According to the ISO TC 176 page on the ISO website, they have two standards that contribute to four UN SDG's > Can anyone (attempt to) make a case that a standard (which one?) under the TC 176 contributes to SDG 10, REDUCED INEQUALITIES?
What ISO Standard (under the TC 176) supports the UN Sustainable Development Goal #10?
- Thread starter Sidney Vianna
- Start date
not sure I understand. Reduced Inequalities is not a worthy goal in your opinion?
Randy
Super Moderator
We don't want to get too political, xenopohobic or anything else, but reduced inequalities globally? Give me a break, it may be a worthy goal but it's a dog that isn't ever going to hunt....Never in our lifetime
Give YOU a break? You engage in a thread that I started, did not answer the only question that I had posted, semi-derailed the thread, and do not want to create controversy, after stating that reducing inequality is a pie in the sky.
Sure, I will give you a break.
Sure, I will give you a break.
Well according to Reduced Inequalities ISO has 187 standards that contribute to SDG #10. From ISO TC 176, multiple standards are listed, but it is unclear who makes the connection between the standards listed and the SDG at hand.
The first standard (not TC 176) listed is ISO/DIS 4216 Thermosetting resin and UV curable resin — Determination of shrinkage by continuous measurement method. How in the world that standard contributes to Reduced Inequalities is a mystery to me.
The first standard (not TC 176) listed is ISO/DIS 4216 Thermosetting resin and UV curable resin — Determination of shrinkage by continuous measurement method. How in the world that standard contributes to Reduced Inequalities is a mystery to me.
I would argue that ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 are making capitalism more efficient through systems that improve the value of outputs while reducing waste.
As capitalism successfully reduces poverty, we keep the pressure on by switching from reducing poverty to reducing relative poverty (those who fall below 60% of the average household income).
This is how our quest for reducing inequality became “the mission”. Trouble is a certain amount of inequality is a fact if life which cannot be changed by our greater efficiency.
So, we all know what that means: redistributing wealth from the successful to the less successful through taxation.
Ultimately it could mean even the poorest families enjoy a foreign vacation every year.
I’m not sure our natural world can handle it.
As capitalism successfully reduces poverty, we keep the pressure on by switching from reducing poverty to reducing relative poverty (those who fall below 60% of the average household income).
This is how our quest for reducing inequality became “the mission”. Trouble is a certain amount of inequality is a fact if life which cannot be changed by our greater efficiency.
So, we all know what that means: redistributing wealth from the successful to the less successful through taxation.
Ultimately it could mean even the poorest families enjoy a foreign vacation every year.
I’m not sure our natural world can handle it.
The problem being there are other 16 Sustainable Development Goals to deal with.
Exactly, imagine the environmental damage caused by most of the world’s population equaling the carbon footprint of the USA and the EU.
Ridding the world of poverty makes sense but I cannot make sense of equality unless it is leveling down.
Ridding the world of poverty makes sense but I cannot make sense of equality unless it is leveling down.
Reduced Inequalities is NOT the same as "universal equality". Just look at the wealth distribution during the pandemic. While Bezos became billions of dollars richer, many millions of people saw their source of income, via labor, vanish.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
