The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
Aweh dearly beloved fellow ruminants & groupies
In 2023 I was assigned to teach a postgraduate course on sustainability. When I mumbled something along the lines that I’m not particularly qualified to teach sustainability I got a response something along the lines of that having worked in the energy and petrochemical area for 30 years I was surely a sustainability expert.
I confessed to being aware of sustainability, but expert? I did not wish to become a case study for the Dunning Kruger effect which is a psychological phenomenon where people with limited knowledge or skill in a specific area tend to overestimate their competence. I would prefer not to compete with the orange-hued overlord of overestimation who is the living embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect. He is just too good.
So, I did what any self-aware imposter would do: plunged headfirst into a sustainability deep dive. My goal? Become painfully aware of my ignorance and, hopefully, transfer some of that ignorance to my students. Maybe, just maybe, they’d enlighten me in return.
So let’s start with the definition of sustainable development, required to pass the exam, as one must: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This has been codified by the United Nations into the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). Supplementing these goals are 169 targets.
So, being the cynic and sceptic that I am, what was my initial reaction when I looked at these goals. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their 169 targets look impressive on paper – eradicate poverty, achieve zero hunger, world peace… Guys get real! What has this got to do with objective reality? Pie in the sky ideology and let’s all sit around the fire and sing Kumbaya has never been my thing.
But then I was forced to dig deeper, and the World Bank tracks progress on each of these goals. This forced me to confront my own cynicism. Poverty? In 1990 nearly 2 billion people lived in extreme poverty. This decreased to 679 million in 2019. That’s still very far from no poverty but the progress is impressive. Strong economic growth allowed Asians to escape poverty, but Africa regressed. So patchy progress.
Peace and justice? This is a more depressing story and we are making very limited progress with murder rates and wars and conflicts not really declining.
The 17 SDGs – a laundry list of things we should do to fix humanity’s predicament. They meticulously track progress (or the lack thereof) on everything from climate change to wiping out poverty. On the surface, it’s all sunshine and rainbows – a touchy-feely roadmap to utopia.
But here’s the thing – even if they’re idealistic to the point of absurdity, these goals serve a purpose. They represent a set of aspirations to keep us from stumbling around in the darkness. Progress might be imperfect, but at least it’s being measured. Maybe that accountability is a good thing, a way to keep us honest about the mess we’ve created.
There is however a much more fundamental concern about the SDGs than their idealism. The SDGs are themselves not sustainable. How do I justify this heresy? SDG 8 is about decent work and economic growth. Sustained economic growth lifts societies out of poverty and eradicates hunger. Rural poverty in China fell from 96% in 1980 to less than 1% in 2019. The miracle ingredient that achieved this is economic growth.
So, what’s not to like about the miracle ingredient economic growth? Well, it’s all rather nerdy and has to do with exponentials. Economic growth is an exponential function. Economic growth is a relatively recent phenomenon in human industry catalysed by the industrial revolution.
From 1870 to 2018 real GDP per person in the U.S. economy has grown on average at 1.67 percent per year with only very short deviations from this very steady trend. Because this trend has persisted for 150 years it is tacitly assumed that it will continue indefinitely. For everyone alive today this is all we have ever known, and it is embedded in conventional economic theory which is also a relatively new discipline.
The problem with exponentials is that as you extrapolate them, they go vertical. So, if continue with 1.67% real economic growth then sometime after 2700 the economy would be 100 000 times what it is today. Bearing in mind that economic growth is correlated with consumption growth it is immediately obvious that economic growth is not sustainable in the long run. The SDGs are not sustainable. Of course, in the short term (my lifetime, your kid’s lifetime) we can continue our current path. But beyond that? We’re basically peddling unsustainable development goals (UDGs) if we keep clinging to this growth obsession.
There is however no need to despair. Having worked in corporate strategy for many years there are always new and better strategies. I can help with that. So, what comes after economic growth? One scenario is that we would transition to what is termed a steady state economy with a stable population and economy and a sustainable use of resources with no consumption or economic growth.
Some say that this would need to be achieved by government and regulation. Everything you need and how long they need to last would presumably need to be determined by government bureaucrats. A bit like the standard uniform and gear I was issued when I did compulsory military service. Your wardrobe and much else would be regulated. Three single-ply toilet rolls per person per month. Although this could potentially be sustainable it is a fate worse than death. Fortunately, governments are too incompetent and society too polarised and divided to achieve this level of central planning at a global level.
The much more likely and very messy scenario is that we will continue on an unsustainable path until we overshoot planetary limits and constraints. Nature will eventually remind us who’s boss. We will potentially see population decline and economic contraction before starting to grow again. It is much more likely that as we bump into planetary limits, we will see an unsteady state cycling of the population and economy.
History is littered with the wreckage of unsustainable growth – from the boom-and-bust cycles of tulips and beanie babies to elaborate Ponzi schemes. We just can’t seem to shake our addiction to “irrational exuberance” and a healthy dose of denial. The SDGs? Not exactly a magic bullet against this self-inflicted mayhem.
Dearly beloved readers what am I missing here? How do we have indefinite exponential growth on a finite planet? Do we embrace Elon Musk and strive to become a multi-planetary society? There is the minor problem that all the planets in our solar system are extremely inhospitable for human life. Humans are exquisitely adapted to the conditions on earth. Zero or different gravity, cosmic rays, and a lack of breathable oxygen are just some of the many factors that make the multi-planetary dream very challenging.
Maybe our AI overlords will eventually build a giant Matrix for us all to chill in? The ultimate escape pod from a finite planet? Sounds tempting… until you remember you must code the whole damn thing. I will speak to Connor, my son, who is studying computer science. Perhaps he can help his dad cheat death this way.
I want to express my gratitude for all the ideas and comments received. I genuinely appreciate them, and please continue to share your thoughts.
Regards
Bruce
Ruminant Pink Friday 