Dr Voicu’s approach is IMHO far too institutional and academic, and fails to appreciate the role of the individual and individual conscience. He quotes from the Unesco Constitution that “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed. Peace must be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.”

Peace arises from the understanding and volition of individuals, not from mankind in the abstract. It doesn’t arise from intellect, rationality and debate but at a far deeper level. The differences between us which give rise to violence between individuals and groups arise from fundamental ignorance, delusion and illusion as to the nature of reality and as to what promotes our individual and collective well-being. These factors can be overcome only by the development in each individual of wisdom, insight, understanding the world as it really is, not only how it seems to be.

The world and everything in it, including us, is composed of sub-atomic particles arising and passing away with great rapidity, depending on past conditions, cause and effect. Not understanding this, we develop illusions of ego, impermanence, me, mine. We seek, and fail to achieve, happiness by clinging to those things we believe make us happy, bolster our ego, by denying, having aversion to, those things we feel hurt or harm our fragile make-believe selves. We develop attachment, when peace both within us and between us can only come from non-attachment, from recognising impermanence, from letting go. Nothing in Voicu’s piece promotes this.

The late Achaan Cha, for many years the leading forest monk in Thailand, was the epitome of non-attachment, a master of teaching others how to develop their own wisdom. I’d encourage Dr Voicu to step out of academia and to see what else is on offer in Thailand.

I have often been struck by the common proposition that people with low pay/status jobs all have the potential to improve their lot with increased education and training. This implies that their current circumstance, and intrinsic low level of reward, is due to their lack of education.

This ignores a fundamental fact in the structure of our society and that is that our society is specialized into different work tasks. If our society needs 3% of workers to be cab drivers, then 3% of workers will be cab drivers. If it requires 4% of workers to be cleaners then 4% will be cleaners. If it requires 1% to be doctors then 1% will be doctors and so on. It is simply not possible for everyone to be in a position gained through special education or skill.

Everyone cannot be in the top layers of the pyramid no matter how much effort, training, education, etc is applied. All that can happen is that we will have more architects driving cabs than we have now and more sociologists on the dole than we have now – this makes for more dissatisfaction not less.

The only way to truly improve the lot of people with low pay/status jobs is to improve the pay/status of those jobs because in this pyramidal, specialized type of society those jobs; cleaners, process workers, labourers, etc will always be there and in more or less stable numbers - those jobs cant change but the pay and status attached to those jobs can.

I agree , a new stratagy is required to make available people who are long term public financed people to workplaces that require employees that are willing to work , this might include Farmers in drought situations , these people would be paid the same money that they would get if they were lolling around in the city , the industry or Farm or possibly Govt dept would pay half the basic wage in addition .
Jobs should be created for people unable to progress up the education ladder,especially those like the Bluntstone Workers who have no hope of getting another job in Tassie . One time farm employees now rot on the dole , drink and smoke too much , and cost us a fortune with health issues .

''Education is at the heart of human progress.''
Thank you, Dr Ioan Voicu, for presenting another sagacious report about the needs of people on this planet. It continues your support for The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, which, as you said before, “is a vision of education that seeks to empower people to assume the responsibility of creating a sustainable future.”
In my exploration of the future of schooling in rural Australia I have found that it is not just for universities that, “authentic solutions can be found only in an educational climate largely open to a genuinely democratic dialogue inspired and guided by universal values.” Schooling will experience transformation too.
I have also been warmed by the reminder, “That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.” I am troubled when I observe that the Australian people seem to have become confused about their history and what our forebears learned from the pain and suffering in two world wars.
Every reader will have personal experience of ways in which we Australians have moved away from the "defences of peace." The list would seem endless. My example, arising from my quest, is the systematic reduction in appropriate infrastructure for schooling in rural Australia and its consequent threat to human rights, not least to Aboriginal peaople. I do believe that working to solve this will enhance our understanding of what we might do universally and how we might do it more effectively, e.g. in the Pacific.
In commending the advice that you give, let me urge that UNESCO should be supported by all Australians in the challenge, “to integrate the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning. This educational effort will encourage changes in behaviour that will create a more sustainable future in terms of environmental integrity, economic viability, and a just society for present and future generations.”

Hear Hear Charles. But the debate needs the traction of guys who can put the issues in a pithy way if they are to capture the public imagination and support.

Fencepost

So what is “sustainable development”? In terms of economic growth, the issue of sustainability arises from the proven economic concept that an extra unit added to any production process will have a marginal return less than that of the preceding unit, with the return tending to zero. With such diminishing returns, economic growth would also tend to zero, which is observably not the case. Modern economic growth theory seeks to explain how growth can be sustained in the face of the theory of diminishing returns.

In advice to the Queensland Government last year I noted that the important messages from growth theory which the QG fails to understand are that -

competition is the main driver of innovation and productivity growth;
almost all wealth-generating innovation occurs in the private sector;
government policy should focus on promoting competition rather than on supporting particular firms or industries;
the failure of non-competitive firms is a necessary part of economic growth; and
relaxation of entry barriers may not succeed in promoting growth if not accompanied by other changes that are favourable to business development.

Another concept of “sustainability” in connection with economic growth, which is perhaps what UNESCO refers to, tends to convey that the form of economic growth should not be at the expense of future generations, whether in reducing their ability to maintain similar rates of growth or in severely damaging the environment so as to irremediably damage their quality of life. The concept is very nebulous and seems to imply that, although the world has made great gains over the last 250 years from innovation and technological advance at an increasing pace, it will be unable to do so in future. Perhaps Charles et al could explain why not?