Document(s) 8 of 10

AS WE ALREADY know from previous chapters, in 1992 the Rio Conference considered and approved a one-and-only sustainable development model, based on the global humanity survival strategy. It incorporated principles of environmental, social, and economic strategies, environmental interests of societies and states and mindful acceptance of the limitations of environmental and economic development.

The last ten years has shown that the "global program for change," as described by Ms. Brundtland in her report to the Commission, has failed to be adequately reflected in the sustainable development programmes. More importantly, none of these programmes has reached the implementation stage. Both developed and developing countries continue to practice the same old ways and approaches as in the past. Governments see their future mostly in terms of poorly monitored ad-hoc activities (macro-extrapolation) and are in a position to offer only 'tinkering around the edges' measures, designed mainly for pollution abatement and resource conservation. 15 Moreover, developing countries, in their "race for sustainable economic development," must follow in the footsteps of the developed countries, taking the path of ruining nature, the path of misbalance and disharmony. Thus, a substitution of concepts occurs—the goal of universal sustainable development is superseded by the goal of a customised 'sustainable economic development' for regions and countries.

The intent was to do better but the result was as bad as before. The global methods for reaching these admirable goals are historically far from the best means, confirming once again their 'counterproductiveness'. The result is well known: the system indicators of the environment are moving in a downward spiral, new environmental problems are appearing, and new disease prevalence patterns are spreading. What is really going on in the world? As a matter of fact, instead of changing the route of civilisation's development, which the World Conference was calling for, practically all countries have superseded sustainable development models by conventional development strategies. They are proceeding with old methodologies, built upon traditional technical and financial capabilities to address social crises and problems of immense environmental importance. In Ukraine and Russia, at the level of government policy development, 'innovation and technological breakthrough' trends are prevalent. The environmental consequences of these 'breakthroughs' are either not taken into account at all or are merely given cursory attention, just to observe the formality of complying with international obligations. 32, 39, 42, 64

Thus, the five key contradictions that had to be dealt with within the framework of the Action Plan for the 21st century are still there after ten years. The present and future generations of people on the earth will confront the following contradictions:

• between actual life and a life in harmony with nature: the right of all human beings to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature should be the focus of attention;

• between actual development and the environment: the environmental constituent should become an integral part of the development process;

• between interests of contemporary and future generations: human needs and environment conservation targets should be included in the set of values for every generation;

• between rich and poor countries and people: the gap between living standards should be reduced, famine and poverty eliminated, the 'appetite for resources', greed, and breach of agreed-upon conduct checked.

In the authors' opinion, one of the main reasons for the resiliency of the above-mentioned contradictions is rooted in the inability or lack of good will in merging spirituality, nature, and human life in the attempt to resolve the complex and vitally important problem of humanity's survival. Defiance of the lessons of history, diversity of forms of civilisation development on earth, including the models of harmonious co-existence with nature, defiance of the experience of regional ethnoscenic balance with a variety of life values system, and especially, those, in which spiritual and ecological values dominate over the material ones, so-called 'consumerism' (India, Tibet with a population of more than a billion people).

In this regard, it is important to quote what Albert Gore, one of the political ideologists of global sustainable development, said in his book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit:

The resurgence of fundamentalism in every world religion, from Islam to Judaism to Hinduism to Christianity; the proliferation of new spiritual movements, ideologies, and cults of all types and forms; the popularity of New Age doctrines and the current fascination with exploratory myths and legends from cultures across the world—all this gives as evidence that there is indeed a spiritual crisis in modern civilisation that seems to be based on its inner emptiness and the lack of an overriding spiritual purpose. 19

The words of this famous American ideologist deserve special attention, since they contain the recognition of the main reason for the failures of the global sustainable development strategy—ignoring the spiritual constituent as a genuine driving force for change and the development of civilisation.

Entertaining alternative approaches to social harmony, the well-known historian Toynbee wrote in his work The Study of History 72 that among the three economic/development models (North American, Western European (English-Scandinavian), and Communist), preference should be given to the English-Scandinavian model, as it calls for a balance between private enterprise (capitalism) and state regulation in the name of social justice (communism). On top of it, Scandinavian countries display their adherence to environmental principles. The Scandinavian development model can be credited as being by far the most harmonious and as such should be studied and disseminated. Further, Toynbee writes about spirituality: "Incidentally, we impoverished souls by kicking the great artists out.... They were the spirit keepers for our ancestors... and now we complacently revel in the spiritual vacuum that we have created." At the same time, he claims that people in African and Eastern cultures live in harmony with their traditions and spirituality.

In Lessons of Wisdom, Capra makes the following claim: "It is irrelevant whether we refer to that crisis as 'energy, ecological, urban or populist driven'. We should admit that they are rooted in the inadequate, narrow perception of reality." He sees the model of the future (sustainable) society in Heiderson's model, i.e., in "...cultural transformation of the petrochemical age and industrial era into the new Solar Age." The culture of the solar age is all-inclusive: it contains environmental concerns, embraces a multitude of civil society groups, and is centred on social and environmental problems. The new type of economic management appears (decentralised and co-operative), which is a merger between an ecologically sensitive lifestyle and spirituality. Technologies should be based upon environmental principles and dovetail with the new system of values.

In Culture and Technology: War of Civilisations, 44 the Russian philosopher V. A. Kutyrev considers the model of sustainable society as the ultimate aim of harmonious development, based on cultural traditions, through which humans' natural needs and social basics are manifested.

As we can see, the subject matter here is all about a new system of values, about the connection between ecology and spirituality. The suggested global model of sustainable development of society was based on the old system of values, which has brought it into disrepute. In this respect, the views of Moiseyev, spelled out in his work Man and the Noosphere,52 deserve our attention. Referring to V. I. Vernadsky, he says that "the societal development, coordinated with nature, responsibility for nature and its future integrity will bring about a special organisational grid and create special social structures with capacity to provide co-ordinated development" (e.g., local spiritual-ecological eco-social megapolises with the right to self-government and non-traditional sustenance systems).

Modern society is comparable, in many ways, to an abstract society. Humanity is divided into two camps: one wants to survive and stay 'within the bounds of humaneness' and the other, the more aggressive one, wants greater reliance on self-programmed technical systems driven by artificial intellect. According to Kutyrev, the contradictions between the two, which have been latent so far, will acquire a dominating presence in the 21st century. Broadly speaking, we are talking about the struggle between spirituality and lack of spirituality, ecological compatibility and incompatibility. Proponents of nonspirituality and ecological incompatibility don't need culture, traditions, or history. The victory of global tendencies over historical heritage will spell out the end of human history. Kutyrev states:

Culture is the air, the atmosphere in its ultimate manifestation—it is the ozone layer of the civilisation, without which it won't exist as humanity for a long time. Nature, the animated human corporality is the soil that humanity grows on. Take it away, and there would be no atmosphere and no culture.

Further, he draws a conclusion: a concept of sustainable development will rest on firm footing once it aims to achieve a logical and obvious goal: sustainable society should be based on both the outer and inner environment surrounding the human being, i.e., harmony between people and nature. The result would be a human race that is sensitive, rational, spiritual, holistic, and aware of its role in nature.

In the sustainable or, better yet, harmonious society, the emphasis should be placed on stabilizing innovations; on dynamic equilibrium rather than just progress; the attainment of high level culture and spirituality rather than a civilisation of abstract dimensions.

Gumilyov 21 interprets the theory of dynamic equilibrium as an ethno-landscape balance which determines social development. He examines models of sustainable local landscapes and ethnic groups and surprisingly proves that directly through them, human and societal links with the natural environment are realised, inasmuch as ethos is, in essence, a natural phenomenon. This scholar believes that ethnographic and economic diversity provides sustainability for societies and countries and determines their status. He maintains that all ethnos formations should strive towards a gradual transfer to this ethnoscenic balance with its diversity of forms within the boundaries of a society or a state.

As we can see, there are significant differences between the concept of sustainable development as offered to humanity in Rio de Janeiro for implementation through national action plans and other development models with different philosophical-methodological approaches and priorities, life values, and strategic aims.

According to the Law on System Development at the Expense of the Environment, 65 all development which does not fully engage natural resources is reduced to absurdity.

This law is also applicable to social systems. However, when the subject is a 'sustainable development', a warning is introduced: "within the bounds of bearing capacity supporting the ecosystem". At the same time, G. Daily, Y. Tinberg, T. Haavelmo, and other notable economists proved that the world is already "filled to the brim" with economic systems and nature can no longer be considered simply as a source of limitless resources, but rather should be approached as the foundation for life. 23 Modern ways of development lead to instability and the deepening of the crisis. In order for the future to happen at all, a retreat or slowing down of the pace of development and a certain healing process must take place. No development is possible when the life forces of humanity and nature are exhausted. It is worth talking about the 'harmonisation of life values', or 'life forces'—and only after we appreciate these can we discuss the achievement of a 'sustainable society.' It is all about the concept of retreat, slowing down the rate of growth, healing for the sake of the harmonisation of life forces (natural, material, spiritual, cultural, and social) and the achievement of a sustainable society. The 'development' concept should give way to 'harmonisation' with an emphasis on spiritual values. This means the orderliness of life as opposed to chaos and the full and total co-ordination of the laws and principles of human life with the laws of nature and ecology. With this approach, the noosphere idea, noospherogenesis as the rational existence of people and nature, becomes the focal point in this process of harmonisation.

It can be argued that it is not that bad that Ukraine, as well as Russia and Belarus, are lagging behind the American/European rush to 'sustainable development.' This lag allows for some time to think through the development philosophy, learn from the mistakes of others, and make our own national choices for a harmonious future. Fortunately, even today Ukrainians hold spiritual values in high esteem. The 'rat race' towards American/European standards corrupts spirituality. We need national standards for the quality of life built on our own national values and priorities.

From our point of view, the harmonisation of the life activities of society must be based on the following general principles:

• philosophical values of human and social life based on the cultural and spiritual traditions and socio-ecological integrity of the natural environment;

• ecological healing of natural entities and landscapes, reduction of technogenic load, and the harmonisation of society and state;

• defining wisdom and culture as a measure of and noosphero-genesis as a methodological basis for the harmonisation process;

• harmonisation of life is the simultaneous improvement of the physical and the spiritual nature of humanity and is considered by society as an absolutely necessary measure for the rehabilitation and restoration of the life forces of nature, using biotic regulation methods as a way to achieve and maintain the dynamic equilibrium of all life forces (spiritual, natural, and material);

• humanising all education as a way of life, as a driving force of the harmonisation process and the enrichment of the life forces of humanity, society, and state;

• defining innovation and change as methods for lending support to sustainability and the dynamic equilibrium of life forces;

• adjusting technologies to local conditions and achieving independent energy sources and self-sufficiency based on the principles of social justice;

• defining the life forces for humankind, family, ethnos, society, nations, and states as a higher set of values.

In Ukraine, a school of life harmonisation is beginning to take shape. It is based on the teachings of the first president of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Vernadsky, who introduced the ideas on animated matter, noosphere, and the biological integrity of life. A publication has been prepared covering various approaches to the problems of noospherogenesis and harmonious development.80

Life harmonisation models can be analysed following the studies performed on small scale eco-centers or socio-cities (Ye. K. Marchuk).47 Based on numerous modern scientific, philosophic-theoretical works, periodicals on the strategy for the development of civilisation, and the specifics of modern social and economic development, including fundamental works by D. Bell, V. Inozemtsev, M. Kastels, A. Maslow, Sh. Tatsuno, and D. Tapscott, Ye. K. Marchuk all offer and confirm the idea of a socio-city as a new type of social-ecological-economic societal order directing us towards original territorial corporations with a variety of life harmonisation mechanisms. The author is confident that the implementation of the eco-socio-urban model "will be able to quickly solve the problem of using the potential of modern social trends and direct the internal transformation of our society in such a way that will make the international integration of Ukraine... a natural process."

The suggested principles of life harmonisation and eco-socio-urban models can be implemented in the Dnipro basin using the expertise of international co-operation and the experience of the environmental rehabilitation of the world's major rivers—the Danube, Amazon, Nile, and especially the Mekong, with its ecological-cultural integrity.

The International Dnipro Programme (Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of Belarus) has already started functioning within the framework of the UNDP/GEF project Preparation of a Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the Dnipro River Basin and Development of SAP Implementation Mechanisms.

From the authors' point of view, the strategic action plan should be developed taking into account the above-stated principles of life harmonisation with their practical demonstration using the example of minor eco-socio-cities. There are a number of steps for achieving this.

First, the programme of international co-operation should be brought to the highest state level—the level of the Presidents of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus.

Second, communities should be activated by establishing an International Dnipro Basin Cities Association under the patronage of the presidents of the partnering states.

Third, a mixed governmental-public executive entity should be established—a Basin Steering Committee—with a mandate to initiate and monitor strategic decisions.

And finally, a Dnipro International Convention, built upon the millennia-old experience of understanding the spiritual principles of the harmonious development and stabilisation of life of nations and countries should be designed and approved to become a part of everyday life of people residing in the basin area.

Borysphen will be the first to disclose the path
With gifts and tongues more attractive.

Nostradamus (Centuries)

Document(s) 8 of 10