OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Global Goals, Part 2

Entry 2186, on 2021-11-26 at 17:52:20 (Rating 3, Politics)

In my post, titled "Global Goals, Part 1" from 2021-11-19. I discussed the global goals agreed on by many world leaders in 2015. I covered the first 8 (1 No poverty, 2 Zero hunger, 3 Good health and well-being, 4 Quality education, 5 Gender equality, 6 Clean water and sanitation, 7 Affordable and clean energy, 8 Decent work and economic growth) in that post, but decided the second half should wait for a later date, like now!

So here is my commentary on the second half of the global goals...

9 Industry innovation and infrastructure

The goals in this category continue the trend of inclusivity, fairness, and equality. No doubt everyone involved in industry is enthusiastic about innovation, but real innovation tends to come from highly motivated individuals rather than bureaucratic proclamations. In fact, this is a theme which might apply to all of the points in the goals.

10 Reduced inequalities

It seems apparent that we will always have inequality, because whatever system we have in place, some people will just be naturally better at succeeding in it than others. But reducing inequality still seems like a good idea. Over the last hundred years inequality has increased hugely: the poor are getting richer, which is good, but the rich are getting much richer at a far greater rate.

This is a matter of perceived rather than real fairness, but a lot of research shows people tend to judge themselves in relation to others, rather than in absolute terms, so we should try to find a way to reduce how the current economic systems we use reward certain behaviours which might be considered financially successful but socially problematic (I'm thinking of you, Jeff Bezos).

11 Sustainable cities and communities

Almost everyone would agree that sustainability is good, all other things being equal, but both our economic and political systems do often reward the pursuit of short-term gains while ignoring the big picture.

On the other hand, we shouldn't let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of achieving an adequate result. In other words: "perfection is the enemy of good". Maybe less sustainable and more short term solutions are adequate, at least as an interim step.

12 Responsible consumption and production

Well if there's one thing I can say about "responsible consumption and production" is that it's better than irresponsible consumption and production! But who decides what is responsible, and where does a level of production or consumption become irresponsible?

These factors drive modern economies, so it's not easy to limit them, especially now that most people are used to having easy access to many of the resources they want.

13 Climate action

I'm not a climate change denier: I accept it is happening, and I think it is primarily caused by CO2 emissions from carbon fuel use. I also think it would be good to control climate change, and if we can't do that, systematically mitigate its effects.

But while I am not a denier, I am also not an alarmist. I don't think this is an existential crisis, I don't think civilisation is under threat, I don't believe we are heading for mass extinction, and I don't believe we have stolen Greta Thunberg's future!

So climate action is fine, but it has to be based on rational facts, and not hysterical over-reaction. Our use of coal should be decreased, for many other reasons apart from climate change, and I suggest nuclear energy as a clean, safe, efficient solution (see my blog post "Give Nuclear Respect" from 2019-07-02 for a defence of this idea).

14 Life below water

I guess this applies to protecting ocean life from pollution, over-fishing, and other negative effects of human activity.

Well sure, who would not want to protect life in the water? Except, of course, there are very good reasons to allow a certain amount of exploitation of those same resources. The question is where the balance should sit. Few people want to ban fishing completely, and few want to allow a species to become extinct through over-fishing. The question is, where should be balance be? It's not quite so simple then.

15 Life on land

This is the same argument as life below water, and the same comments apply.

16 Peace, justice, and strong institutions

Oh, you know, I always though that conflict, injustice, and weak institutions were better! Well no I didn't, and I suspect few people would, so (like most of this list) I do have to wonder what the point is.

It seems that there will always be conflict, at least in the immediate future, but that is already improving greatly. Most war arises in the countries who are not necessarily participants in well-meaning lists of goals like this, so that is a major obstacle to improving these factors

17 Partnerships for the goals

This is the big one. In order for the world to get better there needs to be cooperation between all major participants. As I have discussed in other posts, there is usually a cost to pursuing these goals. Want to have less pollution? Build expensive processing plants. Want to allow fish stocks to recover? Stop catching that type of fish.

But if one country stops and another continues, it gives an advantage to the group doing the "wrong thing". We know through game theory that this happens, and a cooperative approach is the only solution. But cooperation can be very difficult to achieve, so I wish all of those who do want to participate in these goals good luck!

So, sure, these are all worthy goals, but they really amount to little more than common sense and basic fairness. The real questions are: how many people ar prepared to make the sacrifices needed to achieve the goals, and how many governments are prepared to risk the rejection of the voters to try to force them through, and who decides the details of how these should be implemented and at what level they are necessary.

Achieving the goals is not straightforward then, is it?

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.