For us socialists, with our vision set on the future and the full realization of the new generations, we are greatly concerned about the destruction of ecosystems and the displacement of the peoples who inherit these natural resources. and we understand that inequality and inequity are intrinsically related to the control of these resources and the use that is given to them.

The prevailing economic system in the world seeks to maintain the pace of wealth accumulation at the cost of destroying the livelihoods of entire peoples and to the detriment of energy, water, forestry and agricultural resources, mainly in poor nations. . They obey interests unrelated to the benefit of the peoples, which have been created following the designs dictated by transnational companies in large tourism, mining and extraction projects that have little or no positive impact on the quality of life of populations that already live in a situation of marginalization.

Hence, as socialists, it cannot be otherwise, we defend the right to universal education and the training of affected communities on issues of immediate relevance such as water pollution, the creation of recycling zones, the construction of megaprojects and the expropriation of aquifers, among others.

The concept of sustainable development is to manage the earth's resources and meet our needs today without impairing the opportunities of future generations to meet their needs.

To have a clear idea of ​​what our excessive consumption is like and that we live on our assets, it may be interesting to use the concept of the ecological footprint of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The idea of ​​an ecological footprint is that we need to understand how much of an impact humans have on our environment and the world, which all future generations will inherit from us.

What does that tell us? Well, if the world's people lived like developed countries do, the path to environmental catastrophe would be even faster. The earth would be doomed, at least for most of all life on earth. It is not a sustainable development.

Sustainable development is divided into three parts, three dimensions, which can be said to overlap and go together, but still need to be kept separate.

The reason for this division is that the concept of sustainable development is very broad and comprehensive. We simply have to appreciate them from different angles.

The three dimensions are: social sustainability, ecological sustainability and economic sustainability. So what do these three dimensions mean?

1. Social Sustainability

Although extreme poverty has decreased in the world during the last 20 years, there are still many millions of people who live in great poverty, misery and hunger. Wars of all kinds and conflicts mercilessly affect people in vulnerable areas. The lack of democratic rights, equality between men and women and the oppression of minority populations are constant dilemmas in many countries and territories.

Social sustainability is basically about people, no matter where in the world they live, living in safety. People should not have to go to bed hungry or lack democratic, human and social rights. It is simply about working for a fairer world.

1. Economically sustainable

When discussing economic sustainability in research, socialists generally make a distinction between two points of view.

The first position is based on the premise that economic sustainability is achieved only when economic growth in the world no longer has a negative impact on the environment or human life. The dilemma with this approach is how to lift people out of poverty without economic growth where business and industry play an important role. We know, among other things, that all human production and consumption leaves a mark on the environment.

The second position emphasizes that it is important to lift people out of extreme poverty and that economic sustainability be equated with economic growth. Therefore, human needs take precedence over the negative environmental impact that growth creates. Therefore, economic sustainability according to this approach is not in line with the objective of ecological sustainability.

1. Ecological sustainability

Ecological sustainability is based on the premise that humans must strive to create a long-term, non-toxic environment in which our future generations can live, have clean air, and drinkable water. There must also be biological diversity where plants and animals do not become extinct.

Since the industrial revolution in the late 18th and 19th centuries, human emissions of various toxic substances and greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere have increased markedly. Most current researchers claim that it is human factors that have created the climate change we are facing now. Extreme climate change can have devastating consequences for future generations.

Many countries, including Chile, have not created the instances or spaces that guarantee ecological sustainability, on the contrary, every day the country is looted from different fronts, since profit is the watchword.

In other parts of the world, however, there are many countries whose emissions are still too high. The countries that emit the most carbon dioxide in the world today are: the US, China and India. Together, they account for a large part of the total emissions in the world. Getting these three countries to reduce their emissions is one of the most important international environmental issues of our time.

Just after the turn of the millennium (2000), the United Nations (UN) adopted eight goals to achieve sustainable development in the world. These goals, also called the Millennium Development Goals, were to be achieved by 2015. All 193 UN member states agreed to the Millennium Development Goals, which was a prerequisite for their achievement.

When the UN assessed the goals in 2015, member states concluded that very positive things have happened and some secondary goals have been met, but that much remains to be done to achieve sustainable development. For this reason, in September 2015, the 193 member states of the UN adopted what is known as the 2030 Agenda, which are 17 new global objectives for sustainable development that must be achieved by 2030.

Future generations are entitled to a world rich in natural resources and biodiversity (diverse richness of species between plants and animals) while people should not have to live in extreme poverty.

The most important reason that drives us as socialists, is to create opportunities so that all the people who come after us can live in a world that is not polluted beyond recognition, where the oceans are depleted and the water is not undrinkable due to contamination. Living sustainably could be summed up as not living beyond our means. But unfortunately, that's what people in the rich part of the world do.

As socialists and defenders of the environment, an issue that is not new, but one that is becoming relevant, is that what we humans produce and consume leaves a mark on the environment. This goes for everything from cars and computers to clothing and food.

A car being manufactured requires the use of many natural resources that leave different footprints on the environment. We buy clothes that are made in low-wage countries where poor women and children work long hours in dangerous, semi-slavery work environments or for minimum wages. And the fruit that we buy has sometimes been transported halfway around the world to reach supermarkets and department stores. We also traveled to areas and continents that almost no one from outside had visited or knew of their existence a hundred years ago. How many of us think, for example, that our trips have an impact on the environment through emissions?

This column is an invitation to think about the Chile that we want to leave to the new generations of Chileans, I mean our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, opposing the indiscriminate looting of our resources, the ruthless destruction of forests, pollution of the waters, the destruction of nature sanctuaries with great biodiversity.

Projects like Dominga are for the socialists an attack on the human rights of future generations. We cannot be indifferent to the destruction of biodiversity, to pollution and destruction.

In a future column, I will address the repercussions that the delivery of lithium to private hands by the infamous government of Sebastián Piñera supposes for Chile, revealing the concept of national sovereignty and defense of the country's basic wealth, versus , the neoliberal Chile, of looting and corruption.