The concept of "sustainable development" is a recent emergence in development literature and economics. Until recently, its usage was limited to environmental studies. It seems to me that its initial prominence came as a response to what was perceived as the overreach of the industrial sector, which led - among other outcomes - to the shrinkage of the agricultural sector (particularly traditional agriculture, forestry, and fisheries) and harmed the environment and the way of life in traditional communities.
Therefore, most early advocates of sustainable development focused their initial definitions on the conservation of natural resources and the ecosystem.
Over the past thirty years, "global climate" has joined the list of goals receiving attention from sustainable development advocates. Perhaps the most common definition at present is the one chosen by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its foundational report, Our Common Future.
Its essence is that sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the natural resources needed by future generations. This definition involves two fundamental concepts: the concept of needs, especially the "essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given,” and the concept of limitations imposed by the critical relationship between the intensive use of technology and trade requirements on the one hand, and the resources actually available in the natural environment on the other.
The previous definitions are not without weaknesses, particularly regarding technology restrictions and the role of humans in achieving sustainability. Therefore, I will propose a definition that avoids these weaknesses, describing a sustainable system as one capable of reproducing its basic foundations and continuing indefinitely. Thus, a sustainable system must be characterized by balance, combining:
1. Caring for environmental needs (i.e., natural resources, by restricting destructive actions).
2. The market (i.e., generating adequate surplus value to improve living standards) to avoid turning natural resource conservation into a cause of population impoverishment.
3. The community (i.e., being aligned with societal values regarding well-being and a virtuous life).
4. Expanding resources (i.e., relying on scientific research to develop new resources and increase the productivity of current resources. This makes technology a vital element in the sustainability system, but not in setting its criteria and ultimate purposes).
Accordingly, sustainable development is a project aimed at establishing a sustainable economic-living system through two mutually supporting objectives:
• First: Treating the factors that hinder or slow down economic and social development.
• Second: Establishing a socio-economic system capable of renewing its components and the elements necessary for its survival. This is specifically what we call "progress."
Comprehensive development certainly aims to create the social engine of progress across its various fields.
I believe the factor that most severely hinders social and economic development is the "illusion" of inability to progress. I say "illusion" because we look at situations, actions, and knowledge as comparative matters. We first ask: Is this action possible or impossible? Then we look: Has anyone in the world done it or not? Based on that, we decide whether it is possible or impossible.
When we talk about progress, we recall the familiar models of the ancient and modern worlds. So we say that our society is capable of doing anything that others have been capable of, including the most advanced and delicate industries and the deepest and broadest sciences. This belief is a necessary prelude to the next question: If a human being like us, in America for example, was able to invent the airplane, what was made available to them that was not available to us so that we might do as they did?
In other words, the development question must begin with three premises:
1. First: We are capable of making progress because others were able to do so.
2. Second: There are obstacles that hindered us or slowed our momentum, and our duty is summarized in diagnosing and then removing them.
3. Third: This question is not related to identity or faith, so we do not seek a metaphysical answer for it; rather, it relates to human beings, the environment, and culture (social values), and we must search for its solution within these fields.
