دانلود مقاله اهداف توسعه پایدار قوی
نکات برجسته
چکیده
کلید واژه ها
1. مقدمه
2. جاه طلبی در سیاست SD
3. پایداری ضعیف و قوی
4. جمعیت، ثروت و فناوری
5. فاصله
6. بحث: به سوی یک دستور کار قوی
7. نتیجه گیری
منابع
Highlights
Abstract
Keywords
1. Introduction
2. Ambitions in SD policy
3. Weak and strong sustainability
4. Population, affluence, and technology
5. Distance
6. Discussion: Towards a strong Agenda
7. Conclusions
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Declaration of Competing Interest
Acknowledgements
References
چکیده
توسعه پایدار بیش از سه دهه است که یک هدف مهم سیاستی برای جامعه بین المللی بوده است. با این حال، وضعیت سیاره همچنان رو به وخامت است. این مقاله مفهومی شکست را عمدتاً ناشی از موانع ساختاری و به اصطلاح گفتمان ضعیف پایداری می‌داند که توسط گزارش بروندلند رایج شد و امروز در دستور کار 2030 نمایان شد. این مقاله یک دیدگاه پایداری قوی برای بررسی فاصله‌های ساختاری بین بازیگران و پیامدهای اعمال آنها اتخاذ می‌کند. ما استدلال می‌کنیم که اینها مانع از اقدام مسئولانه می‌شوند و هدف سیاست باید کاهش یا حذف فاصله‌ها در چهار بعد فضا، زمان، کارکردها و روابط باشد. این مقاله با پیشنهاد اهداف توسعه پایدار قوی به پایان می‌رسد که می‌تواند به انتقال بشریت به سمت پایداری، کاهش تأثیرات زیست‌محیطی انسانی بر روی سیاره، و تداوم حیات متنوع بر روی زمین کمک کند.
توجه! این متن ترجمه ماشینی بوده و توسط مترجمین ای ترجمه، ترجمه نشده است.
Abstract
Sustainable development has been an important policy goal for the international community for over three decades. Still, the state of the planet continues to worsen. This conceptual article considers the failure largely a result of structural obstacles and the so-called weak sustainability discourse, popularized by the Brundtland report and manifested today in The 2030 Agenda. The article adopts a strong sustainability perspective for examining structural distances between actors and the consequences of their acts. We argue that these impede responsible action and that policy should aim to reduce or eliminate distances in the four dimensions of space, time, functions and relations. The article concludes by suggesting Strongly Sustainable Development Goals, which could help transitioning humanity towards sustainability, lower the anthropogenic environmental impact on the planet, and enable the continuity of diverse life on Earth.
Introduction
The growth in human population and affluence, tied to the exploitation of Earth’s resources, has engendered global warming, loss of biodiversity and other ecological challenges (Barnosky et al., 2011; Steffen et al., 2011; IPCC, 2014; Ceballos et al., 2015). While the domestication and transformation of the planet to meet human aspirations may appear rational in the short term (Gardiner, 2006), humankind now jeopardises its own long-term existence and wellbeing (Rockstrom ¨ et al., 2009; WWF et al., 2020; IPCC, 2018). Since the Stockholm conference on the Human Environment (UN, 1972), international policy has made calls for respecting the planet. Most prominently articulated in the Brundtland report (WCED, 1987), sustainable development (SD) calls for a focus on human needs whilst recognizing the biophysical basis for those needs.
Conclusions
Considering ecological balance as the foundation of sustainable development, this article has explained the failure of present SD policy by its rootedness in assumptions and values of weak sustainability. Those are demonstrated in the idea of three mutually reinforcing dimensions, and in the approach in relation to components of the IPAT equation. Present policy disregards the size of Population, promotes a general and perpetual rise in Affluence, and embraces Technology with the aim to control the effects of human action. In contrast, we have argued for a strong policy, based on ecological limits and ethical inclusiveness, which tackles all parts of IPAT.The article’s focus has been on four types of distances, as impediments to responsible action, and on change in social organization as an overall approach to bridge such distances. Emphasizing the social sides of the T in IPAT, this approach is not only more complete in model terms. It also implies a shift from present attempts to limit environmental impact to a focus on the causes. It announces a cultural evolution rather than, in the narrow sense commonly promoted, a technological one. Key components in this is the recognition of environmental stewardship as the foundation for human and social development, and that the dimensions of human societies and aspirations must be adapted accordingly. Within these frames, the distribution of society’s production should be radically more fair and directed towards fundamental needs, and the economy as well as technological instruments should serve as means, and not as goals.