Abstract The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—a normative (non-binding) global international environmental agreement (IEA)—claim to be universal as they were multilaterally negotiated between UN member states. However, is giving the Global South a seat at the table truly inclusive development? This article looks at a cross-cultural comparison of the African philosophy of Ubuntu (specifically in South Africa), the Buddhist Gross National Happiness (Bhutan) and the native American idea of Buen Vivir (e.g. Ecuador) and how they view the SDGs, how they view ‘development’, ‘sustainability’, goals and indicators, the implicit value underpinnings of the SDGs, prioritization of goals, and missing links, and leadership. Viewed through the lens of the three cosmovisions of the Global, the SDGs do not effectively address the human–nature–well-being interrelationship. Other cosmovisions have an inherent biocentric value orientation that is often ignored in academic and diplomatic circles. These claim to be more promising than continuing green development approaches, based in modernism. On the positive side, the SDGs contain language of all three worldviews. However, the SDGs are not biocentric aiming to respect nature for nature’s sake, enabling reciprocity with nature. They embody linear growth/results thinking which requires unlimited resource exploitation, and not cyclical thinking replacing growth with well-being (of all beings). They represent individualism and exclude private sector responsibility. They do not represent collective agency and sharing, implying that there is a need for ‘development as service’, to one another and to the Earth. Including these perspectives may lead to abolishing the word ‘development’ within the SDGs, replacing it by inter-relationship; replacing end-result-oriented ‘goals’ with process thinking; and thinking in cyclical nature, and earth governance, instead of static ‘sustainability’. The glass can be viewed as half full or half empty, but the analysis shows that Western ‘modernism’ is still a strong underpinning of the SDGs. Bridges can be built between Happiness, Ubuntu and Buen Vivir in re-interpreting goal frameworks, global governance and the globalization process. This article is largely based on Van Norren 2017 (Development as service, a Happiness, Ubuntu, and Buen Vivir interdisciplinary view of the Sustainable Development Goals. Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands, 2017). Interview findings are numbered with A (Africa); B (Bhutan); E (Ecuador); S (SDGs).

中文翻译：

---

通过国民幸福总值、Ubuntu 和 Buen Vivir 看待可持续发展目标

摘要 可持续发展目标 (SDG)——一项规范性（非约束性）全球国际环境协议 (IEA)——声称具有普遍性，因为它们是在联合国成员国之间通过多边谈判达成的。然而，让全球南方在真正的包容性发展中占有一席之地吗？本文着眼于 Ubuntu 的非洲哲学（特别是在南非）、佛教国民幸福总值（不丹）和美洲原住民的 Buen Vivir 理念（例如厄瓜多尔）的跨文化比较，以及他们如何看待可持续发展目标、如何他们认为“发展”、“可持续性”、目标和指标、可持续发展目标的隐含价值基础、目标的优先顺序、缺失的环节和领导力。通过全球三个宇宙观的镜头来看，SDGs 并没有有效地解决人类-自然-福祉的相互关系。其他宇宙观具有固有的以生物为中心的价值取向，在学术界和外交界经常被忽视。这些声称比基于现代主义的持续绿色发展方法更有希望。从积极的方面来说，可持续发展目标包含所有三种世界观的语言。然而，可持续发展目标并非以生物为中心，旨在为了自然而尊重自然，实现与自然的互惠。它们体现了需要无限资源开发的线性增长/结果思维，而不是用（所有生命的）幸福来代替增长的循环思维。它们代表个人主义并排除私营部门的责任。它们不代表集体代理和共享，暗示需要“发展即服务”，彼此和地球。纳入这些观点可能会导致在可持续发展目标中取消“发展”一词，代之以相互关系；用过程思维代替以最终结果为导向的“目标”；并思考周期性和地球治理，而不是静态的“可持续性”。杯子可以被视为半满或半空，但分析表明，西方“现代主义”仍然是可持续发展目标的有力支撑。在重新解释目标框架、全球治理和全球化进程方面，可以在 Happiness、Ubuntu 和 Buen Vivir 之间架起桥梁。本文主要基于 Van Norren 2017（Development as service, a Happiness、Ubuntu 和 Buen Vivir 对可持续发展目标的跨学科观点。博士论文，蒂尔堡大学，荷兰蒂尔堡，2017）。访谈结果以 A 编号（非洲）；B（不丹）；E（厄瓜多尔）；S（可持续发展目标）。