will decline to 2.1 by 2100. Life on earth will not be sustained should populations age and shrink.
We can ask: Can we maintain our leadership position in the world, as a beacon of freedom and opportunity, without sustaining an educated citizenry? Reading and math scores have consistently fallen for young U.S. students on international tests. U.S. students are at or below the median for scores on reading, math, and science on PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) rankings. The closing of schools during the pandemic accelerated a trend already in place.
While the United States still out-spends all other countries in terms of defense, and while the proposed budget – unadjusted for inflation – calls for the largest amount ever, we should be concerned. Over the past fifty years, with brief exceptions during the 1980s and in the aftermath of 9/11, defense spending as a percent of GDP declined from 6.5% in 1972 to just over 3% in 2022. Today, China has the world’s largest navy and the most men and women in uniform. With rising threats from China and Russia, military spending as a percent of GDP is inadequate. Yet total federal spending, as a percent of GDP, is 20% above where it was in 2019. Transfer payments comprise most of the difference. With an unprotected southern border, a military falling short of recruits, and a navy that has half the vessels of China, is our defense sufficient?
Of all the world, we are among the luckiest people. It is not because of our efforts, but because of the wisdom, fortitude, and diligence of our forebearers. The world has been, is, and always will be a risky place, as we saw this past week with the failure of SVB and other banks. Are we prepared? I would say no. Our responsibility is not just to sustain the life we have, but to build upon what we were gifted.
As Governor Stevenson said in the quote that heads this essay, to know where we must go, we must first understand how we got here. Yet, none of the factors – individual freedom, democracy, accountability, rule of law, capital markets, property rights, defense – which contributed to our success as a nation and a people are included in the UN’s SDGs. We should sustain them and improve them, gradually and over time. As for the sustainability of climate, science and history tell us that cannot be done by man alone. The Earth will warm, and it will cool. We can minimize its harmful effects but, ultimately, we will have to adapt.
Sustainability is an ill-defined and ill-used word. It should be used with care, or it should be returned to the place from which it emerged.
Comments are closed.
