Sustainable Development Goals of U.N. conflate social and physical items as political goals

 In my opinion conflating a social agenda with physical material boundaries is a disaster. The nine ecospheric boundaries should be separate and distinct from the social eight development goals. The mixed bag of goals and boundaries has a poisoned political pill for everyone. I suppose godless atheists might all be happy with abortion for the world’s poor women, and population growth does decline as women have fewer children when they are prosperous statistically, yet those are contentious political issues that won’t be treated well if elite bureaucrats sit around a donut-shaped table generating a lot of verbiage. God may have generated a Multiverse and predestined a Universe- who knows? Darwinist-only votaries tend to be ignorant about theology and metaphysics or hermeneutics generally and associate faith with beliefs common in the 19th century concerning creation- and that is very obsolete.

I couldn’t believe the piece on resilience; do people really need to know what Cicero thought about it or what old french or English variations were? It might be that the excess verbiage on resilience and systems analysis could be abbreviated by fitting them within parameters of Newton’s three laws of motion. Then one can flowchart all sort of squiggly pointillist art with data bits that show the way things flow and how the patterns go. Some whirlpools in creeks return to form even if a boat engine disrupts them passing through. Entropy does count.

Long ago I drew up a flowchart for the logical progression to one world government. It's a jejune idea that youth have withoiut realizing the problems with that (it's best suited for dictatorships). The U.N. conflation of 17 sustainable development goals that seems itself like an oxymoron since development makes most people think of the current high-entropy economic system seems jejune though the topics are serious for all 17. It's just a poorly constructed item.

Free citizens tired of the communist threat; not because of inequality but more so because bureaucratic elites of the communist party dictated what people could or couldn’t do and the dictatorship of the communist party was kind of a drag. It oppressed religious ideas (“churches don’t work anymore”) and so forth. Conflating the eight social points with none physical boundaries debases the critical importance of the planetary boundaries so seriously that they won’t get done. The nine boundaries aren’t serious enough to merit separate and distinct objective evaluation so nations and voters can decide what they want to do about them for themselves?

Piketty’s ideas for remedies to the inequality of wealth are good enough yet simple. Increase progressive taxation and put a tax on capital. Concentrated wealth and power prefer to own the media and internet and repress ideas that might affect their power and wealth adversely and that is becoming worse all the time.

James Lovelock wrote in The Final Warning that humanity only has about 200 years remaining before the big crash environmentally reaches a very high level and world population crashes to 200 million. Jacques Cousteau estimated a similar paradigm. In the 1970s and 80s it was written that global sustainable human population is only about 2 billion. Certainly if the technology for agriculture and living and zoning laws are as bad as political choices in democracies and real practical applications of the techne toolkit the pessimists probably are correct.

The electorate general has no idea of what the nine planetary boundaries are, so coupling them with a left leaning, atheist social agenda will just create such social divisions that few countries will be able to agree even though the EU might like to export its social agenda globally. Democracy can allow progressive tax rates without requiring a socialistic economic. Basically though if people are too dumb to be interested in saving themselves from ecospheric disaster caused by their economic toolkit survivors living off-world for a time may need to let the world fix itself up to use it again someday. Maybe a remnant will survive.

I believe the social items of value to some can be accomplished with an enlightened international on-line population of people willing and able to help. The closure of publishing freedom because of political and economic repression is a great way to let just sycophants express themselves freely.

The idea of sustainable development goals seems an oxymoron in a world with finite resources that preclude development of classical economic methods. The U.N. conflation of a social agenda and planetary boundaries seems to necessarily force political conflict because of the social agenda. Getting everyone to agree on saving the ecosphere from reaching a point where human life isn't very sustainable on Earth is necessary. The social agenda is a million faceted and debatable cluster that could be solved innumerable ways. Corporatocracy seems a threat to democracy and free society while the sanguine futurism requires a hushed up and subjugated population.

I appreciate the effort yet a more circumspective philosophical examination would be an improvement over pure institutional donut-dipping verbiage. Realpolitk includes an awareness of human nature and short-sightedness in pursuit of economic advantage.