is it building great big concrete jungles and increasing the per capita income of a particular nation or is it self-sustainance or is it merely an account of rate of increase of the human lifespan or is it being in possession of the max. possible no. of technologies and gadgets.
if self-sustainance is the key.. are the indigeneous tribes of Papua New Guinea more developed than the japanese??
2007-03-07 14:03:54 · 4 answers · asked by oortcloud333 1 in Environment
This is a big question with a big answer. i did some modules on sustainable development during my degree. I've cut and pasted some definitions for you!
Sustainable development: A pattern of social and structural economic transformations which optimises the economic and other social benefits available in the present, without jeopardising the likely potential for similar benefits in the future.
I was only looking at development from a sustainability perspective, and the consensus of opinion seems to be that truly sustainable development is un-achievable.
As for your question about the Papuan tribesman, I think that all definitions of development involve some sort of technological or sociological 'advancement' and so I think Japan would be considered more developed than Papua irrespective of which definition you used. Also note that self-sustainability is nothing like development and the two are arguably mutually exclusive!!
I'm sorry I can't give a better answer. it really is a complex question. And I'm sorry you've received such a paucity of answers!! Says a lot about the types that use this site eh!!
2007-03-08 09:46:15 · answer #1 · answered by pugsley 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At this stage I would like to throw in a wildcard.. I think development is truely about the people who can imagine something that appears as a remote dream and make it a reality i.e. the dan dare comic thought about us being able to have a rocket ship as a fantasy however later people were aspired and acheived this.. this to me is development its the people who make a stand and do something that seems not acheivable..(and the people who support them)
2007-03-14 11:49:00 · answer #2 · answered by Dan M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as you indicate "development" depends very much on context.
Development really just means change, bad for some, occasionally good for the environment - but mostly good for those with power who write the history books or go to summits & conferences.
A good book/vidoe on this is Ancient Futures - learning from ladakh by Helena Norberg Hodge
there is good archeological evidence that development of agriculture initially initially lead to worse health & longevity for the majority of people; compared to the hunter gatherer culture that preceeded it.
2007-03-08 22:05:34 · answer #3 · answered by fred 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_development
2007-03-07 22:50:20 · answer #4 · answered by mcfifi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋