Everyone knows that now it is no longer the case

Air and water, among economists of the 19th century, were canonical examples: vital elements, but Exchange value zero. They were then considered as available in unlimited quantities. Their economic value was equal to zero. Everyone knows that now it is no longer the case. Air polluting, purity is a cost, and the water represents today a major geopolitical issue. In other words, the infinite has left us. On a final basis, the world became aware of this reality: non-renewable land are available in a finite quantity. To what effect

Started by conclusion, as early as the 1970s, that the model of industrial development based on the massive consumption of coal, oil and gas was impossible to "support", as we say in English ("sustain"). According to the World Wild Fund, so that all of humanity consumes as much energy per capita than the citizens of the United States, should be five or six additional planets. Thus was born the idea of another world, which would be "sustainable", which would be taken into account the environment at the same time as the economic and social.

The reflections of the Club of Rome on the zero growth and decay, initiated in 1972, the analysis of the philosopher Hans Jonas ("The principle responsibility", 1979), the various summits of the Earth (including Rio in 1992) led to the development of a vast nebula of ideas. To be intertwined over the years, ecological awareness, concern for future generations, calls to decay, but also anti-capitalist struggles, refusal of the westernisation of the world, will deflate the technical progress, dream of slow or even reverse the productivity race... This patchwork coexist the best, worst, reasonable proposals, delusional puffs.

The phrase "sustainable development" was eventually encompass the whole. In doing so, it was not sufficiently noted that it contains a contradiction in terms, at least a tension between two ideas. Because no development, by definition, cannot last indefinitely: no expansion in any field whatsoever, is eternal. "Sustainable" and "development", should therefore choose on which side the focus is and what path it takes: opt for the sustainable and put on hold development advocate stagnation, the immobility of the status quo or to the contrary development assuming a share of impermanent, fleeting, horizon finished.

This last option is not necessarily suicidal for humanity. We have all learned that civilizations were fatal and everyone finds that empires collapse, of Rome to the Soviet Union. Endure this precarious condition does not assume our responsibility towards the planet and our descendants. The la mer sea of Aral, yesterday almost dry, reborn today its sands sign, among others, that nothing is ever quite lost.

Eternally sustainable development did not exist, need us a development capable to continue, but responsibly which is very different. Calm in the race for power, regulate energy consumption, avoid, as much as possible, the self-destruction in the short term of the global system... Many no doubt difficult to implement objectives, which may put almost everyone agree. Still we should not throw mankind with polluted water... Seems to forget how, since always, there is the human species that is developing, and only thus. The actual human universe: a life forever expanding. It may therefore be radically surrender this dimension, because it is essential. Preserve humanity means, above all, preserve sustainable development regulated, box, reasonable, but in no case cancelled.