The Rio+20 conference on sustainable development left billions of people disenchanted, disenfranchised, disappointed, and disgusted with a future no-one wants.
Of particular importance is the fact that indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups around the world feel that the New Green Economy will rob them of their traditional lands, livelihood and rights, and in the process destroys entire cultures and constitutes a de facto genocide by subtle means.
The land grabbing for utilization of growing bio-fuels has billions in arms now and even US farmers are feeling the pinch with the extreme droughts decimating crop yields of corn and other staples.
My question is should there be prime directives to avoid this?
Besides the obvious connotation of the concept introduced in the Star Trek series, there are already environmental prime directives e.g. www.chrismaser.com/pdirective.htm.
But since sustainable development is about three components, economic, social and environmental, a prime directive on social and cultural aspects seems to make sense.
A very popular political ideology popularized by globalist sociologist Amitai Etzioni being communitarianism, would like to eliminate nations, religion, borders and create one global federal government.
This would mean wipe-out of entire cultures.
See: icps.gwu.edu for literature on communitarianism.
Lately the concept of the Green Economy has been hijacked by communitarianist thinkers and actually the island nation of Aruba, where I live is being used as a posterboy to herald the advent of communitarianism as the lead ideology to accomplish sustainable development and the Green Economy.
See: the Carbon War Room at www.carbonwarroom.com
And Aruba is being used to con all island nations into following the communitarianist ways.
So back to the original question, do we need prime directives for sustainable development?