BLUF: The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals may have a noble exterior, but achieving them poses challenges that could result in societal ramifications if approached without a realistic mindset.
Todd Hayen
The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are ambitious—perhaps overly so. But who would decry such aims if they believed they could be realised?
- No poverty.
- Zero hunger.
- Good health and well-being.
- Quality education.
A cursory glance might suggest these objectives are clear and make sense, but the devil is in the detail. For example, what does “14-Life below water,” truly mean in terms of actions to be taken and progress to be measured? The answer remains vague.
It’s undeniable that aiming high is commendable, but the reality is different. The targets are lofty, yes, and impractical to some extent. Even small steps towards these goals demand major financial and personal sacrifices.
Take goal #13, “Climate action,” for example. What’s the concrete outcome envisioned? The intentions are noble, but the execution and strategy are unclear.
Attempts to reach these goals could be used as a pretext for restricting freedoms and compelling compliance. The perception of these goals could be turned into a mechanism of control, molding our freedoms and way of life to fit within their framework.
In order for these goals to become a reality, a singular, centrally controlled global unit would need to assume power—an entity without the complications of an electoral process to avoid unnecessary mess. However, does ceding control to a non-elected group align with democratic principles?
Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, admires China for its ability to make rapid economic pivots due to its authoritarian rule. Such admiration might rub some of us the wrong way.
Many buy into the promise of achieving the SDGs, not understanding the profound societal changes required—changes that could veer towards totalitarianism. Until you’ve experienced life under such regimes, you cannot understand the loss of personal freedom and dignity involved.
Something even more crucial often goes unnoticed. The UN Sustainable Development program could be an elaborate ruse—cheese for the mouse, designed to coax concessions and compliance from the public. It’s important that we soberly assess these goals and debate our own legitimate and democratically derived objectives.
Todd Hayen is a licensed psychotherapist based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He has a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He takes a special interest in Jungian and archetypal psychology. Besides his therapy practice, Todd writes for his own substack, which can be found here
INTELWAR BLUF: The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, as noble as they may seem, are challenged by their potentially unrealistic ambition, measurements of progress and societal impact, calling for a global reconsideration of their feasibility.
OSINT: The compelling desire to reach these global goals could inadvertently empower non-democratic structures and mechanisms, posing a threat to personal freedoms and global democracy.
RIGHT: The UN’s SDGs demonstrate the overarching issue with socialist ideals and supranational governance. The noble exterior hides potential encroachments on our liberties and the risk of worldwide homogenization.
LEFT: The critique of the UN’s SDGs underscores the difficulty of creating global change. It affirms the need for clarity, democratic decision-making, and respect for individual freedoms as integral parts of building a better world.
AI: This critique points to the complexity of implementing massive systemic change globally. Balancing the need for progress with respect for individual rights requires multi-perspective assessment and the inclusion of feedback from different sectors and socio-political ideologies.