Human numbers, environment, sustainability, and health
BMJ 1999; 319 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7215.977 (Published 09 October 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;319:977All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
"Because rich countries remain the main source of new knowledge and
new technologies, responsibility for finding paths to sustainability rests
mainly with them." Well said. Unfortunately, the rich countries, or at
least the dominant sections in rich countries, have not yet learnt to view
the world as a single whole. The world continues to be space to be
dominated. It used to be domination by conquering and colonising, now it
is domination through unfair economic and trade agreements. National self
interest takes precedence over global good. If corporations in the rich
countries do things that would exacerbate the rich-poor divide and make
sustainability increasingly difficult to attain, individuals in those
countries add their bit by consuming scarce natural resources at an
alarming rate. Development experts talk of the great importance of
education in the poor countries. I submit educating the rich countries
about the need to reduce consumption and conserve resources is equally, if
not more, important. Without that it would be futile to expect the rich
countries to find paths to sustainability.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Technical point regarding table
The attached table contrasting the 'good' and 'poor' performers makes
sense to me, except for the data on Gini coefficients, where the average
coefficient of the 'poor' performers appears substantially lower than of
the 'good' performers. The footnote, indicating that the data used to
calculate the Gini for the poor performers is based on a more limited
sample, provides a probable explanation for this, although the average and
range of the good performers is still surprisingly high.
Gini coefficient data, especially in developing countries, is of
questionable quality. I would predict that the accurate Gini of the 'good'
countries is lower than that of the 'poor' countries, (i.e. contrary to
what is reported) and thus provides a "neomaterial" explanation which
substantially accounts for the different outcomes.
Competing interests: No competing interests