"Spirituality, Globalization and Sustainable Development: The Grounds For a New Human Destiny"
Time: 30 October 2002, 20:00 Location: Restaurant Möwenpick Chair: Cheryll Gerelle, CEO IBEX Presenters/ Participants: Alfredo Sfeir-Younis, Special Representative to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization The World Bank
Mr. Alfredo Sfeir-Younis is an environmental economist by training. In the last six years he has held the position of Special Representative To the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, and of The Institutional Focal Point on Human Rights. Languages: English Key words: Sustainable development, spirituality
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank you for inviting me to speak at this special event.
Hopefully, as a result of my intervention today nobody will have indigestion or choke with food.
I was asked to speak about the spiritual dimensions of an environmental and socially sustainable development. In my view, this is a subject matter of utmost importance. However, it is very difficult to address due to the immense number of misunderstandings that prevail regarding both the collective understanding of what sustainability in development is all about and the misconception with respect to the meaning and scope of spirituality.
My work on environment, ecology and sustainable development formally begun in 1968, when I was asked to draft a paper about ocean pollution in Latin America due to unmanaged maritime transportation. This paper was to be presented at the UNCTAD Conference that took place in Santiago de Chile in 1970. The theme of environment and trade, environment and development, got very complicated and there was a lot of reluctance to address the issue in the first place.
No doubt that putting thee themes of sustainability and spirituality together makes things much more complex for me today. However, in my experience, sometimes, it happens that it is totally the contrary: that by bringing two rather intractable problems things become easier rather than more complex.
You will be the judge.
Let me start with a series of statements that I will not explain much for the lack of time. But, these statements color quite strongly my presentation today.
The most important of all is that while there is no doubt that most of us know the fundamental principles guiding the path towards a social, environmental, political, cultural, institutional, economic, financial, human sustainable society, at least in a material sense, no country has yet organized its life and activities around these principles.
Many of us have pushed the "alarm button" but, is there any one listening? No doubt that those most responsible for the destruction of this Planet have to listen carefully. The public is waiting impatiently that someone, somewhere, do something about this situation.
One may cite one or two examples at a scale that is nothing compare with the destruction of the Amazon, the pollution of the oceans and the outer space, the erosion of our soils and desertification, the pollution of our waters, the over exploitation forests and fisheries, the of depletion of biodiversity, the levels of global warming and the depletion of our ozone layer. This are not problems that will be resolved either with good intentions or planting a tree here and there.
I know that many of us in this room have pushed the alarm button many times with not much success to show for. Thus, it is now imperative to know why most societies have adopted unsustainable ways to human progress.
This is not a trivial question, or a question that would be answered with trivial propositions.
But, one thing is clear: that to reverse existing trends it will require to embrace a number of very radical decisions. Marginal moves will certainly not do.
One of the fundamental purposes of this revolution must be to dispose of a number of fallacies we often use in public policy making. As long as these fallacies permeate whatever we do it would impossible to move anywhere.
Why is this situation so prevailing in light of an obvious and dramatic set of consequences? We must look into the ultimate causes for this behavior.
The challenge for us now is to see where does spirituality fits in all of this? I remember reading the book that Al Gore published before he became Vice-President of the United States on Environment in America. There, he concluded that the environmental crisis the United States was experiencing was simply the mirror image of that country's spiritual crisis.
And, I fully agree with Gore on this matter. Specifically, it is this inner human crisis, both personal and collective, that it is a the roots of what we all experience today.
This is not to say that one should disregard the material aspects and dimensions of the natural and human environment and its management.
In fact, I am proposing to you today that to a great extent, the environmental crisis we experience today is due to the false separation between our material existence and the sacred aspects of our lives. It is disconnectedness that should draw all of our attention.
Material instruments are important. Material needs are also important. To us, however, it is essential to assess whether these material instruments are effective enough to reverse existing trends and, thus, avoid the huge costs of an unsustainable society.
But, even if these material instruments and practices are totally flawless and effective, our societies will need to do much better than that. Our societies will need to go beyond the 100% benefits from the existing material paradigm (which, by the way we are far from attaining).
It will be the state of our inner reality the ultimate force that will delineate the fate of humanity. And, therefore, I am proposing here today that the most powerful natural and human law we need to adopt is one which accepts that cleaning the external environment requires the total cleaning of our inner self.
Thus, we are not only looking for the 100% society that relies only on its material means, but we must attain the so-called 200% society. This is a society that combines the power of both our material and spiritual realities. This is the real message I would like to leave with you.
But the notion of a 200% society is not simply additive. The material 100% is intimately linked and dependent on the spiritual 100%. This is to say, that the material notion of environmental destruction will in many subtle ways structurally limit our spiritual development.
This view is based on the premise that material growth and spiritual growth are part and parcel of the same fundamental principles. Specifically, the laws governing humanity's transformation in the non-material realm of our lives are one and the same to those governing nature. They form one holistic and indivisible reality. The separation of the subject from the object is limiting our capacity to attain sustainable solutions to the problems and challenges we face as a human race.
Thus, destruction of nature is destruction of ourselves.
Unfortunately, this duality between nature and human evolution is ingrained deeply in public policy making. And, this is exposed in a number of fallacies we have accepted collectively.
One of these fallacies is that a clean environment is the luxury of the rich (rich people or rich county) and therefore we have adopted everywhere a strategy that translates into "grow now and clean later". One of the problems is that no society to my knowledge has come back and clean later at the scale we need to avoid more global warming, ozone layer depletion or biodiversity degradation, to name a few. The adoption of this fallacy stops many countries from steering a development path that is clean from the start and subjugates growth and economic capital accumulation to this superior goal of environmental conservation and management.
Another fallacy, very complementary to the previous one, is that people's behavior in the ultimate is such that they are to "satisfy their material needs first and their non-material, or spiritual needs, later". This is to say that, in the ultimate, our existence is dominated by material needs. This approach to human behavior comes from the theory that points out a hierarchy of needs in human beings, and that we are ultimately dependent and motivated by our material needs and reality, including food and shelter. Thus, many people, and many countries, do argue on the side of material satisfaction first and spiritual realization later.
However, what is most interesting in this moment in history is that even the poorest of the poor lists as its true priority elements that are totally non material, including empowerment, security and opportunities. In my own country, when national surveys regarding priorities have been conducted, the material needs of food and shelter do not come at the top of the list for both the rich and the poor.
Nevertheless, what I am stating right now should not be misconstrued or misused to indicate that I am not concerned about the material needs of the poor. Of course I am. But, spirituality, human identity and self realization must be considered important too. Just think about the book by Amartya Sen where he defines "development as freedom".
Based in the principle of indivisibility I have just mentioned, we should note that all of these non-material dimensions of humanity (like freedom and empowerment) have their material expressions. And, these material expressions are to be shaped if one would improve the welfare of humanity.
But, these material expressions per-se must not dictate the real path of our spiritual and non-material realities. It has to be the other way around!
Yet another fallacy is that which states that "we are exaggerating the levels of environmental degradation". Many argue that environmental degradation has occurred all along human history and that we, human beings, have a tremendous capacity to adapt to these changes. Thus, the aims have redefined as one of effective adaptation of the human race and not of sustainability in our societies. No doubt that the human race has had a tremendous ability to adapt, but we cannot be blind to whether the quality of life changes in this process.
This fallacy has created an immense number of problems and policy making distortions. One of them is to move our attention away from this sustainable society and focus on how to make humans more adaptable to environmental depletion and destruction. Thus, major investments are going into the direction of health care and research. So we can get cured of the results of environmental destruction.
There is some truth in the above belief, but we need to fully understand its implications. Clearly, we know from biology and human behavior that our human body is capable to live in a state of equilibrium at differing levels of toxicity. Thus, even if you are, let say, intoxicated as a result of this environmental pollution and contamination, one may still think that 'things are ok' as long as one feels in equilibrium (balance).
This equilibrium is real and unreal at the same time. One example is that of the drunk driver. The drunk person always tells us that "He/She can drive, ?, and give me the keys". The only people who actually know that this person cannot, and must not, drive is the one who is experiencing a lower level of toxicity. It is the latter person the only one who could finally decide who is going to be the driver.
This is a fundamental reality to keep in mind. For the moment, I often experience that highly intoxicated people are making decisions about my future and the future of many others. We do not want to become what historians may call the "drunken generation" who is destroying what has to be available to future generations.
This fallacy has also change our priorities in life. In my view our challenge is not a question of adaptation, but whether as the "'drunk drivers' generation" we will be able to male the right decisions. If everything seems to be in equilibrium in highly toxic socioeconomic development, the ultimate suggestion would always be to keep polluting!
The last fallacy I would like to share with you today is that "technology will always be capable to reverse degradation, please just wait a little bit longer". This is "the waiting room approach" to development and human transformation.
As we are freezing human bodies to await for the needed technological change to cure it from a disease, we may need to freeze the Earth at one point to wait for someone else to find a cure. This approach to human life is very tragic, and we must change the course of humanity now.
I am not sure that material-based technology will be able to bring back, for example, those animal and genetic species we have already depleted irreversibly from our Planet.
There is something more profound than that. Most people shelter behind technology because they link technological change to our unbounded human awareness and human consciousness. In a sense, we link the challenge to the non-material dimensions of our human existence. Thus, our intelligence is seen as complete, holistic and totally available at infinitum. We can invent anything we can imagine.
This question raises major issues regarding the true relationship between human awareness and the quality of the environment.
Is there a connection between environmental quality and human consciousness?
Is our ability to attain higher levels of human consciousness conditioned by environment degradation?
Is there an intimate and unique connection between the laws of nature and the laws of human evolution?
In my process of personal self-realization the foundations of both laws are one and the same.
Thus, degradation of our natural environment limits our possibilities to attain full enlightenment and complete level of self-realization in all possible dimensions of life.
A degraded and limited environment will imply a limited level of human consciousness.
Thus, a vicious and dangerous circle of human extermination.
One important added element, before I move to a series of propositions. That is: degradation of the environment responds to a clash of values and belief systems. Thus, it is possible that we may be materially right but ethically or morally wrong. Thus, for some, nature belongs to them (it is mine!); i.e., a sense of ownership rather than a sense of trusteeship (being entrusted).
Many people believe that creation is dominated by the notion of 'unequal intelligence' or, where we humans are de-facto superior to nature, which is seen as having an inferior intelligence. Also, there is this notion that we humans are to be served by nature or the notion that we can modify and develop nature (we as developers and nature as the developed.
Today, our societies are organized around very individualistic and selfish values and our aim is to conquest and use nature to our advantage! This path disregards the non-material and spiritual dimensions, and the collective aspects, of our human existence.
The concept of superiority is very anthropomorphic: everything is organized around us, rather than accepting that every form of life is part of a grand and infinite organized order. Thus, the values embodied in sustainable development are subjugated to the prevailing social, political, economic, financial and cultural values. We witness a clash in values that translates into human behavior and decisions to satisfy the laws of the market and not the laws of nature.
Let me change gears and say a few words about sustainable development.
By now, you are all experts in sustainable development, and I will not bore you with more conceptual definitions or metaphysical stuff.
However, let me recap a number of important elements, so then I can reach a number of important conclusions.
There are many acceptable definitions of sustainable development. In 1987, I came up with a definition which touched upon creation of wealth and capital accumulation . Sustainable development was defined as the balance between all forms of capital participating in the development process; e.g., physical, financial, human, natural, institutional and cultural capital. Because the time was not ripe, I did not include in this definition the important notion of "spiritual capital". At the time, there was a tremendous fight regarding the use of the term "natural capital". Could you imagine what would have happened if I had brought at the same time the notion of spiritual capital?
In terms of the issues, we know that a debate on sustainable development is concerned with :
One, addressing the very long-term nature or prospects of development and progress. Sustainability is about those decisions should we make now to shape that long term future. However, our minds are invaded with the necessities of today and nothing else. A very myopic approach to our future.
Two, focusing on human welfare across large and differentiated spaces. We are highly inter-connected and, thus, what happens in one part of the globe affects the rest. Thus, global warming and ozone layer depletion affect everyone. HIV/AIDS is not just the concern of those affected but of the whole world.
Three, valuing both individual and collective actions. Protecting the environment demands regional and global approaches. The exclusive pursuit of individual welfare will not attain the aims of the collective. Experience shows, however, that we can rarely sustain the holistic nature of collective actions. Traditional notions of property and sovereignty are examples of how we build "fences" which reduce our ability to attain a sustainable society.
Fourth, embracing a debate about the present and future generations. What we do now will affect many generations to come. Shall we leave future generations a totally polluted Planet in the hope that new brains will find a formula to clean the water or to drink polluted waters without much of a negative health impact? There is little inter-generational thinking in business and economics, and politicians cannot see beyond tomorrow morning.
Fifth, assuming different levels of responsibility. Sustainability is about creating a responsible society for people, environment and communities. While we humans may feel we are the principal actors, to act in dissonance with nature and our community roots will result in great disruption and social instability. We must assume collective responsibility.
What concerns me is that in the past we have tried a huge number of instruments to reverse existing trends, and we have seen little or no progress. Irreversible damages and depletion are taking place everywhere and, thus, What can we do now to change the course of humanity?"
As I stated before, marginal changes will simply not do. The situation demands a revolution in values, a major cut in unnecessary consumption, an assault on absolute poverty, and more. The material solutions have now a limited effectiveness and we must embrace a new development paradigm.
Today I am suggesting the "paradigm of soul economics", to go beyond material notions of sustainability. This paradigm will enable us to attain what I call The 200% Society. That society which not only strive for the first 100% by exercising its maximum at the material level, but also the other 100% by tapping into its non-material existence and instruments.
Even if a society becomes 100% proficient in using outer-based economic instruments (e.g., prices, taxes, property rights), we still need a 200% proficiency, where the added 100% relates to the power of our inner souls to transform the outer world.
Thus, we need a 200% economics which I have entitled "soul economics". When people attain high levels of inner purity and self-realization. When their mere presence would clean the outer environment. They will be the true agents of change to improve the present situation facing humanity. A society that embraces the 200% architects to redress the basic notions of time and space, the 200% medical doctors to change their material notions of human life, and so on.
In the paradigm of soul economics there is no dichotomy between the outer and the inner world.
In soul economics, we remove ourselves from a rather limited debate on pollution and degradation (and the policies and rules that these may entail) in the direction of who pollutes. To have a framework that focuses only on the object and processes moves us away from addressing the fundamental question of why we pollute. The attention (not all of it) must be on the subject, on us, the polluters.
To debate the levels of human adaptation in a physical sense is not enough to address the interactions between the subject, process and object.
We will be empowered to do more when moving towards a "paradigm of human transformation and self-realization". It is here where spirituality gives a humanistic meaning to a debate on sustainability.
In this paradigm, human consciousness is the ultimate source of socio economic development and determinant of the extent to which societies would accept different levels of toxicity and, thus, changing our behavioral patterns as polluters.
In this paradigm "the outer is like the inner". Thus, the impurity we experience outside mirror image the state of our inner soul. Pollution outside means our souls are polluted too.
Inner responsibility demands a reinforcement of the actions we are taking in the outer plane. Societies must make a major effort to increase the stock of spiritual capital.
A new 200% sustainable society will be a self-realized society. A society where economic and social systems are true instruments of human self-realization and where the accumulation of "spiritual capital" is at the core of wealth creation.
I am totally devoted to attain and live in The 200% Society.
Indian Story
Let us put the sandals on and be real instruments in the betterment of humanity
Thank you very much.
