The Indians’ Digital Media & Communication For Sustainable Development

From January 2007, after 13 years of blogging for Asian & PH Agriculture, today I am at the stage of my journalistic career where I am looking elsewhere for other advocacies and expressions of sustainable development. That is how I found on the Internet the book Media & Communication in Sustainable Development published by the Society for Education & Research Development, SERD, in Haryana, India (above image from the cover). It is a thick book, more than 400 pages, and there are more than 40 authors, an average of 10 pages each. I am not surprised, because “communication for sustainable development” is a new and hot topic. And next to the Philippines, India claims mastery of a second language, English, except that their variant is British and PH is American.

The book is edited by Vikas Kumar & Pawan Gupta. Mr Kumar has a PhD from Kurukshetra University in Haryana, India, and authored 2 books. Mr Gupta is Director of the Army Institute of Management & Technology in Greater Noida.

I am a Filipino residing in Manila, but I love their book because it tackles 3 subjects very, very close to my heart: media, communication and sustainable development.

I have been studying the book for 3 days, and I am sorry to say it fails itself. Well, it succeeds 50% – there is the media-communication part; in fact, the book is all communication. But it fails 50% – the sustainable development part. No author and no Editor ever mentions, which means they all assumed, that everybody knew and everybody agreed on what they were thinking as sustainable development. A dangerous professorial absent-mindedness! (They even forgot the year of publication – I can’t see it. I must say the Editors and the Publisher are not digital masters.)

The definition or description or delineation of what is “sustainable development” should be right in the Editor’s Introduction for the readers to appreciate the book.

If you ask me what I consider sustainable development, I will say that it must be technically feasible and economically viable and environmentally sound and socially acceptable.

Technically feasible– As planned and claimed, the technology or system, T/S, works. This is operations. Economically viable – Proven in repeated uses by farmers, say, the T/S is economical in resources and therefore worthy of being adopted. Environmentally sound – The T/S does not waste environmental resources, or only very little of it. Socially acceptable – The users are the final arbiter of a T/S – do they accept it?

In the Preface, the book says:

Sustainable development is a Global will to improve everyone’s quality of life, including that of future generations, by reconciling economic growth, social development and environmental protection.

It is the quality of life that is all-important.

However, definition of quality of life is very much subjective in nature and varies from one continent to another, from one region to another, one country to the next and most importantly one community to another.

That is exactly why you have a 4th requirement for sustainable development: socially acceptable!@517

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Knorr Of Big Business Unilever Thinks Big Business Regenerative Agriculture – My Tiny Country PH Also Should!

Image
“Knorr’s plan for 50 regenerative agriculture projects is predicted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water use by an estimated 30% while improving biodiversity, soil health and livelihoods.” That is regenerative agriculture (RA) news by Julian Cirineo (05 Nov 2021, “Unilever Wants To Rethink How Farms Work To Secure Food And Resources For The Future,” Rappler , rappler.com ). Note: 50 (not 5 only) RA projects to improve greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and water use by 30% – plus improving biodiversity, soil health and livelihoods. Note the last 7 words in the above paragraph. How can RA improve biodiversity? RA requires that the farmer practices multiculture (a few or many crops grown at the same time in the same place), where monoculture (such as rice-only or corn-only) is the practice – the biodiversity improves crop health because of the ensuing balance of nature, such as some organisms feed on other organisms that would otherwise become pests or cause diseases. RA is your
Read more

In Looking At The Crown Of Thorns, I Found The Clowns

Image
We could use a surprise sense of humor!  Yes, especially on the wide problematic fields of Agriculture. There was this news that some high PH government officials wanted to probe Vice President Leni Robredo for “competing against” PH agencies in providing much-needed assistances during this coronavirus lockdown, and Marigs Laririt shared a picture-story on Facebook quoting Ms Leni as saying, “I didn’t know it was competition. I didn’t see any competitors!” Ms Marigs says, “Ay, parang friends ko kung sumagot si Mam.” (Ay, with Mam, it’s just like my friends answering back.) That is a two-handed backslap, and you can imagine the lady laughing! She is the humor-monger; they are the clowns. Today is Friday, 03 April 2020 and in one account ( Wikipedia ), Friday the 3 rd of April was crucifixion of Jesus and his crowning of thorns [1] . (images: Crown of Thorns [2]  from St Anthony Messenger , 1 st clown [3]  from The Guardian , 2 nd clown [4]  from Shutterstock ) About the living clowns I
Read more

“Natural Farming” – Aggie Journalists, We Must Be Careful With The Terms We Use!

Image
Look at the contrasting images: Which one is correct in claiming what is being practiced is “natural farming”? Top Image: This one accompanies the Anonymous WWF-Philippines story, “Mindanao Farmers Start Off the Year with Natural Farming Systems Technology” published online December 2019 [1] . The World Wide Fund, WWF, is a very credible international source of knowledge on conservation, right? Not this time. Very clearly, you can see the white plastic mulch covering the furrows and bare soil in-between them. Mr or Ms Anonymous, the plastic mulch is not natural. The soil not covered in-between furrows is not natural. So much soil bare, not natural, allowing so much natural water wasted because it had evaporated from the unprotected, hot soil surface! That is not conservation; that is not natural. The term “natural” is used here very carelessly . Aggie journalists, wake up! How come I noticed all that immediately when I saw the photograph? Because I learned my organic farming more t
Read more