Corey - I’d challenge you to really think about these three words used together.

Do you mean Development as in Economic development, or in what sense do you mean it? I assume economic, because other kinds of development such as spiritual or intellectual or emotional do not need a redundant “sustainable” added on. Spiritual development IS sustainable, and is quite difficult to make unsustainable, lol. Similarly with Moral development, intellectual development, and so forth.

So what is it behind the American mindset making economic development as some kind of sacred cow? The answer is that our modern form of Capitalism is unsustainable without Growth (falsely equated with development). We take something that is not sustainable, and because we are addicted to it, as a culture we are still in the denial and bargaining stages. We either deny that sustainability is necessary, or bargain that growth can be sustained, when it cannot. As a planet, we are already past the point when even zero growth is sustainable. The only way for humanity to continue on earth for another 1,000 years is to reduce our population and impact on the earth. If we just take a look at two of our most basic needs - food and drinkable water - further development reduces the chances higher life will survive at all. Eight billion people cannot all eat steak dinners. It’s mathematically impossible from simply an acreage point of view. Eight billion people cannot all have personal vehicles, and eight billion people cannot all live in a single family house in the suburbs. All this framework of economic development is mathematically impossible.
Yet if we want to survive as a species and stop making cars, stop building houses for individual nuclear families that only last 50 years or less, and move all 8 billion people to a plant based diet - the global economy will collapse.

There is no way out for humanity through economic development.
The only way for humanity to survive through development is through developing waking up, cleaning up, growing up and showing up.

When those are in line, the economic system becomes irrelevant to the individual, and as more individuals join stage 2 or 3 they will form communities who will then be able to interact in another form of economic system that will be sustainable.

Yes, reading it he does address differing views of sustainability.

Basrrett Brown:
Sustainable Development is that with a large enough perspective, everyone is partially right: all
definitions address an important dimension of reality, each approach focuses on a necessary
area of SDv, and all justifications are valid within their context. This inclusive approach helps
dissolve fragmentation in theory and practice

I would add and / or disagree that some definitions, while partially right, should also be evaluated in better / worse and stated as inferior / counterproductive when they are. He doesn’t actually say some ideas are better and some are worse, so I’m not sure if I should infer from what he isn’t saying if he is from the “all contributions have equal value” camp.

IDK - if I’m honest I don’t agree with the “everyone is partially right” thing. I can say it only when I have my fingers crossed. Deep down I feel that some ideas are just plain wrong and letting them believe they are partially right can be a bait and switch technique (or pace and lead or other better sounding phrase)

But yes, when the author actually gets into the paper - by the way - how do I petition Ken to add into his theory something about getting to the actual point faster and more clearly and that using 10 pages instead of 1 is a symptom of unbalanced Orange? lol

Barrett Brown quoting Gail Hachika:
Self-reflection and Personal Growth: The psychological and cognitive processes
involved in making meaning, constructing identity, structuring reasoning, and
forming worldviews. Also involves self-reflection or contemplation on roles
within the community, society, environment and world, and shifts within and
between value systems. Includes self-empowerment, personal growth,
emotional and moral capacity building, introspection, contemplation, and
spirituality.22

Barrett Brown:
Innumerable forces emerge out of every stakeholder’s interior that directly impact any
approach to sustainable development. These forces influence both the cause and cure of
systemic imbalances. Thus, mindfulness of individual consciousness (belief system, mental
model, motivations, etc.) is vital when attempting to address all the major influences on a
sustainable development initiative.

Again Hochika:

Rather than fostering dependency and the expectation that exterior entities
(NGOs, government, etc.) would solve the community’s problems, which was
particularly the case in Jiquilisco Bay, the Integral framework made room for
“self” in the process of community-directed development. We did not utilize
self-development methodologies as described in developmental psychology but
instead created conditions for personal growth, self-empowerment and selfreflection throughout all phases of the project. The domain of “I” arose during
the house-to-house visits, where community inhabitants discussed their lives,
families, every-day activities, thoughts and perspectives, and our research team
cultivated openness to truly hear what was said. The Upper Left quadrant of
Wilber’s AQAL [all-quadrants, all-levels] framework was also present in the
focus groups, in which we created a trusting and expansive space in which
participants shared inner reflections. As a practitioner, my own selfdevelopment practices (of yoga and meditation) helped to foster my own
expanded awareness, to be clear of my intention and to be receptive to
intuition regarding the project… Including the domain of “I” in development
enables individuals to better understand their current and potential role in
effecting positive change in their community or society, as well as their
individual impact on each other and the environment.