Are the “Contradictions in Sustainability” (Dovers & Handmer) Too Much to Bear?

In their 1993 article, "Contradictions in Sustainability," Dovers and Handmer examine the inherent contradictions within the concept of sustainability, particularly as it is currently understood and applied. They identify several key tensions:

• Is technology a solution to environmental problems, or does it contribute to them?

• How should decisions be made in the face of scientific uncertainty—should we act with caution or confidence?

• As the current generation, how should fairness between current and future generations? Among different populations?

• Does the pursuit of economic growth inevitably conflict with the need to respect ecological boundaries?

• Does the current state of our democratic systems hinder decisive action?

And more inside of the article.

The authors conclude by questioning whether these contradictions are insurmountable or if humanity's capacity to live with complexity could lead to sustainable solutions.

The essay reflects a familiar tension for me. This idea that the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. It’s not just an academic observation; it’s something I experience every day. I dive deeper into policy, environment, history, and philosophy, and instead of feeling like I’m getting closer to full understanding, it feels like I’m constantly uncovering new layers of uncertainty. This idea of the "ignorance explosion" really puts words to that feeling. We’re flooded with more information than ever, but instead of clarity, we get more questions, more contradictions, and an overwhelming sense of how complex everything really is. That complexity is why I’ve been drawn to studying philosophy and political theory. I don’t just want to address surface-level policy issues, I want to challenge the underlying structures and assumptions that create these contradictions in the first place. The quote, "social movements and governments talk of change but this tends to be change at the margins only; there is not an evident intention to change society's underlying assumptions, activities, and hence destiny," is exactly why I think so many mainstream sustainability efforts feel ineffective. They work at the edges, but they don’t ask the deeper questions like why we assume growth is always good or why we keep faith in tech as a solution when it typically just creates new problems or why is intergenerational equity framed as a future concern when communities today are already being sacrificed for economic gain?

To actually address these contradictions, I think we need to focus more on changing the why rather than just the what. For example, the obsession with technological advancement isn't inherently bad, but it's dangerous when we assume that just any application of technology is inherently necessary or beneficial without thinking about the deeper implications. In a similar way, the paradox of humility and arrogance in decision-making is something I see everywhere, especially in environmental policy. We are humble in the face of the status quo, unwilling to challenge it, but arrogant in defending it. That’s why industries like fossil fuels and industrial agriculture continue unchecked. If we reversed that dynamic and had the humility to admit that the way we’ve been doing things is failing but the boldness to actually make radical changes, we might have a chance at real transformation. The quote from this section spoke to me,

"our knowledge will at best be incomplete and at worse wrong in every respect."

These contradictions are the reason why so many movements struggle to make meaningful progress, and they reinforce to me why my own work needs to be about rethinking systems at their core. I think that what frustrates me the most is that they are not inevitable even if all my family and friends speak about them as if they are. These contradictions exist because of choices (political, economic, cultural choices) and that means they can be unmade. Even though there is a contradiction once again, that the former contradictions also emerge from the circumstance vs. choice contradiction in choice theory. Structural forces like historical injustices, systemic inequality, and environmental conditions tend to limit the range of choices available to individuals and communities. So, while we can technically "unmake" these contradictions, it will take more than better choices made by the one. It will take transforming underlying circumstances that often dictate which choices are even possible in the first place for many. But that requires confronting the uncomfortable reality that many of our deepest-rooted assumptions about progress, success, and governance are built on severely flawed foundations.