Guerrero 1989: 66). Insofar as sustainability subsumes economic, political and ecological rationalities under the single imperative of species survival, it can be said to ‘naturalise’ the human species; however, in doing so, it also evacuates nature of any normative content. If all forms of human behaviour are assessed, sanctioned and perhaps reconstituted with a view to the question whether they might impair ‘the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission 1987: 8), this effort could not produce a ‘more natural’ social order, as long as the
prominently in green debates. As Jonathan Porritt noted ‘by industrialism, I mean adherence to the belief that human needs can only be met through permanent expansion of the process of production and consumption – regardless of the damage done to the planet, to the rights of future generations . . . The often unspoken values of industrialism are premised on the notion that material gain is quite simply more important to more
sort of country you want to live in, what sort of future you, your friends, family and future generations might have, then you will have thought about these issues, and will want to pursue your ideas further. We do not presume to provide answers to these questions. We hope only to provide the beginnings of a structure of core ideas and concepts that overtly or covertly influence the political debate in
course, a Party of the 99% should invest in renewable energy and implement renewable energy schemes wherever possible, but the Party should also have a program to reduce material consumption and promote low-energy leisure activities. As suggested, a guaranteed income should help in this pursuit. Tenth, all parties of the 99% should work together to demilitarize the world. The military industry is also capitalized by dominant owners and they profit from conflict or the threat of conflict. Most of the bill is paid for by taxpayers and future generations, not to mention
governing the rest of humanity.2 Malatesta writes: ‘we would be declaring ourselves the government and would be prescribing, as do religious legislators, a universal code for present and future generations’ (1974: 44). 26 Part I Thinking Revolutionary agencies The second reason why anarchists eschew Marxist visions of revolution is that anarchists have been somewhat reluctant to ascribe the role of revolutionary saviour to the proletariat. Anarchists were much more inclined to look beyond the industrialised working class as the embodiment of revolutionary destiny
with a moral discourse frame: an ethical desire to preserve the environment for the benefit of the community and future generations (Kelly 2007: 16–17). Some, most notably the Inverkenny Development Association, are probably also driven by romantic notions of Ireland as well, and their ‘emotional response’ (Kelly 2007: 88) to the landscape, and perhaps by a radical political agenda too. But most development groups, and certainly the county council, fall into the regulatory discourse frame, characterised by a focus on the pursuit of economic growth in conjunction with
country a homeland for future generations. Establishing British systems of law and government would be central to that process – and to the subsequent launching of the independent states which would follow if settler hegemony could be achieved. It is clear that the land figured, and continues to figure, prominently in relations between settlers and Indigenes in these societies. It follows, then, that
an ever-strengthening capacity, while war memorialization, which continues today, perpetuated memory and simultaneously promoted imperial and national identity through the education of future generations. During the Cold War, Communism was the enemy, with the IODE focusing on the threat it posed to Canadian space and identity, and, in ‘combating Communism’, redefining the principles of Canadian
by everyone – or at least by every right-thinking person. For example, eradication campaigns have come to be seen as the ultimate and finest example of public health in action. 9 It is widely believed that to not eradicate a disease when it is feasible to do so will be seen as a blot on our collective reputation; something for which future generations will condemn us. 10 Yet, whether admitted or not, global health power
measuring individual well-being in relation to spatial planning outcomes – it captures private benefits without assessing potential costs and is limited in assessing sustainable well-being for future generations in relation to the erosion of essential natural systems. The deficits of conventional economic indicators and the limitations of an individual life satisfaction approach has