https://bcorporation.net/welcome-sdg-action-manager More on reddit.com

Critiquing the indicators is a fairly technocratic exercise. I would say there is more debate about the value of the SDGs themselves, and what they say about how we think about poverty in the global south. If you read some 'critical development studies' literature (say, James Petras, Henry Veltmeyer) it is fairly critical about these kinds of conceptualizations. Basically, the SDGs present a certain discourse around poverty that suggests the solutions can be found in 'sustainable' development, which balances the basic needs of individuals and the environment with liberal market reforms. This may appear quite different from the aggressive neo-liberal (Washington Consensus) form, but it essentially the same. We are still told that the problems of the South can be solved with more market and better governance if they are to become more like the North. Of course, this is all a very simplistic take on global inequality - it ignores the long history of imperialism, colonialism, and continued practices of neo-colonialism (intervention, unequal economic regimes). I think it is Sarah Radcliffe who says this whole thing (sustainable development, global charity) is part of a 'commons-impoverishment paradox', whereby we are told about all the good that is being done in the world, all while nothing is done to address the systemic (global) causes of Southern poverty. More on reddit.com

I'm a sustainability professional, and I myself know that we can't achieve any of these by 2030 unless we dismantle neoliberal capitalism. More on reddit.com

My anecdotal experience is that individuals studying technology tend to have little interest in societal issues and are not likely to base important career decisions on facts concerning sustainability. I obviously think this is bad. Is this an accurate picture? And, what can or should be done to remedy this disinterest?

More on reddit.com