Third Place: Benjamin-Axel Mugema’s “Sustainability: From Modernity to Humanity”
By Benjamin-Axel Mugema, posted on March 30th, 2009 in Agriculture, Articles, Climate, Essay Contest 2009, Politics
 |
| Uganda Martyrs University |
Benjamin-Axel Mugema
Uganda Martyrs University
Kampala, Uganda
e-nvironment: A sustainable future for our planet
From the time of the Industrial Revolution until the world war era, the primary concern for man was productivity and economic development. Until then, no significant attention was paid to the sustainable development issue. However, the later twenty-first century has been a time of reckoning. Man has come to accept the rather unfortunate fact that the world is headed for catastrophe. Drastic climatic changes, unpredictable food crises, strange maladies, global warming and other aggravated weather-related conditions are all telltale signs that there is a crisis at hand. To a regrettable extent, the causes of these conditions lie in man’s quest for a better and more friendly livelihood.
The discovery of more efficient defense mechanisms, coupled with tremendous technological improvement has ironically led to increased safety and security all over the world, developing countries notwithstanding. Thus, populations are increasing, much faster than the earlier centuries. With this augmentation in human population, there is a dire need for improved and more efficient services to humanity. Food provision, security, energy, health care particularly maternal health, safety, education, sustainable housing, and enhanced living standards are primary pre-requisites for any sort of development to occur.
The immediate concern in this case, is the natural environment. Successful integration between the natural and built environment should be achieved, for sustainability to be attained. While it is paramount for human conditions to improve, the circumstances need to be considered. Thus, alternative energy resources, sustainable architecture and educating people especially the youth about the need for a sustainable future is required since this future duly lies in our hands.
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution suggested that man as he is today (Homo sapiens) developed from an earlier species of rather less advanced ‘humans’, so to speak. Though highly rejected, especially among the more religious, the theory nevertheless carries substantial significance. Darwin suggested that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. Thus, birds, animals, flowers and humans have a certain particular relation. However, due to natural selection, the superior species passed on their traits to their offspring in a continuous cycle which effectively meant that the inferior species would eventually die out. This is what has made man the most dominant creature on earth. On the other hand, the Holy Bible gives a simpler explanation. God created man and made him the most intelligent of His creations. This gave man absolute control over all other things on earth, both living and non-living. ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the earth’ (Genesis 1: 26, 27.). The authority granted unto man by God is enormous and in effect, made man the most dominant creature on earth.
Needless to say, in both cases, human beings are the victors. Whether scientifically or religiously, the privilege to have utmost control and thus make decisions governing the future of the earth is what has principally led to the development that is occurring today. God gave us the ability to think, create, innovate, communicate better and live longer than anything that has ever existed. Even though Darwin’s theory calls to mind the era of dinosaurs and enormous waters, the Mesozoic era, the sort of development and advancement of the 21st century cannot possibly be compared to that era. Human ability and zeal to improve and enhance his standard of living has continuously made life on earth much easier and also hastened the development process. Thus, in whichever way man came to be, he is primarily the master of himself.
Again, this dispensation to make life-changing decisions, though positive on the surface has essentially led to all the dilemmas and crises that transpire today. While God made man the ruler of all things on earth, naturally, humanity had to equally select its own leaders. These leaders, though like man in his nature assumed the roles of decision makers and like God created us in His own image, we have the chance to manipulate His creations positively in order to make the world a better place. Hence, through these decision-makers, self-appointed or chosen, particular choices were made for a particular group of people which governed the actions that took place.
In the developmental context, however, resources were needed not only to carry out these actions but also to maintain human lifestyles. Resources were needed to create, to instruct, to innovate and to improve. In any case, God created the earth for man’s own enjoyment and wellbeing. ‘I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on earth, and every tree bearing fruit which yields seed: they shall be yours for food. All green plants I give for food to the wild animals, to all the birds of heaven and to all the reptiles on earth, every living creature.‘ (Genesis 1: 29, 31). With all these at his disposal, man had the opportunity to develop and enhance his basic standards, with that reassurance that there were resources to do all this readily available. In a wider perspective, man could practically do anything that he wished and this in effect led to the need for more advanced ways of obtaining resources in a manner that was faster and more effective.
Fast forward to the late 18th century, where the end of feudalism in Britain brought about the start of the Industrial revolution. The British civil war had just ended and a large amount of infrastructure had been destroyed. There was also the issue of hastily increasing populations, fueled partly by the then on-going slave trade from Africa, and the dire need for semi-skilled and skilled labour to work in the ever-increasing factories. Thus, job seekers migrated from all over Europe, particularly Western Europe, to Britain, while the slaves were brought in to work on farms and in the homes of the British aristocrats. Technological advancement was taking place and production became more industrial than agricultural which hastened the necessity for raw materials to be readily available. Again, the issue of nature being man’s only supplier of resources comes in. The immediate resource hub became Africa, what with its extremely fertile soils and indigenous people that had not yet attained the level of development that Europe had reached and were thus willing to produce agricultural raw material to supply the Industrial Revolution. Of particular importance was the fact that Africa also possessed enormous mineral wealth which proved to be of great value to the up and coming technology industry in Europe. The driving force behind the Industrial Revolution was coal, a fossil fuel which replaced wood as the primary source of energy for industries and generation of electricity. The discovery of coal led to a rapid explosion in industry and consequently an inevitable increase in health, wealth and population.
 |
| Source: www.wikipedia.org/ |
Although technological advances over several millennia gave humans increasing control over the environment and the Industrial Revolution meant that more goods could be produced for human consumption, it also meant that pollution would be emitted to the sky and more natural resources would be exploited in the production process. As a result, pollution of water, air and soil escalated, while harmful waste increased astronomically. However, the human population explosion was probably the greatest impact that the Industrial Revolution had. From 1650 to 1850 the global population doubled from around 500 million to 1 billion people (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability). Populations in industrialized nations moved from rural areas to urban areas which also exacerbated the effect of rising pollution, in all forms. This soar in human numbers led to an exponential increase in consumption of resources. The path to wealth seemed rather straight since the prime concern then was substantial productivity and viable economic growth. The issue of sustainability per se was not of priority and even then, there existed a certain reluctance of decision-makers to come out of this ‘comfort zone’ created by the new and fast paced lifestyle. Thus, natural resources were depleted and since technological advancement had not yet fully created a recycling mechanism, all the harmful and toxic waste from factories was poorly disposed of. In any case, a large number of the resources that were being used were non-renewable which further augmented the impact negatively. Coal in itself did not exactly provide an alternative in case of scarcity since it proved to be readily available in large amounts and relatively efficient in production.
In all that industrialization did, it also told people that they had mastered nature and were now apart from and above it. Or so they thought.
The early 20th century however was a turn of mixed fortunes. On the one hand, resources were quickly running out and the imperative to seek for alternatives seemed to be looming ahead. On the other hand, environmental effects of industrialization were being felt. It became necessary to explore environmentalism as a necessity for human development and also for conservation of natural resources.
Concerns about the environment and impacts of industrialization on the environment had been expressed earlier on in the 1800s. In an essay by Thomas Malthus, he discusses overpopulation and attempts to create a rational theory governing population increase and the available resources. ‘…Assuming my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked increases in a geometrical ratio,’ Malthus, 1798, Chapter 1. This basically means that the increase in population is inversely proportional to the ability of the earth to produce enough resources to provide for this population. Malthus noticed that the global population was rapidly growing and if unchecked would lead to a situation of deficiency of resources and inevitably food. Essentially, population increase propelled the need for more production, thus a United Nations population increase graph shown below would imply that the availability of sufficient resources in the next 100 years is not entirely realistic.
From the graph, the actual population corresponds with the estimated numbers between 1800 and 1950 and if the current trend continues, which is most likely, then the UN high estimate will occur. This accounts for up to 15 billion people, twice the current population. Interestingly, the rate of increase has also doubled.
There was also the period after World War II and the Great Depression when environmental concerns attracted a lot of interest. Increasing use of fossil fuels, plastics and synthetics were transforming the society while the ‘Green Revolution’ which was entirely based on synthetic fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides were having adverse effects on the environment. In Silent Spring (1962), Rachel Carson challenges mankind on the use of chemical pesticides and their impacts against nature. With particular reference to DDT, a chemical pesticide that was used to eradicate the parasite that spreads malaria, she demanded that man be more conscious about his environment considering that DDT had distinct severely negative effects to the environment and in the long run caused health problems to both plants and humans. Equally, the issue of man being the master of nature also contributed to climatic change. Though it is a major environmental issue today, climate change has been occurring over a period of more than sixty years. Environmental effects of human activities started to be widely studied about after the First World War. The fundamental organisations that took the first steps in research and awareness included the United Nations Organisation which particularly instituted the primary initiatives to counter carbon emissions. At the ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro, 1992, the UNO member states suggested a mechanism that would effectively reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In December 1997, in the Japanese city of Kyoto, the protocol was officially signed and came into force in February 2005. Essentially, industrialised nations were mandated to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% compared to the year 1990. It sought to lower emissions from six particular greenhouse gases: carbondioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexaflouride and two other gas types, hydroflourocarbons and perflourocarbons.
The Kyoto protocol also included three other objectives: emissions trading-an administrative approach to control pollution by providing economic incentvies to reduce emissions of pollutants, clean development mechanism and joint implementation. The various nations involved gave specific limits of emissions that they would achieve until 2010, when the protocol will officially expire.
However, the current trends seem to portray that the protocol contradicts itself. While developed countries attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by searching for alternatives to reduce depletion of natural resources, they, in effect punctuate the entire problem. The replacement of natural foods with genetically modified foods which mature quicker, extensive use of pesticides and artificial fertilizers to control pests, enhancing defense mechanisms to provide security, production of ‘environmentally-friendly’ automobiles and poor land use have all had negative impacts to the climate. Many more resources are being used which are not accounted for and this is essentially the basis of sustainable development. Thus, industrialized nations have come to realize the scarcity of natural resources and in a bid to save the earth while catering for the increasing populations, now look up to artificial alternatives which are in the long run more dangerous.
It is therefore important to appreciate the fact that climate change is primarily fostered by carbon emissions into the atmosphere which arise from human activities. Combustion of fossil fuels to produce energy, use of aerosols, land uses like animal agriculture, construction and deforestation which eventually lead to ozone depletion. Carbon dioxide levels have been substantially high since the Industrial Revolution and levels have increased from 280 ppm1 to 387 ppm. Projections have it that it could further increase to between 535 ppm to 983 ppm. Increased land use to cater for urban sprawl and agriculture also has distinct climatic effects while cement manufacture per se contributes up to 5% of global man-made carbon emissions. Essentially, greenhouse gases that arise from burning fossil fuels create a layer which keeps the heat within the atmosphere. This, in effect, leads to an increase in overall temperatures. The increase in temperature is further escalated by deforestation. By cutting down trees, especially for settlement and farming, humidity is lost hence low rainfall levels occur. Generally, the effects of increased carbon levels in the atmosphere to climate are rather diverse and deep scientific research indicates the possibility of solar variations-intensification of the Ice Age and thus melting of glaciers which in effect increases sea levels and leads to flooding, change in rainfall patterns hence areas that are normally dry are likely to experience heavy rains while wet areas would have a grave reduction in rainfall levels. As such, the seasons would also change and there is a possibility of shorter winter periods and longer summers, particularly in the Northern hemisphere.
In recent years, however, climate changes have severely affected agriculture. While nature dictates that the amount of natural resources is sufficient for humanity, the recent course of events clearly contradicts this reality. The global food price crisis from 2007-2008 came at a time when global population has started increasing at a quicker rate. Various theories have come up to explain the causes of the food crisis and the debate still rages on. Unseasonable droughts in developing countries, due to unpredictable climate changes, have led to shifts in production and reduced harvests. The rising oil prices have heightened the prices of artificial fertilizers which have in turn raised food prices since they are inevitably used to quicken harvests. The increasing use of biofuels in developing countries as alternatives to energy production has led to scarcity of food. Maize, which is Africa’s principal food staple, has particularly suffered this consequence since it is also the primary cereal used in production of biofuels. The ‘food vs fuel’ phenomenon has occurred whereby food crops are being sacrificed to produce fuel. Essentially, humanity has depleted energy sources and the burning of fossil fuels has been rendered harmful to the environment. Thus, we are trying to solve a problem while inevitably creating another. Worse still, it is not certain that the raw materials of biofuels are sufficient to sustain global production. A World Bank policy research paper produced in July 2008 suggests that ‘…large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices.’ German Chancellor Angela Merkel heavily disagreed with this claim and stated that poor agricultural policies and changing eating habits in developing countries seem to be the main causes of rising global food prices. Rising ozone levels which lead to changes in seasons and rainfall patterns have directly affected agricultural production. Thus a slump in food harvest quantities inevitably leads to an increase in prices. There is also the issue of civil unrest and insecurity in developing nations which means that farms are not entirely safe, thus food availability is uncertain.
 |
| Figure 1: Global Oil Consumption, 1980 – 2003 |
Clearly, all these misdemeanors arise during man’s quest to achieve better living standards. Hence, a compromise on the environment and natural resources in an attempt to achieve optimum profit from production and sales only makes the already bad situation worse. While developed countries are taking advantage of the weak financial situation in developing nations to get raw materials, these developing nations eventually purchase the finished product at very high prices. Therefore, the global food crisis would still affect developing countries worse than developed countries when ironically, the most natural food is produced in Africa and Asia. Leaders and decision-makers need to choose what is essentially beneficial for their nations and people while putting the future generations at priority and not acting selfishly. Developing countries should be in position to ‘help’ themselves and not rely on donor aid and grants. Former US president Bill Clinton highlighted at the UNO World Food Day on October 16th 2008 that ‘Food is not a commodity like others. We should go back to a policy of maximum food self-sufficiency. It is crazy for us to think we can develop countries around the world without increasing their ability to feed themsleves.’ Again, amidst all these predicaments lies the natural environment and man. Suffice as it might to say that man has mastered nature, the fact is still, unfortunately clear: man needs nature more than nature needs man. It is also obvious that the activities of humans all have a certain negative impact on the natural environment. These negative effects in one way or the other eventually turn back to humanity since we have, we do and we shall always turn to nature for any solutions to the problems that we face today.
The global food price crisis also calls to mind the drastic health issues affecting, especially, developing nations.
Health, as a natural pre-requisite for man is being altered by human activity. Strange new diseases are being discovered while medecine is proving to be a scarce commodity to many. Needless to say, where health is affected, lives are lost and many more are put at stake. For any sort of development to be successfully achieved, people need to have access to adequate health care. The changing eating habits, increasing populations, increased urban areas and poor government policies have changed the health sector of particularly developing nations. In context, various theories can easily defend this, but the relationship between humanity and the natural environment seems to be at the centre of the entire crisis. The over-dependence on artificial medicines and genetically modified foods which are not entirely sustainable has created a new problem and now we are trying to solve it while creating others. More attention needs to be paid the notion that health issues are environmentally derived. Research scientist Anthony J. Micheal proposed that, ‘…health is not a resource to be consumed to generate wealth but should serve as an index of environmentally sustainable development.’ Health should not be looked at as a reductionist science.
Sustainability in a broader sense would mean the ability to maintain a certain process in its current state. In relation to humanity and human development, sustainability and sustainable development refers to development that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,’ The Brundtland Commission. Ideally, humans are mandated to consume resources in such a way that everyone receives a fair share. Although sustainability quickly calls to mind the environment, there are three basic aspects that make up sustainable development: economic development, social development and inevitably, environmental development. However several critiques have come out to suggest that cultural development and diversity should be at the forefront of sustainable development citing the various dynamic cultures as the main cause of the changing lifestyles which in turn lead to the different human activities that influence it. Sustainability is an eclectic concept and involves diverse processes and systems. However, considering that all resources that humanity consumes are natural, it is only right that the natural environment be the primary priority in the quest to achieve a sustainable future for our planet. It is in this context that humanity and the natural environment need to strike a balance. On a planet where 20% of the population consumes 80% of the total resources available, one is left to wonder what the other 80% consume. Needless to say, again, developing nations are the most gravely affected. Developed nations insist on the need to competely eradicate pollution, a move which would not only stall any sort of industrial progress in developing countries but also hinder modernisation. In any case, the idea here seems rather simple;– to put humanity before modernity. Under the guise of modernisation and technological advancement, humans have put their lives at stake and now the repercussions seem more apparent than before. Ultimately, it is all a financially driven initiative and the poorer countries suffer most. While everything is being mechanised, developing nations, which cannot mechanise fail to produce sufficiently for the international market and thus remain poor. It is therefore paramount to compromise selfish politics and financial constraints and focus on globalisation since this issue affects us all.
A number of issues need to be addressed, primarily successful integration between the natural and built environment. In his paper, The Strategy of Ecosystem Development (1969), Dr. Eugene P. Odum stresses the need for man to conserve the already fragile ecosystems bearing in mind the fact that it is through nature that we get life, ‘…man does not live by food and fibre alone, he also needs a balanced CO2-O2 atmosphere.’ From the problems addressed above, the burning of fossil fuels, inasmuch as it provides the all-important energy, it also deprives of the earth sufficient oxygen and carbon dioxide which are necessary for the earth’s ecosystems to survive. It is also of equal importance to address the deforestation issue. Up to 52% of the world’s biomass is contained in forests as vegetation, ground cover in form of leaves that drop off trees and animals that dwell in forests. In their natural state, forests particularly, the Brazilian Amazon, have by far the largest impact on global climate. Besides their effect in controlling rainfall patterns across the earth, forests also act as nature reserves for the earth’s fragile ecosystems. The burning of forests would therefore, unfortunately, not only destroy a high amount of biomass but also effectively distort weather patterns around the world. The ever increasing global temperatures have been attributed in part to uncontrolled deforestation. The imperative is apparent for humanity to find alternatives to timber or better still, give back to the environment what we get from it, by, for example planting more trees. However, it is not as simplistic as it appears. Many times, forests are cleared to provide land for settlement and agricultural projects and cannot be replaced in this case. Nobel Prize Laureate Wangari Maathai, who is famous for her Green Belt Movement which sparked off a tree planting revolution in her native country, Kenya, realized the need to act fast, ‘in a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy and peace.’ The future is entirely upon us to redefine and make sustainable; forests being the first priority. If we are to change the current climatic conditions and achieve friendlier circumstances, then we should compromise on human reluctance to come out of this ‘comfort zone’ and start using forests more wisely without necessarily considering material motives. This also goes hand-in-hand with the rather controversial search for alternative energy sources after petroleum.
Energy use comes in as another major issue that needs to be addressed urgently. Comprehensive studies indicate a rather alarming rate in decline of the availability of oil used and clearly the amount is about to reach a limit that cannot be increased by ingenuity or determination. From the period of the Industrial Revolution, when coal was the only known source of energy, to the commercialization of oil in the early 1800s, there was potentially no significant cause of worry. Besides, oil explorers were discovering many more unexploited oil wells. Even in extreme cases of oil price increases, the motives were often politically inclined and entirely independent of the amounts available. However, recent years have shown that the rate of depletion of petroleum resources is remarkably higher than the rate at which it is produced. The graphs below represent an estimate of world oil demand by region from 1980 to 2003, in comparison to world oil production by region in the same amount of time.
 |
| Figure 2: Regional Crude Oil Production, 1980 – 2003 |
Both figures indicate a sort of balance in oil use and production. However, from the early ’90s, global consumption has been increasing at a steady rate due to equally increasing populations and technological advancement that requires more energy. The production rate has also been increasing steadily although, clearly, more gallons are consumed than produced. Unfortunately, oil resources are running out quicker than man can possibly replace which in a rather sarcastic way is a good thing. It would effectively reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere, which would ‘repair’ the global climate and make energy use more environmentally friendly. In any case, as David Delaney states in Oil Depletion, 2002, ‘modern economies grow only if transportation grows. Less oil, less transportation, smaller economy. More oil, more transportation, bigger economy…’ It is therefore, fundamentally important to have oil, even though alternatives are necessary. Natural gas is already being used as a source of energy especially for power and transportation purposes.
Predictably, the price of oil will not exactly signal shortages until the decline is apparent since even many years after the peak, there will be a situation of less energy at potentially high prices. This unfortunately does not signify an increase in supply, but an ‘extinction,’ so to speak. Worse still, the large amounts of global economies and investments being invested to obtain alternative energy sources are much larger than the energy investments needed to obtain fossil fuels. It is not even clear if some of these alternatives shall serve as sources of energy. In any case, the other energy sources particularly solar, geothermal, wind and biomass energy should be improved and effected.
While many technological discoveries and innovations are aware of the ecological aspect, a political motive is necessary. Ultimately, the choice lies in the hands of the decision-makers to create the right conditions for any progress to be achieved. The United Nation’s Kyoto Protocol which terminates in 2010 should come up with clear and comprehensive solutions that are practical particularly for developing nations which will inevitably require the petroleum if they are to further develop. Therefore, adequate distribution of resources is paramount for such goals to be achieved and the fundamental problem of finding alternative energy sources must be solved.
Education is a very strong and pivotal tool in development today. Through education, man has been able to impart knowledge to generations, to create, innovate, improve and shape the world. It comes, therefore, as no surprise that the UNESCO has branded this decade (2005-2014), The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. The basic goal is to have the policies, ideals and practices of sustainable development integrated into all sectors of education. Clearly, there is a motive, and the idea to have this sort of education from a very early age presents itself as an array of hope in the quest to obtain a sustainable future. Besides environmental sustainability, this educational effort will also teach young people to grow up with just and rightful thinking for the present and future generations. Education however should not only be theoretical but also practical such that it becomes applicable after school.
The future of our planet lies solely in our hands since we are the people that need it most. Divinity teaches us to respect God’s creation and keep it holy, while fate has taught us that we should have learned this lesson earlier. Now we are paying for what we did decades and centuries ago. While modernization took over the world, man momentarily seemed to brush the humanity issue aside and focus solely on this initiative. Technological advancement quickly took over human development and health concerns. Today, man has realized that man is necessary for man to develop. Modernity becomes useless without the humanity aspect. If development deprives man of certain basic needs, then it is not sustainable. If development does not cater for the future, then it is not sustainable. If development is financially based, and politically motivated, then it is not sustainable. This paper seeks to address the fundamental issue that sustainability is possible and very necessary by first critically looking at the factors that have led to the current situation and then suggesting the primary factors that should be dealt with in the first place.
‘man’s attitude toward nature is today critically important simply because we have now acquired a fateful power to alter and destroy nature. But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself? We are challenged as mankind has never been challenged before to prove our maturity and our mastery, not of nature but of ourselves.’
- Rachel Carson
References
Alfredo, S. and Ismail S. 1995. Effective Financing of Environmentally Sustainable Development. Washington, World Bank Press.
The New English Bible with the Apocrypha. 1971. Second Edition. New York, Oxford University Press.
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Mariner Books, New York.
Edward, E. 1996. Models of Sustainable development. Cheltenham.
Colin J. C. and Jean H. L. (1998). The End of Cheap Oil, Scientific American. Retrieved January 30th 2009 from www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum
Stephan, E. (1997). Thomas Malthus Essay on the Principle of Population. Retrieved January 25th 2009 from www.ac.wwu.edu/stephan/malthus/malthus.O.html
The World Bank Group. (2009). Food Crisis. Retrieved January 30th 2009 from www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/foodprices/
Odum, E.P. (1969). The Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Retrieved January 31st 2009 from www.habitat.aq.upm.es/boletin/n26/aeodu.en.html
Brainy Quote. (2009). Wangari Maathai quotes. Retrieved February 1st 2009 from www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/wangari_maathai.html
Delaney, D. (2002). Oil Depletion. Retrieved January 26th 2009 from www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/oil-depletion/oil-depletion.html
UNESCO (2005). Education for Sustainable development. Retrieved January 30th 2009 from www.unesco.org/education/desd
Wikipedia. (2009). Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved January 29th 2009 from www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Wikipedia. (2009). Sustainability. Retrieved January 29th 2009 from www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability
Wikipedia. (2009). Population growth rates. Retrieved January 20th 2009 from www.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rates_1800-2005_png
UNFCCC. (2008). Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved January 26th 2009 from www.unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
International Institute for Environment and development. (2008). Climate change. Retrieved January 12th 2009 from www.iied.org/climate-change/home
1ppm – one part per million.
22 Responses to “Third Place: Benjamin-Axel Mugema’s “Sustainability: From Modernity to Humanity””
Leave a Reply
More Pages
RSS FeedFriends of Earthzine
Bursting at the Seams
Dear All,
Please post your reviews, critisisms and suggestions to improve this essay.
Thank you very much.
Benjamin.
Dear Benjamin,
you did a good job.The issue you treat is actual and very interesting .Try to state which world war era you refer to .Use gender embracing language .Is it true that human beings live longer than anything that has ever existed? Man as primarily master of himself ? You quote the Holy Bible ,but do you think it is considered holy by everybody? The sentence which begins with Fast… is left hanging .Somewhere you talk of supplying the industrial revolution?
It is a good attempt,but make sure that you reveal clearly your sources while writing .I do not seem to see any critique made on some assertions say the whole idea of Emissions Trading ; the Brundtland Commission definition of sustainable development;the very concepts of sustainability and sustainable development,are they interchangeable?What about concepts like modernity and modernization ?
To bring your article at home can you see parallels at least in Uganda where the debate on allowing spraying DDT to eradicate Mosquitoes and Rachel Carson`s remarks…
All the best.
Dear Benjamin,
You raise very signifacnt issues in your write up that should be food for thought and action for eachone of us. You refer to both old and new literature. Indeed our future is in our hands.
Thank you
Thank you Dr.,
In the essay, I referred to the World War in a more general context, thus meaning any of the two wars. However, I went on to realize that I should have been more specific. By saying that man was primarily master of himself, I basically meant to say that humans have almost absolute control over all of earth’s resources which is, in essence true. The human race has been able to mine, to confer animals in national parks to control the growth and reduction of forests, and as such to regulate the use of natural resources. In a way, this relates to my use of the Bible, where I categorically mention that God gave man( Bible language) the right over everything on earth.
However, in my third paragraph, I argue out my case with specific mention of Darwin’s theory of evolution which the scientists candidly refer to. Thus, I have tried to bring out my point, in respect of both sides. The secular and religious. I am, however grateful for your comment.
I also thank you for duly reminding me of not properly citing my sources, and I shall use this as a lesson for any future writing of the kind. I am well aware of your view of the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development. However, to speak in a ‘global’ manner, the world has embraced sustainable development as the concept and sustainability as a lifestyle. Thus, while I honestly believe that the two are often mis-used, I am also convinced that they are not interchangeable. In any case, I am also of the view that if all development is good and for the improvement of human life, then, ultimately, it is sustainable. This would eliminate the use of the term sustainable development, which would only serve as unnecessary repitition. This should be left to further debate, and i humbly request your advice.
Modernity comes from Latin, modo, which translates as ‘just now’. Modernity would thus mean the state of being in the ‘now’, while modernisation would loosely translate to the process of achieving the ‘now.’ These views are only personal opinions and I request your advice, again.
I shall surely look to local cases, for easier understanding and connection.
Thanks again Mr. Kisekka.
Dear Benjamin,
Thank you for the pertinent issues you raise in your article. This is food for thought and action. When we are responsible today we can ensure a sustainable future. You give us an insight into the old and new views about sustainability for development. We need a citical mass of people like you to spearhead this noble cause.
Gudula,
Thank you for the positive comment. I am hopeful that positive action can make a difference, particularly by the youth. It is important that we reconsider the decisions we make for our future. Although the essay is a bit more generalized, without any specific focus, I intended that the reader gets to think about his/her individual contribution to the future of the earth.
I am however, skeptical of the leaders today. Much as the decisions governing the earth are in their hands, it is us the youth that will face/suffer the repercussions of their decisions.
My concept of modernity to humanity can basically be summed up in a move to less consumption, less production and more recycling and re-use. It is this myth that the more one has, the happier they shall be that has essentially created the over consumption issue.
I thank you again Gudula.
Benjamin,
Thanks for the well-focused article and the good cause. You would however still need to expand your reach in literature. Though you mention some of the key (read popular) works on sustainability, I think you will need to spread out of the ‘herd complex’. The End of the Long Summer (Dumanoski) may also be another good source. Keep up the spirit.
Thank you Jimmy,
Indeed I would need to expand on my reach in literature. Initially, when I first thought about writing this essay, I envisioned something that would be quite original, but seeing that I only a beginner in this subject, I am definitely going to read through more literature.
I have just read the review of Dianne Dumanoski’s great book, ‘The End of the Long Summer’, and I had heard of it before, although I tried to find it but in vain. However, the piece is excellent, and I especially liked the part where she gets rather graphically detailed, talking about the Apollo 11 mission to the moon, and how the ozone layer depletion was emmitted from everything. She also explores the fact that today, only humans are the sole survivors of this tragic harm they have caused to nature. However, it is clearer, more than ever, that humans are probably at the largest risk today.
In a nutshell, Dumanoski’s book encompasses whatever is happening today, and what would happen in future if humanity does not change its ways.
This book would have been a strong point in my essay. In any case, I thank you Jimmy for hinting upon it.
I shall surely spread out of the ‘herd complex’ next time.
Great job Benjamin…
C’est un tres beau et interessant article et ca va aider les personnes a comprendre et a prendre une decision en consequence….
Good Job!!!!!
hey Benjamin,read your essay.loved the introduction.Excellent introduction.It really shows that the rest of the essay is gonna be great.However,hope this doesn’t do anyharm but Wikipedia is not a creditable source, however much the information might be accurate.The U.S university professors say that it can be adjusted by anybody hence not acceptable. otherwise,your future in writing is great.wish you are here(u.s) to scoop all the writing scholarships!
You take on a very pertinent issue, one I am also passionate about. You do a relatively good job in bringing forward different aspects of the whole ‘debate’; for me however (and mostly about the title:..Modernity to Humanity) I feel you do not address the social issue adequately well enough…if it something about awareness (which it is) a deeper HOW assessment and approach ought to be addressed. It is not enough to say education for the youth…state how to ensure effective communication or an assessment of what it is now and a case for improvement. An essay like this may be too heavy for the majority to understand or indeed have the patience to read…so how else and simply can all this be brought to the fore? The reading culture is that POOR…
The world’s problems drag also because there is too much information and may be too little communication…
How we live, work and most of all consume at a subsistence level is a nucleus whose power is rarely made as a point of reference yet it is the most decentralized and indeed would appeal to the people…look up Dr. Hermann Scheer for one dimension among many.
All the best
Melissa,
Merci bien. It is important that we spread the message, within the youth if no one else can. Keep up the spirit.
Sylvie,
Hope you had a great read, and thanks for the positive comment. I later noticed, too, that it was rather wrong to quote wikipedia. Actually, I shall remember that the next time I am writing anything like this, or any other papers for that matter.
As for writing scholarships in the U.S., I guess this is a good start. Probably, you could add a question or two, about any parts of the essay you did not understand.
Thanks again and best regards.
This is clearly a ell researched paper. I do not think we realise the impact of our actions o the environment and how we are contributing to global warming.
The concept of sustainability is well explained, it is a tricky situation really, the need for food, firewood and timber we rely on the environment but at the same we are harming it. I think what most of us do not realise that is sustainability is a broad concept. According to me it is using any natural resource in quantities that best suit the people and the occasion and allowing oneself to replant of give back to the environment, something like in business with Social responsibility.
I would like to think that now sustainability is being practiced but in most rural Africa and other areas people still need to be educated on the effects of poor sustainable use of resources.
Dear friend Ben,
Very interesting to read your essay. With such sophisticated writing skills, I am very looking forward to your future career. As one may read throughout your essay, to undermine the notion of sustainability in any single aspect of life is actually missing the whole point of what humanity’s mastery ought to be.
Though convinced by all the articulated points you have put across, I still believe that sustainability per se in so broad to be contained in an about seven-page essay like this one; hence, I propose that, in the future, you try as much as possible to narrow down even further what you can refer to as pathway to sustainability (from modernity to humanity, for the idea itself of this pathway is, in essence, inextricably linked to a range of aspects(things to only be mentioned).
Allow me, before I forget, to thank you for reconciling the ‘religious’ explanation of human origin with the ’scientific’. The latter, according to me, does not contradict the former. Instead, these two explanations ‘overlap’ so to say.
You are so very much right when you say that ‘The United Nation’s Kyoto Protocol which terminates in 2010 should come up with clear and comprehensive solutions that are practical particularly for developing nations which will inevitably require the petroleum if they are to further develop.’ But I really do not understand the implication of this statement: the large amounts of global economies and investments being invested to obtain alternative energy sources are much larger than the energy investments needed to obtain fossil fuels.
On top of this, I still believe that ,today,finding other alternative energy sources isn’t actually the fundamental problem.
When reading your essay in the end, I wish your last sentence comes in the first paragraph at the beginning of the article. Additionally, remember in the future, as it also is my case, to mind the rule of ‘narrow focus, broad explanation’ very well to avoid language redundancy.
All in all, the ideas expressed in the overall essay are so paramount as well as fascinating such that one can fail to overlook the quality of your work.
Keep the writing skills up!!
Dave
Alex,
I take your comments at heart and I thank you for the encouraging message you have therein.
From the beginning of this essay, I attempt, as much as possible to establish how modernity and humanity are inextricably linked. Although, I believe, I detract in some parts of the essay and probably, like David commented, I take a wide focus with narrow explanation. However, to make it simpler, throughout the essay, I was trying to establish how the current problems came to occur, with a recap from the beginning of the Industrial revolution, which in a way is the beginning of everything wrong.
I enjoy the debate in any case. Probably, where I go wrong and off focus is in my solutions and suggestions for ways forward. True, the essay is about awareness. The HOW, which you so rightly suggest would then start from us, the youth. The only problem is that there are several youth that have not had the opportunity to acquire sufficient education. This is where education becomes a negative advantage, so to speak. I would suggest that for the youth particularly those in rural areas, it is important that they are taught practical means of achieving sustainability in their lifestyles. Clearly, there has been a great deal of talking and millions of books have been published. I still believe that the most effective way of ensuring effective communication is by allowing the youth to explore and innovate creative ways of promoting sustainability. This can be done by simply explaining to them what the implications of their negative actions stand to cause to them. A vivid example I can use here is the activities of the Rotaract Club at Uganda Martyrs University, which you are very much aware of. The club carried out awareness campaigns within the Nkozi village community, of which up to 70% are un-educated. However, the results proved that by not only stopping at the talk, but walking the talk, a lot can be achieved. We that are in a better position have a greater responsibility than we probably understand.
I am also of the view that this essay was long and in some cases hard to understand. Although this essay was written, mostly for academic purposes, maybe this has a greater lesson to teach all of us. It is clear that the books and publications that are produced are of no immediate benefit to the most vulnerable communities in this context, the ‘developing’ nations. This is where I agree with you that the world’s problems drag because there is too much information. Most of this happens in university libraries, in exquisite conference facilities, in bureacrativ government offices where leaders debate for hours on end and rarely come up with feasible conclusions. But then, shall we wait for leaders to give us a go ahead?
Shall we wait for the government to realise that we consume much more than we need before we learn to live sustainable lifestyles?
If the lesson is taught to the younger generation, in schools and homes, in refugee camps and war zones, we are fairly certain that the future is brighter.
Consumption habits, at a subsistence level as you suggest should be checked. I could’nt agreee any further.
My suggestion here is to basically let the school teachers and parents do their job to promote a better reading culture, but we shall not wait for that to happen. We shall take action to the rural areas, through the schools and anywhere we can peddle positive influence.
Thank you Alex.
Dear Ednah,
Thank you for your comment and thank you also for your clearly vivid interest in climate change and sustainability.
You have raised a point which, I must say, I forgot to raise. Corporate Social Responsibility is always a good show, and many times the community benefits from it. However, it is more and more apparent that businesses put the environmental sustainability issue as least priority. Of course, profit is important for any business to be able to sustain itself. However, in economical thinking, it should be realised that without environmental sustainability, then businesses are bound to collapse since they will not be able to have a constant raw material supply.
What is practiced in rural Africa would be termed as sustainability if the climate was favourable enough to support such activities. However, with climate change occurring much faster than predicted, then we shall have to come up with solutions that put into consideration the pending climate issues and the future needs of the people involved.
Education is a must, a necessity. It can be in form of practical knowledge, classroom syllabi or informal education passed on to generations, but it is a vital tool.
Thanks Ednah.
Hi friend Ben,
thanks for the length of time spent on your essay which pointed out what sustainability really is.
I commend you first of all for your good job but my advice is that you please try as hard as possible to narrow your essay to context.
Yours is too lenghty and peharps can cause delay in understanding the actual points therein.
However thanks for meeting to the challange.
As far as Africa and Africans are concern I advice that the three of us, You, myself and David come together and network to fight the challenging issues that faced Africa and Africans today. By so doing we will definately make a mark on the continent. Please let us network. sentd me an e-mail through stjalloh@yahoo.com for further ventures.
Thanks
David,
Point well taken. I am thankful for the compliment on rather controversial writing skills, which have over time been questioned. Some think it is a little too complicated sometimes and the main point is usually missed out.
However, let us not side-track. I like the fact that you have pointed out several setbacks within my essay which I would otherwise not have realised. Certainly, this essay cannot be the ultimate description of sustainability and I believe that this is what has essentially set me back. I probably, as you suggested, should have concentrated on a few focus points that would have made the essay more comprehensive. Thus, I wholesomely agree with you on the point of ‘narrow focus, broad explanation.’
In order to fully make this essay a better one, you would agree with me that I would need another essay all together which would be more tasking. However, I shall work with what we have here.
I tried as much as possible to relate everything in such a way that it could apply to any person that read the essay hence the link between religion and science. However, as you may reckon, we should always tread softly, particularly when using religion as a basis or reference in our work.
The statement on investing large economies into alternative energy was probably misunderstood and I admit I did get it wrong. I meant to imply that, well, in the long run, governments shall have to invest in alternative energies. In any case, we are not sure of the specific impact of these new energies and how practicable they shall be. It was only a ‘blind’ suggestion, so to speak, and more research is inevitably necessary. In any case, you would agree with me that at the end of the day, fossil fuels shall not supply earth’s energy perpetually.
I probably misplayed my conclusion in an attempt to make my point more comprehensive and I believe that this actually weakened it.
I thank you for your comments though David, and I am grateful for them.
Tejan,
Thank you for your comments. I would be pleased to network with you and David. My e-mail address is b.mugema@umu.ac.ug. Please feel free to contact me.
Thanks again.
waoh !!! Ben you have a very good job can you send me a copy ?so i download for further reading and referncing
Victor and Praise,
Well then, thanks for that comment. I believe we shall engage in further conversation. I shall send you the soft copy, but you may want to leave your e-mail address behind. Otherwise thanks a lot and good luck again.