The 17 SDGs Will Not Work Due to Its Fundamental Designed Flaws

In our global quest for sustainability, the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been presented as a panacea for the world’s challenges. Yet, when one peels back the layers, a troubling reality emerges. In short, the model is designed incorrectly just as an engine that’s designed incorrectly won’t work.

While this might be new to you, the overly complex, optimistically ill-defined set of “17” (and this term is used loosely) was crafted by over 200 contributors. It seemed more like a product of political maneuvering than pragmatism. Some insiders candidly admit that creating this model was like “herding cats,” an idiom denoting a futile attempt to control or organize a class of inherently uncontrollable entities. Even worse, achieving these goals by 2030 appears to be more about presenting a façade of hope than ensuring tangible outcomes.

What’s even more concerning? Beyond the 17 SDGs are 169 subcategories, adding to the complexity. This patchwork design, filled with inconsistencies and detached from on-the-ground realities, is an unstable blueprint for our future. This brief summary delves into the shortcomings of this widely-praised system, underscoring the dangers of depending on such a fractured, and more importantly a poorly crafted plan, for an overly ambitious framework.

Inconsistencies

Let’s begin with the fact that clarity and consistency in terminology are fundamental for any model to be effective. I came to grasp this foundational principle not from any academic course or professional training, but from an insightful revelation shared by my wife. She illuminated the fact that to make any “model work,” there needs to be a uniform set of terms and consistent grammar. Regrettably, when examining the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it’s apparent that this rudimentary principle was sidelined. Instead of a cohesive and streamlined guide for global advancement, the SDGs present a scattered assortment of terms and objectives. In striving for a global plan, the architects of the SDGs have delivered a patchwork that is more perplexing than illuminating.

Why Would You Care?

Before delving into the intricacies of the SDGs, you might ask: “Why should I concern myself with these flaws?” For some, it might simply be out of pure curiosity, which is perfectly fine. Others might realize that pinpointing the shortcomings in such frameworks can pave the way for crafting superior personal and collective strategies. From a global perspective, the challenge is we’re deploying resources in a manner that would for sure be better focused with better thinking. If you’re placing bets on the SDGs to reshape the world’s future, isn’t it valuable to be aware of their pitfalls as well as their potential?

Here is something to consider: An individual, just a step away from the apex of their country’s political hierarchy, candidly admitted, “Yes I know we won’t hit them by 2030 yet people need hope.” This wasn’t a politician plotting moves on a chessboard, but a leader genuinely expressing the sentiment that sometimes, a less-than-perfect plan, or a terrible plan, is perceived as better than no plan at all. Not long after, a key figure in the crafting of the SDGs reflected on the challenges of harmonizing the perspectives of 200 diverse minds. The underlying implication? Personal agendas might have overshadowed the grander aspirations.

So, were the key players behind the SDGs clouded by politics, ego, or self-satisfaction? Could organizations, in the thousands, potentially achieve grander feats by directing their energies towards initiatives with even more transformative potential?

Digging Deep Into the Construct

Now, let’s unveil the realities behind the SDGs with an eye toward making a difference.

Understanding the SDGs: Goals and Realities

At the outset, the SDGs delineate “Goals.” In essence, goals are specific targets that possess a definitive endpoint. Thus, according to the framework of the SDGs, in order to truly achieve these “goals,” each and every one of the 17 SDGs must be realized. It’s not about reaching a handful or the majority of them, but all 17.

To elucidate, let’s examine the second SDG: “Zero Hunger.” The term “zero” is unequivocal, indicating a complete absence of hunger. The bar is set incredibly high. Moreover, the stipulated timeline for achieving this is by the year 2030. It’s worth pondering: How many team members that endorsed this target hail from nations grappling with significant hunger issues even now? It’s quite likely that every country, to some extent, is facing the challenge of hunger. The same thinking can be applied to the first SDG: “No Poverty.”

The Quest for Global Sustainability

The fundamental assumption is that achieving all 17 SDGs would lead to global sustainability. But what does ‘sustainability’ truly signify?

To unpack this intricate notion, the baseline assumption suggests that by addressing and resolving all 17 SDGs (while bearing in mind the feasibility concerns just raised, as exemplified in our first point.), our world would be rendered sustainable. The United Nations delineates “sustainable” as the capacity “to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The essence of this definition underscores enduring ecological harmony, social justice, and economic stability.

However, in their ambition, the architects of the SDGs seem to have assembled more of a utopian wish list rather than a pragmatic roadmap that homes in on pivotal global challenges. A number of items in this list appear ancillary, and by chasing after them, there’s a risk of misallocating resources and undermining faith in the endeavor’s attainability. Effective planning mandates rigorous contemplation and resolute willpower to ensure that the ensuing initiatives truly deliver.

The Role of Design in Achieving SDGs

Both design and form are instrumental in steering human behavior and perceptions, as much of our daily actions respond to the designs around us. For instance, the way we open a door hinges on the handle’s design, our typing is shaped by the layout of a keyboard, and even languages, with inherent flaws, can inadvertently cause misunderstandings. This understanding underscores the fact that the sequence of the 17 SDGs is intentional, not random. Someone, or a collective, decided on their order, suggesting a hierarchy or progression from #1 to #17. Every design element, even the color, carries an implicit expectation or message.

Drawing Parallels: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Drawing a parallel, consider Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Abraham Maslow initially penned the concept to elucidate human behavior. Charles McDermid, a consulting psychologist, adapted Maslow’s ideas into the now-iconic pyramid, delineating the journey to self-actualization. This model, positioning Basic Needs at the base and ascending to Psychological Needs, has influenced countless lives, from education to software design. Both McDermid and Maslow profited handsomely, and even though Maslow later expressed reservations, he continued to endorse it, possibly due to its financial success.

However, the model has its flaws. It suggests that one can only achieve self-actualization after fulfilling all preceding needs. In reality, individuals can reach self-actualization even amidst poverty. Maslow himself seemed to acknowledge this, given that his initial work didn’t quite align with the pyramid, and he later endeavored to clarify his original intention before his death. In truth, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a solution that time and time again can be proven sloppy and more suited for marketing than redefining human excellence.

Reflect for a moment: What if the SDGs lacked their current numerical sequence or followed a different order? This shift might disrupt understanding or guide attention in an unexpected direction. Alternatively, imagine the SDGs arranged in a circle rather than a line, again with no numbering system.

Leading off the SDGs, we see #1 No Poverty, and #2 Zero Hunger. Are we to genuinely believe that eradicating poverty and hunger across the globe is a tangible reality? These two giants of challenges, which could have been the only two SDGs due to their immense interconnectedness, present a herculean task in themselves.

While penning these initial goals, should there have been a moment of pause? A realization that perhaps these aspirations were enough to set the direction for global efforts? It seems the minds in the room believed in a principle of all hands on deck — a noble sentiment. Yet the scope may have been cast too wide. Instead of securing progress on a singular front, the expansive reach of the SDGs might mean none fully reach their desired outcome by the stipulated timelines. And if we’re being real, certain objectives may remain ever elusive, even in an idealized society we’ve yet to craft. Our track record is testament enough; even in nations deemed “developed,” we’ve yet to meaningfully address poverty and hunger for our 8 billion co-inhabitants.

Diving into #14 Life Below Water and #15 Life on Land, we immediately face ambiguity. These are part of the Sustainable Development GOALS. Yet, as we scrutinize them, a trio of pressing concerns arise. First, what do these titles even mean? The absence of a clear definition leaves one pondering. The second concern is even more disconcerting. How, with a concise list of only 17 items, could there be such an oversight in foundational clarity? And the third thought that beckons: were these perhaps not so much “goals” but rather aspirational dreams, almost as if conjured with a sweep of a magical wand?

Shifting our gaze just a bit to the left on the chart, we encounter #13: Climate Action. And here, we’re left scratching our heads. How can “Climate Action” stand as a goal in its own right? Climate Action sounds more like a foundational activity, not a standalone goal. It’s as if we’re tossing goals, aspirations, and actions into a stew, making the whole construct harder to digest. Shouldn’t this segment clearly outline a tangible, achievable goal instead?

Navigating the maze of the SDGs to #6, “Clean Water and Sanitation,” seems to be another stumble on the path. To the casual observer, one could think, “Isn’t this clear-cut?” The significance of clean water is universal, as are the ramifications of effective sanitation. Ensuring these could potentially reduce hunger and even slow down the degradation of our marine ecosystems due to pollution.

However, diving deeper into this issue — and building on our previous discussions — highlights a prominent concern: this particular SDG doesn’t encapsulate a single, pinpointed goal.

Highlighting this, a 2022 headline declared, “Rainwater Everywhere Now Considered Too Toxic for Safe Consumption, Study Finds.” Alarmingly, harmful PFAS chemicals, which feature in everyday items ranging from cleaning products to personal care items like shampoos and makeup, have now tainted even the rain. These chemicals are pervasive, being found in locales as distant as Tibet and Antarctica. Consider the implications: asking women globally to forgo their daily makeup and hair product routines would mean halting the production and disposal of billions of gallons of these toxic chemicals. Yet, such a proposition is unrealistic. This emphasizes the complexity of the challenge.

Beyond the inherent complexity of this SDG, there’s the glaring issue of conflating two separate objectives under one banner: “Clean Water and Sanitation.” Although intertwined, each requires its distinct approach and solution. Yes, there is an overlap, but they are fundamentally different challenges.

Intriguingly, this trend of amalgamating, joining the objectives isn’t unique to just this SDG. A scan reveals that six boxes combine two goals together, adding to the murkiness and diluting the focus of the SDGs.

Do you already know where we are going to review next?

Two boxes among the SDGs ambitiously try to package three “goals” each. Let’s take a closer look at #9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. At first glance, one might be pressed to find the common thread. Yet, what do they mean??

It’s almost like that age-old Sesame Street game where they’d sing, “One of these things is not like the others.” Most of us, right from our early years, were taught to spot similarities and differences. And here, SDG #9 puts us to the test. How can “Industry,” “Innovation,” and “Infrastructure” — three broad and distinct concepts — coexist in a single category? Let alone, all three of them are not goals at all.

Now, shift your attention to #16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. Once again, we grapple with three notions that see varying interpretations across the globe. To put it in context: Some folks believe a nurturing, loving environment is the way to rear children who can stand on their own two feet. On the flip side, there are proponents of strict discipline, arguing that it crafts resilient adults. Both views might be valid. Reflect on your own upbringing; certain memories of love and care carried you through tough times, while challenges molded your character.

I share this not as a detour, but to illustrate a global conundrum that most of us can relate to. And, just to be clear, this isn’t about politicizing issues but rather shedding light on how varied perceptions can be, even on universally relevant matters.

Now, think of the global giants: China, the USA, or Russia. Setting aside personal opinions on their governance, can anyone deny their impactful presence on the world stage? If a voice in the room suggested the world should mirror China’s model, you might hear murmurs of, “Wait, are we suggesting autocracy?” However, SDG #16 speaks of “Strong Institutions,” not necessarily democratic, socialist, or any other form of governance.

If we venture into the realm of banking or global entities, clarity doesn’t necessarily emerge. There’s debate around the efficacy of institutions like the United Nations, with some viewing them as superfluous, emphasizing leaner global structures, and others believing that it’s a foundational part of keeping the world stable. Again, this isn’t a political dig, just an observation on the spectrum of global opinions.

Rounding it off with “Peace.” Does it signify universal harmony, an absence of discord, or a world without wars? And with the myriad interpretations of “peace” across different cultures, how does one craft a one-size-fits-all solution? If a powerful institution steps out of line, doesn’t it upset the balance?

Continuing our exploration of the SDGs, let’s hone in on #3: Good Health and Well-being. Upon reflection, isn’t the concept of ‘good health’ itself deeply entrenched in societal beliefs and perspectives?

Consider this analogy: Would we prefer a world that’s monochrome, a simple vanilla landscape? Or would we revel in a diverse palette, brimming with different flavors — a delightful medley complete with whipped cream, strawberries, and the essential sprinkles, all resting atop a decadent brownie? SDG #3 seems to steer us towards the former, advocating a homogenized version of health and well-being.

But this poses a conundrum. Not only are we trying to encapsulate two distinct “goals” in a single box, but we’re also grappling with goals that, at their core, might not truly be goals at all. They’re nebulous, hard to pin down, and seem to step into a realm of wishful thinking rather than actionable objectives.

Take ‘Well-being’ for instance. Its definition might vary dramatically from person to person. What constitutes well-being for one individual could be entirely different for another. Perhaps a chat with your friend, spouse, relative or significant other would reveal just how diverse our interpretations of well-being can be.

Expanding our critique, we now turn our attention to #17: Partnerships for the Goals. At its core, this seems to be a meta-goal — a strategy or a method to achieve the other goals. It’s akin to stipulating in a plan that one needs to devise another plan. Isn’t that what the SDGs are: a plan?

Drawing from our earlier Sesame Street reference, this would probably have the characters on the iconic children’s show scratching their heads in confusion. To put it plainly, while fostering partnerships is valuable for collaborative global action, it feels redundant to list it as a standalone goal. After all, isn’t collaboration implicitly understood in the very nature of all these global objectives? The very essence of the Sustainable Development Goals implies a united front, making the explicit mention of “partnerships” as a separate goal feel superfluous.

A mere reduction from the 17 SDGs to 16 might seem like a generous revision, but let’s critically evaluate the situation. Given the broad and occasionally conflated themes within the original SDGs, a thoughtful separation could lead us to a more specific and actionable list. Thus, upon closer inspection and keeping distinct goals in individual boxes, the original 17 SDGs expand to a comprehensive 26:

• No poverty
• Zero hunger
• Good health
• Well-being
• Quality Education
• Gender equality
• Clean water
• Sanitation
• Clean energy
• Affordable energy
• Decent work
• Economic Growth
• Industry
• Innovation
• Infrastructure
• Reduced Inequalities (maybe this should be with #6
• Sustainable Cities
• Sustainable Communities
• Responsible Consumption
• Responsible Production
• Climate action
• Life Below Water
• Life on Land
• Peace
• Justice
• Strong institutions

This realignment offers a clearer, more distinct roadmap, potentially making each goal more actionable and measurable. At least from a 50,000-foot view.

Get Project Moon Hut’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Remember me for faster sign in

To distinguish which of the expanded 26 SDGs could qualify as a definitive goal, target, or a quasi-target (with some leniency in defining them), let’s categorize them:

Definitive Goals (Clearly stated outcomes that the world would want to achieve):

• No poverty
• Zero hunger
• G̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶l̶t̶h̶ ̶
• W̶e̶l̶l̶-̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶
• Q̶u̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶E̶d̶u̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• G̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶e̶q̶u̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶
• C̶l̶e̶a̶n̶ ̶w̶a̶t̶e̶r̶
• Sanitation
• C̶l̶e̶a̶n̶ ̶e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ ̶
• A̶f̶f̶o̶r̶d̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ ̶
• D̶e̶c̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ ̶
• E̶c̶o̶n̶o̶m̶i̶c̶ ̶G̶r̶o̶w̶t̶h̶ ̶
• I̶n̶d̶u̶s̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶
• I̶n̶n̶o̶v̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• I̶n̶f̶r̶a̶s̶t̶r̶u̶c̶t̶u̶r̶e̶
• Reduced Inequalities
• Sustainable Cities
• Sustainable Communities
• R̶e̶s̶p̶o̶n̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶u̶m̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• R̶e̶s̶p̶o̶n̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶P̶r̶o̶d̶u̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• C̶l̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶A̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• L̶i̶f̶e̶ ̶B̶e̶l̶o̶w̶ ̶W̶a̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶
• L̶i̶f̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶l̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶P̶e̶a̶c̶e̶ ̶
• J̶u̶s̶t̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶
• S̶t̶r̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶I̶n̶s̶t̶i̶t̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶

When looking at the above-listed SDGs with the lenses provided, the most direct and actionable goals in terms of clear outcomes there are only two:

• No poverty: Aim to reduce the number of people living in poverty to zero.
• Zero hunger: Aim to ensure no individual goes hungry.

Both of these are actionable in the sense that they provide a clear outcome (zero people in poverty or hungry) that can be worked towards.

• No poverty = entire Earth
• Zero hunger = 0 are hungry!
• G̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶H̶e̶a̶l̶t̶h̶
• W̶e̶l̶l̶-̶B̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶
• Q̶u̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶E̶d̶u̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• G̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶E̶q̶u̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶
• C̶l̶e̶a̶n̶ ̶W̶a̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶
• S̶a̶n̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• C̶l̶e̶a̶n̶ ̶E̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ ̶
• A̶f̶f̶o̶r̶d̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶E̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ ̶
• D̶e̶c̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ ̶
• E̶c̶o̶n̶o̶m̶i̶c̶ ̶G̶r̶o̶w̶t̶h̶ ̶
• I̶n̶d̶u̶s̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶
• I̶n̶n̶o̶v̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• I̶n̶f̶r̶a̶s̶t̶r̶u̶c̶t̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶
• R̶e̶d̶u̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶I̶n̶e̶q̶u̶a̶l̶i̶t̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶
• S̶u̶s̶t̶a̶i̶n̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶C̶i̶t̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶
• S̶u̶s̶t̶a̶i̶n̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶C̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶t̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶
• R̶e̶s̶p̶o̶n̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶u̶m̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• R̶e̶s̶p̶o̶n̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶P̶r̶o̶d̶u̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• C̶l̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶A̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶
• L̶i̶f̶e̶ ̶B̶e̶l̶o̶w̶ ̶W̶a̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶
• L̶i̶f̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶L̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶
• P̶e̶a̶c̶e̶ ̶
• J̶u̶s̶t̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶
• S̶t̶r̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶I̶n̶s̶t̶i̶t̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶

Redefining Targeting

Instead of broad, vague goals, we should prioritize identifying core challenges that affect all species. Without this inclusion of diversity, humanity will never thrive. Might this starting point deliver a potentially practical and actionable approach? What if we acknowledged that some challenges have no “solutions,” that they are ongoing and unsolvable, yet we can adapt, evolve, and adjust to changing conditions? What if it’s more important that we address the situations at hand, and in doing so, we adapt, evolve, and generate a new future for all species? This is the case with one such condition: the climate. Climate change has always been occurring, whether human-caused or not, and as a species, we must rethink our approach to the future. The same goes for mass extinctions. Most species that have formed on Earth since its inception no longer exist — think dinosaurs.

Let’s frame these as “MegaChallenges.” Large-scale challenges that we must always keep on our radar. This shift enables us to channel resources and innovative solutions toward these pressing issues while allowing the flexibility to create “goals” as needed.

When not a single person out of a survey of 872 could name all 17 SDGs, maybe it’s time to rethink human capability.

• Cognitive Ease: Our brains are wired to recognize patterns, and three is often the smallest number needed to form a complete pattern.
• Memory Chunking: The brain naturally breaks information into chunks, making it easier to remember.
• Psychological Impact: Things grouped in threes tend to feel balanced and satisfying. Many stories and jokes are structured in three parts (beginning, middle, end), which is why phrases like “Three Little Pigs” or “Three Blind Mice” stick with us.
• Cultural and Historical Influence: Across many cultures, the number three is symbolic and significant. It’s often seen as representing completeness or perfection (e.g., past, present, future; birth, life, death).

Using these principles, we may develop a more inclusive and memorable framework.

More importantly, we should focus on the primary challenge rather than be tangential in our thinking. A core challenge should be globally inclusive, impacting the world in some way. If secondary or tertiary solutions are required in addressing these challenges, they can be planned. For example, unrest is a universal challenge, but there are social, political, economic, religious, technological, and geographical types of unrest. These range from small issues, such as local street protests, to large-scale challenges where a country kills 100,000 or even 500,000 of its own citizens [Yes, this has recently happened], or all-out war, as with Ukraine and Russia.

By thinking at such scale and with the interconnectedness of everything, maybe solutions, adaptability, and evolution can happen. By creating potent engines of change, we can instigate transformative shifts vital for meaningful advancement.

We’ve identified 6 MegaChallenges, and while we won’t give full descriptions here, you can get a sense of our direction. On a global scale, these six are universal, and any impact on one affects another globally for all species.

• Climate Change
• Mass Extinction
• Ecosystems Collapses
• Displacement
• Unrest
• Explosive Impacts

Two need clarity because they are not common terms. The first is Ecosystems Collapses. This occurs when ecosystems are collapsing repeatedly all over the world simultaneously. When one ecosystem collapses, it’s a singular failure. But with ecosystem collapses, multiple ecosystems are failing at once. This term refers to a process happening both simultaneously and over time in rapid succession.

The second is Explosive Impact. This term categorizes the human aggregative condition resulting from massive, over-the-top activities. Examples include deforestation of the rainforest, overfishing of our oceans, and the pouring of billions of gallons of solid waste into our oceans every day.

To make this clearer, use this mental exercise: “ — — — — — — — — — — ” is happening. Climate change is happening worldwide. Notice we don’t say human-caused climate change because we are not placing blame, just stating a condition. Mass extinction is happening worldwide. Explosive impact is happening worldwide.

At the core, if we don’t adapt, evolve, and address these 6 MegaChallenges, the cascading effects will touch everything — from hunger to equality or whatever other issues arise. We must stop the fires first and then work on the other challenges.

Here’s the cleaned-up version, ready for copy and paste:

Conclusion

If there can be one…

The traditional approach to global challenges, as seen in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and similar ‘save the world’ initiatives, lacks the specificity and interconnectedness needed to address the fundamental issues threatening our future. The concept of ‘MegaChallenges’ shifts the focus from broad, vague ambitions to more specific, actionable challenges. By restructuring our global perspective and prioritizing these six, we can more effectively realign resources, innovation, and focus toward solutions that resonate with human psychology, thereby potentially driving transformative change.

Project Moon Hut, in its identification of these MegaChallenges, emphasizes the profound interconnectedness of these global issues. The holistic lens offered by this perspective underscores the dire consequences of compartmentalized solutions. Focusing on interconnected challenges provides both a sobering reminder of the gravity of our situation and a roadmap for a more effective, collective approach toward positive global change.