Responsibility is a legal and moral a concept. Repair and punishment will be demanded in case of irresponsible behavior. The moral point of view of different cultural contexts prescribe standards that are often irreconcilable. At first sight the idea of bearing a responsibility for sustainable development seems reasonable, even moral. And yet this is an arrogant and absurd posture because our knowledge is limited and our ability to make predictions is nil. Future generations will not need our solicitude and they will invent solutions to problems we are not even yet aware of. It is high time to oppose the totalitarian diktat “to look sustainable or not to be.”

 

In cultures and countries where the rule of law is democratically defined and accepted, the principle of responsibility covers three more or less distinct areas: civil, criminal and moral.

Each adult and able to discern person incurs liability in all acts he[1] commits. Collectively, corporations, associations, or governments are also responsible for their actions, but limited to civil matters only.

When one fails to meet its obligations, violates the law or breaks his commitments, he must then respond by providing redress or compensation, as well as by accepting a just punishment which will, hopefully, have an edifying effect on himself, a soothing one on the victim, and will deter those tempted to commit similar wrongdoings. This can happen only if the responsible person is present to be held accountable for his actions, and if the injured party is able to demonstrate a causal link between the damage and the actions (or inaction) taken by the person it considers as responsible[2].

Whoever undertakes the management of a company or of a government will regularly be held accountable to those who have entrusted him with these tasks. At the annual company meeting this will result in the discharge of the directors, at the end of a legislature in the reelection – or not – of a politician. This kind of formal responsibility is quite limited in time.

Moral responsibility touches on less clearly defined values, philosophical or religious ones. It is ultimately from the point of view of the observer that the action of a third party will be referred to as moral, amoral or immoral. For example, according to Western culture, gender equality is a moral principle now generally established, although not fully implemented. But in other cultures the submission of a women to the absolute authority of her father and then of her husband is not considered immoral, quite the contrary as that woman who would free herself from this submission deserves a punishment, up to death for adultery. What one considers as barbaric according to his value scale will be called normal by others. And, contrary to popular [Western] belief there is no objective criterion for preferring one set of values ​​to another. This leads to irreconcilable positions for which men have gone to war and will wage it further. In this area mentalities have no destiny to evolve into a better direction than into another one. If they change durably it is because the society is in constant debate, challenging itself, and learning and discovering what life is (heuristic). And if their change is ephemeral then it is only in response to a fad or to a political opportunism, albeit capable of having dire consequences for their relatively short duration (12 years Nazi power, 70 years soviet regime).

After this long introduction a link between the two terms of the title of this text must be provided, which is done by asking the following question: is there today a responsibility to bear for actions or inactions that may have, several generations later, beneficial or disastrous consequences?

Let’s first take a historical perspective. We know that since about 12,000 years agriculture has transformed the landscape, the flora and the fauna of about 10% of the surface of the planet. No cultivated varieties in the world today can be found in nature as they now are, all are the result of man made mutations and selections. Shall we today express a moral judgment on past generations that have imposed profound changes on our ecosystem? Is it useful to blame or praise them?

Another example: since the beginning of industrialization about two and a half centuries ago the exploitation of natural resources and waste discharges have resulted in damages and pollution, some of which may be considered barely reversible. The actors of the time were not aware of the impact on nature resulting from their activities, although they could have been able to imagine them, as what few Cassandra always predict. But, even if today with hindsight we know more about this impact, is it necessary to accuse previous generations of irresponsibility? And even if we did, could a trial be held for redress and punishment? On the contrary, aware of what was more or less well done in the past, we are generally grateful to our ancestors for what they have passed over to us, we know how to assess the historical context of their actions, and even in some cases we draw from them some family, tribal or national pride. We do not judge their a priori according to our own current a posteriori knowledge (hindsight). Why our descendants would think otherwise of us?

If we now take a prospective view we are now asked, for the sake of sustainable development, to give consideration to our actions not only for the needs and interests of our generation but also for those of future generations[3]. The a posteriori of tomorrow shall therefore be judged with our a priori of today.
At first glance this seems a reasonable proposition, even a moral one. I adopted it for a long time without thinking too much about it. It takes into account the finite resources on Earth and possible irreversibilities that man can cause, especially if done being aware of the issues, at least partially.

But on second reading this sounds like arrogant and absurd.

Arrogance firstly. To declare today what is or is not sustainable – and therefore what should be proscribed – is assuming that we know better than our descendants what should be their choice and priorities in the future. This is similar to the abusive mother who claims to protect her child by smothering behavior; pretending to know better she assumes her child’s inability to develop by itself. Not only do we want to exert control over our current actions, but also, here and now we want to determine what is good or bad for our descendants, somehow imposing on them our current views as universal and eternal values.

Absurd and stupid too. Among itself our current generation has almost no agreement on just about every subject. The use of nuclear energy, genetic modifications, the understanding of the role of man on climate change, public health models, and development priorities: there is no consensus today. Or if there is some consensus then that concert of the nations is more a dodecaphonic dissonance than symphonic harmony. This reveals also that in many instances we don’t know at all if what we do today will have any durable impact, and we are totally unable to determine if this impact will be beneficial or detrimental. The most discussed current case in this respect is the anthropogenic (man-made) influence on climate change[4]: significant impact? if yes, catastrophic or advantageous ?

Also, we do not have the slightest idea about the scientific and technical advances that are to come. Yet when considering the last century history, we can, however, reasonably expect dramatic progress the nature of which we are unable to anticipate. This is not a prediction but a simple measure of our present ignorance. For example we now know how to decontaminate wastewater; this was not known a century ago and is practiced since only about fifty years. Ignorance in these times could neither anticipate the next day’s problems nor the day after tomorrow’s solution. How then our present ignorance can give us any foresight?

Absurdity therefore rejoins arrogance in not trusting that future generations will know better how to deal with their issues than we are able today. And, knowing that overturning strongly entrenched dogmas may cost painful and bloody revolutions, we would be well advised to proceed with caution in areas that today no one is able to control. Give time to time.

Sustainable development is a soft concept, which does not mean much, at least not the same for all. With an alleged long-term significance (at least much longer than last one or two terms of office, or the average employment of a CEO) no one will have to be held accountable. This is a very convenient populist and demagogic political instrument, which is not binding on anything.

Nothing, really? If not to make ourselves voluntarily hostage of activists whose agenda is to take power.

These fascists are always right and know what good is to be forced down the throat of humanity. Greenpeace, WWF and their useful idiots of a self-declared intellectual elite, these NGOs must be denounced and their activities must be monitored with the same attention that is granted to crime syndicates or to fundamentalist groups who terrorize the populations. Their propaganda and misinformation must be revealed and foiled, which is not a simple task because their organization is exemplary: infiltration of governmental and intergovernmental organizations, lobbies of all kinds, brainwash of children before they can acquire a critical mind, racketeering corporations, fundraising by emotional marketing. They demand to orient immediately and massively all available resources to their priorities, and they decree that any other choice will be immoral and irresponsible, although they are accountable to nobody, and their legitimacy is no better than that of a “club de pétanque”.

But beware: this is the time to warn the reader!

One who will tend to sympathize with the arguments that are presented here will make himself its apologist; even if it flatters this is a little too simple. One whose reptilian part of the brain reacts spontaneously negatively will quickly feel authorized to read in this text what is not expressed in it, which will lead him to say or write nonsense, possibly revealing a form of paranoia and prejudices that inhabit the depths of himself. My recommendation in the two cases: think, take your time, do not drool or belch too fast, even if it requires some effort.

It is not written here that development should be left wild, deliberately risky, and polluting.

It is not written here that nothing should be done to prevent intolerable human suffering and damages to the environment.

Nor does it says here that all environmental concerns are only phantasms or disguised fascism.

But also it is not written here that human suffering should be subject to a higher value, that of a so-called ‘NatureConservation’ (sic).

Development takes place, wanted or not. Not only in economic terms, not made for the benefit of some at the expense of others, it does not oppose the rich and the poor or capital and work, old Marxists platitudes overwhelmed by reality. The people involved are responsible for themselves; their course of action must not be imposed onto them by others who forget too quickly the errors they have committed, and still commit. And if well-targeted aid allows for faster development, helps avoiding known errors and making more significant progress, so much the better.

It is remarkable that the supporters of multilateralism and supranational governance are those who have a solution to impose on others. And when the solution is to ban progress it dramatically looks like Didi, the mad son of the good Dr Wang in “Blue Lotus”, who wants to cut the head of Tintin, and of Snowy later, to reveal to them the way he found. And yet he wanted them well!

Those who, having an openness to the World, know that their culture is particular, and therefore not universal, those are more cautious, less absolute, less dominant. These are the true liberals, who today must get out of their tolerantist[5] torpor to oppose strongly the unfounded injunctions of neo-fascists, activists who pretend to be genuine environmentalists. Like many others, their Jihad is not to be respected, it must be fought.

Yet many governments and business leaders, after having shown some reluctance, have chosen the comfortable worship of sustainable development without knowing neither why nor how, except that it is “in tune with the times”, that it could bring grist, and that opposing it presents the risk of being pilloried. They need to wake up and have the courage to put in their place – the closet – the constituencies that assembled to take advantage of opportunities offered by this masquerade, to renounce the delusion of wearing a moral responsibility, and to stop believing that, even if it’s for the wrong reasons, the decided actions are carriers of an economic revival, or of a hope of salvation of the planet. The worst examples of such actions are the exit of nuclear energy, the moratoria or definitive bans of genetically modified plants, the energy transition (sic), carbon taxes or certificates, subsidies subordinated to doubtful “benefits for the environment,” and multiple racketeering for labels and certificates (footprint, etc.). Although not all of it is necessarily bad and that some of these programs can be reasonably justified, it is necessary to ensure that nothing remains submitted to the categorical and dogmatic diktat of “to look sustainable or not to be.”

It is urgent and important that leaders of the political and of the economic world show their leadership, take their actual responsibilities, and stop this arrogant and absurd nonsense; are they ready to face such a challenge?

---

[1] Women also. The reader is gently asked to consider that in this present text the masculine may, but has not to, mean the feminine, and vice versa. Grammar has no concern for equality, however it is useful to [try to] follow its rules.

[2] Of course there are thousands of legal texts and a wealth of jurisprudence on that subject. But to discuss this is another matter.

[3] “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Bruntland’s report Our Common Future to the UN, 1987, http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf.

[4] Despite of those pretending that the science is set and that the fat lady has sung.

[5] Tolerantism: posture of systematic acceptation of positions opposed to the own ones. To the contrary of tolerance that has clear limits.

Merci de compartir cet article