In recent years an important issue has
arisen. The issue is whether the level of
development, even in a developing
country where it is fairly low, is
sustainable. In developed countries, the
major cause of worry about sustainability
of development is supposed to be
a wasteful consumption style and in
many developing countries, the cause of
such worry is said to be large and
increasing population.
(more content follows the advertisement below) A D V E R T I S E M E N T
In this context, there are two facts,
which are brought to our notice. One,
present production technology makes use
of non-renewable (exhaustible) natural
resources such as fossil fuels (coal, gas
and petroleum) or even of renewable
natural resources (such as forests,
animals and water) to such an extent that
their regeneration becomes difficult.
Two, present production technology
(along with disposal practices of waste)
pollutes atmosphere and water bodies
with garbage, litter, smoke and other
poisonous gases. The more goods you
produce, more non-renewable natural
resources get exhausted and our
environment become further polluted.
Nature has some assimilative capacity.
But, if pollution level is too high, the
nature may not be able to assimilate it.
Clean air and clean water may not be
available to us. There may not be
enough trees around us to clean our
atmosphere and we may have to suffer
from various health problems.
If non-renewable natural resources
deplete fast, future generations may not
have enough stock for its use. It means
that if we continue growing our
economies the way we do, there may
come a point when it may become
impossible to continue with the level of
development reached. Sustainable
development may, therefore, require the
preservation of stocks of resources,
including environmental resources and
exhaustible natural resources.
A study in 1972 had tried to show
that limits to growth on the planet will
be reached sometime in next hundred
years if present growth trends in world
population, industrialization, pollution,
food production and resource depletion
were to continue unchanged. There is
little reliance, in this view, on future
development of technology, which may
enhance productivity through efficiency.
Some do point out that there would then
be no mining and no industry. However,
it is always prudent to be cautious.
Before constraints loom large, it is not
a bad idea to apply restraint. The
message is that the pattern of growth
may have to be changed in certain
economies and in others, the level
reached may have to be maintained
rather than substantially enhanced.
Many analysts do not segregate
environment; they suggest that it does
not respect national boundaries.
Irrespective of where green house gases
are produced, global warming will take
place. If ozone layer withers, whole
humanity will suffer from its consequences.
Concerned with environmental
degradation, a world commission was set
up in the recent past, which produced a
report in 1987 under the title �Our
Common Future�. This report defines
sustainable development as that level
which takes care of the needs of the
present generation without compromising
the needs of the future generations. We
normally discussed development as
process not as level. The definition of
sustainable development can, therefore,
be modified as a path of development in
which options of future generations are
not compromised by the path taken by the
present generation.
It is indeed difficult to determine the
path that is sustainable or to find out
whether the path is unique. It simply
makes us cautious about our choice over
consumption style and efforts in
inventing technology and perhaps
restraining growth in population.
Quality of Life
One shred of quality of life is already
indicated in earlier section on
sustainable development. If quality of air,
quality of water and quality of sanitation
are not good, the quality of life also will
not be good. If our surroundings are
littered, if the air is polluted or if we do
not get safe drinking water, then we will
not have a good life, no matter how much
of many desirable goods we are able to
buy from market. One can add
availability of food, clothing, shelter,
education facilities, health care, legal aid
and security to the list of clean water,
clean air and clean surrounding in order
to define the quality of life.
However, there is another shred of
thinking which is not altogether
unrelated to it. Those who suggest the
other line, point out that the items listed
above are determinants of well-being.
We can think about quality of life in
terms of its constituents too. The items
listed above lead to better health, welfare,
freedom of choice, and basic liberties,
which are all indices of well-being.
One should also be interested in
distribution of well-being along gender,
caste, class or regional lines. Many
analysts hold that a society with
somewhat overall lower literacy rate but
equality between male and female
literacy rates is better than another that
has somewhat higher overall literacy rate
but has gross inequality between male
and female literacy rates.
Some people also think that certain
rights, which people enjoy in certain
societies, are denied in others. These
rights should also be included in this
set of well-being indicators even though
they do not fall in the economic category.
This argument is acceptable in the
sense that life cannot be separated
into economic and non-economic
compartments. Most of us would not
prefer to be put in prison for any
considerable period even if food,
clothing, shelter and healthcare provided
in the prison is far superior to what we
normally get outside. Therefore, it is said
that, political rights and civil rights or
some indicators reflecting these rights
should be added to the quality of life.
With increasing concern for human
rights, it would be a good idea to
incorporate these indicators of well-being
and welfare. After all, the whole purpose
of consciously developing a society is to
raise the level of well-being and welfare
of its people.
The idea of �quality of life� enriches
the concept of �standard of living�, which
is generally thought of in terms of rich
food, expensive clothing, luxuriant cars
and palatial houses, often manifestation
of high income. In societal terms, it is
captured through per capita income. But
the quality of life idea adds the
dimensions, which at times may not be
captured through monetary valuation.