Social Visions of Future Sustainable Societies 395any discussions of sustainable futures. Furthermore, it is clear that the talents of the
entire spectrum of human knowledge and creativity – including all the social sciences
and the humanities – are needed to address these issues. Discussion and reflection
on the social implications at all scales of current trajectories and possible alterna-
tives are sorely needed. The two overriding issues of where to go and how to get
there, defined in social terms, need concerted and determined attention.
To return to the role of planning in the context of ecological and economic
reconciliation, although there is an argument that responsible public policy must
try to manage key environmental dimensions, planning alone is not enough. Fur-
thermore, it cannot be done in a social vacuum: neither rational environmental pol-
icy nor planned economic growth necessarily guarantees fundamental human rights
such as livelihood security, freedom, dignity or opportunity; nor do they result in the
maintenance of human values, cultures or communities; nor do they enhance human
welfare, particularly for marginal or exploited groups. Securing such values must be
a principal motive behind whatever planning does occur, and therefore cannot be the
prerogative of current planners. The full plurality and diversity of values that exist in
society must be mobilized to inform and guide policy making.
This leads to a second (and much more critical) point – that social goals and
considerations are, a priori, pre-eminent. After all, fulfilment of basic needs pro-
pels human material interactions with the rest of the planet: the entire economic
system is supposed to be motivated by the enhancement of human welfare. And
then there are the broader dimensions of individual and community experience to
which people attach great importance – values and aspirations; our relations to
each other and to nature; the need for meaning and fulfilment; the institutions
through which we interrelate; avenues for creative expression; meanings, symbols,
belief systems; in short, family, culture, religion, work, play, artefacts.
Even if global economic planners and managers do devise an efficient, sustaina-
ble way to reconcile economic growth and ecological limits, what would that world
be like and would anyone want to live in it? In addressing the future, it is equally
possible to make a desirable, livable world the starting point, and to strive for resource
use and economic systems that foster the attainment of that future. Do we eschew
such an approach because of an assumption that everyone wants to live like upper-
middle-class North Americans or Europeans, but cannot, owing to resource limits
and economic problems? If so, this is surely an assumption worth examining. Gan-
dhi’s famous statement, reported by Tolba (1987), may be relevant here: when asked
if independent India should be like Britain, he asked, ‘If it took Britain half the
resources of the world to be what it is today, how many worlds would India need?’
It is a question of priorities. Social systems should not be forced to evolve from
determinations of optimal capital, material and energy flows; rather, economic and
material systems should be designed to support social ideals. Stating the same
point differently, one can argue that it is no more ‘unrealistic’ to expect the eco-
nomic system to adjust to human needs and ecological limits than it is to expect
people to change in order to serve economic imperatives or to expect nature to
continue to conform to economic demands.