Sustainability Is a Big Fat Lie: Why It’s All Fake

Sustainability Is a Hoax: Unmasking the Green Illusion

The buzzword "sustainability" has infiltrated every corner of modern discourse—corporations flaunt their eco-friendly credentials, governments draft green policies, and individuals guilt-trip themselves into reusable straws. But what if sustainability is less a solution and more a comforting myth? Far from saving the planet, the sustainability movement is a flawed, hypocritical, and ultimately futile endeavor that distracts us from real progress. Here’s why sustainability, as it’s peddled today, is a hoax—and why we should stop buying into it.

The Myth of Infinite Resources

At its core, sustainability promises we can maintain our current way of life indefinitely by tweaking consumption patterns—recycle more, use solar panels, buy "green" products. This ignores a harsh truth: Earth’s resources are finite. No amount of recycling can replenish the rare earth metals mined for wind turbines or the lithium stripped for electric car batteries. The sustainability narrative pretends we can keep consuming at modern levels without consequence, but it’s a delusion. Every "sustainable" solution—be it biofuels or biodegradable plastics—still extracts something from an already strained planet. The idea that we can endlessly sustain a global population of 8 billion, with its insatiable demands, defies basic physics and geology.

Corporate Greenwashing: Profit Over Planet

Look at the champions of sustainability: multinational corporations like Coca-Cola, Amazon, and BP. They tout carbon-neutral goals and eco-packaging while raking in billions from overproduction and waste. Sustainability has become a marketing gimmick—greenwashing that lets companies dodge accountability. Take fast fashion: brands like H&M push "sustainable" collections made from recycled polyester, yet their business model thrives on churning out cheap, disposable clothes. The carbon footprint of producing one "green" T-shirt still outweighs any benefit if it’s tossed after five wears. Sustainability lets corporations slap a feel-good label on exploitation, not fix it.

Technology Won’t Save Us

Sustainability hinges on the fantasy that technology—solar farms, electric vehicles, carbon capture—will rescue us from ecological collapse. But these fixes come with their own dirty secrets. Solar panels rely on toxic chemicals and degrade after 20-30 years, piling up in landfills. Electric cars shift pollution from tailpipes to mines and coal-powered grids. Carbon capture? It’s an unproven, energy-intensive pipe dream that diverts funds from real innovation. The tech-driven sustainability gospel assumes endless breakthroughs will outpace resource depletion, but history shows innovation can’t outrun entropy. We’re not inventing our way out of this.

Human Nature Undermines It

Sustainability demands a level of collective sacrifice and discipline that humans have never achieved. We’re told to cut emissions, eat less meat, and fly less—yet global air travel hit record highs in 2024, and meat consumption keeps climbing in developing nations. Why? Because people prioritize comfort and growth over restraint. Developing countries like India and China won’t cap their industrial rise to appease Western green agendas—they see it as their turn to prosper. Meanwhile, rich nations lecture while outsourcing their emissions to poorer ones. Sustainability asks for a utopian unity that clashes with our selfish, competitive instincts—it’s a noble lie we tell ourselves.

It’s a Distraction from Real Solutions

The obsession with sustainability diverts attention from bolder, more honest approaches. Instead of chasing the mirage of "sustainable growth," we should confront degrowth—shrinking economies and populations to match Earth’s limits. Or invest in adaptation—building resilient cities and food systems for inevitable climate shifts. Sustainability keeps us tinkering with recycling bins and LED bulbs when we need radical rethinking. It’s a pacifier, soothing our guilt while delaying the tough choices. Worse, it fuels a smug moral superiority—those who can afford organic kale feel righteous, while the rest are shamed for surviving.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Let’s crunch some reality: Global CO2 emissions hit 37.4 billion tons in 2023, up from 36.1 billion in 2021, despite decades of sustainability pledges. Renewable energy accounts for just 29% of global electricity—fossil fuels still rule. The UN’s own reports admit we’re nowhere near the Paris Agreement targets. If sustainability worked, wouldn’t we see results after 30 years of hype? Instead, deforestation accelerates, oceans acidify, and species vanish. The metrics expose the hoax: sustainability is a feel-good slogan, not a fix.

Time to Wake Up

Sustainability is a seductive hoax—a fairy tale that lets us sleepwalk through a crisis. It props up a broken system with false hope, shielding us from the hard truth: our current lifestyle can’t be sustained, period. Rather than cling to this green illusion, we should face reality—scale back, innovate beyond gimmicks, and adapt to a world that won’t bend to our whims. Sustainability isn’t saving the planet; it’s a distraction keeping us from the real fight. Let’s ditch the dogma and get serious before it’s too late.

Why People Are Suppressing Siddha and Promoting Ayurveda

Why Promoting Ayurveda?

The traditional healing systems of Siddha and Ayurveda, both deeply rooted in Indian culture, have coexisted for millennia, offering holistic approaches to health and wellness. Yet, in modern times, Ayurveda has gained widespread recognition and global acceptance(thanks to RSS-BJP), while Siddha remains relatively obscure, often overshadowed and underappreciated (thanks again to RSS-BJP). This disparity raises a compelling question: Are people deliberately suppressing Siddha in favor of promoting Ayurveda? While no grand conspiracy may be at play, historical, cultural, and systemic factors suggest that Siddha’s marginalization is not entirely accidental. Below, we explore the reasons behind this phenomenon.

Historical and Linguistic Divide

One of the primary reasons for Siddha’s suppression lies in its regional and linguistic origins. Siddha emerged from the Tamil-speaking Dravidian culture of South India, attributed to the Siddhars—ancient Tamil sages and alchemists. Its foundational texts, such as the Tirumantiram and works of Agastya, are written in classical Tamil, a language less accessible to the broader Indian and global population. In contrast, Ayurveda, rooted in the Sanskrit-based Vedic traditions of North India, benefits from the widespread historical influence of Sanskrit as the liturgical and scholarly language of ancient India. The Vedas, including the Atharvaveda from which Ayurveda draws inspiration, were propagated by the Brahmanical elite, giving Ayurveda a pan-Indian appeal that transcended regional boundaries.

This linguistic divide has practical implications. Sanskrit’s prominence in Indian academia and its adoption by colonial scholars during British rule made Ayurveda more translatable and palatable to outsiders. Siddha, confined to Tamil Nadu and its diaspora, lacked the same level of exposure, leaving it vulnerable to being sidelined.

Colonial Legacy and Western Validation

The British colonial period played a significant role in shaping the modern fates of Siddha and Ayurveda. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, British scholars and administrators cataloged and studied Indian knowledge systems, often favoring those that aligned with their own frameworks. Ayurveda, with its structured texts like the Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita, resembled Greco-Roman medical traditions (e.g., humoral theory), making it easier for Westerners to interpret and validate. This led to early translations and integration into colonial medical discourse, laying the groundwork for Ayurveda’s global rise.

Siddha, with its esoteric blend of medicine, alchemy, and spirituality, was less comprehensible to colonial observers. Its reliance on oral traditions, secretive practices (such as the preparation of muppu, a mystical substance), and lack of standardized texts in a widely understood language rendered it “unscientific” or “mystical” in Western eyes. As a result, Siddha received little institutional support or documentation during this pivotal period, while Ayurveda was elevated as India’s flagship traditional medicine.

Political and Cultural Prioritization

Post-independence, India’s efforts to unify its diverse cultural heritage under a national identity further tilted the scales. Ayurveda, tied to the Sanskrit-Vedic narrative, aligned with the idea of a cohesive “Indian” tradition, appealing to policymakers and nationalists eager to promote a unified heritage. The establishment of institutions like the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) and the inclusion of Ayurveda in national healthcare frameworks cemented its dominance. Siddha, despite being recognized as one of India’s traditional systems under the Ministry of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy), often receives less funding, research, and promotional efforts compared to Ayurveda.

This disparity is also reflected in popular culture. Bollywood, mainstream media, and wellness tourism heavily market Ayurveda as India’s ancient gift to the world, while Siddha rarely features in such narratives. The lack of visibility perpetuates a cycle of neglect, as fewer people—both within India and globally—become aware of Siddha’s potential.

Commercialization and Global Appeal

Ayurveda’s rise has been fueled by its adaptability to modern commercial markets. From herbal supplements to spa treatments, Ayurvedic principles have been repackaged into a wellness industry worth billions globally. Companies like Dabur, Patanjali, and Himalaya have capitalized on Ayurveda’s accessible terminology (e.g., doshas, prana) and its emphasis on diet and lifestyle, which resonate with Western holistic health trends.

Siddha, however, is less amenable to such commercialization. Its practices, such as the use of heavy metals (e.g., mercury and arsenic) in rasayana (alchemy-based medicines), require rigorous expertise and have raised safety concerns in modern regulatory contexts. While these techniques reflect Siddha’s sophisticated understanding of pharmacology, they clash with contemporary standards, limiting its appeal to mass markets. Additionally, Siddha’s spiritual undertones—linked to Tamil Shaivism and yogic practices—make it less secular and harder to commodify compared to Ayurveda’s more universal framework.

Academic and Research Disparities

The academic infrastructure supporting Ayurveda far outstrips that of Siddha. Universities across India offer robust Ayurvedic programs, producing practitioners and researchers who further its development. Siddha, while taught in Tamil Nadu institutions like the Government Siddha Medical College, lacks the same level of investment and international collaboration. Research into Siddha’s pharmacopeia, such as its use of rare herbs and minerals, lags behind Ayurveda, partly due to funding biases and partly because its practitioners have historically guarded their knowledge, resisting standardization.

Perception of Complexity and Accessibility

Finally, Siddha’s perceived complexity may contribute to its suppression. Its integration of medicine with astrology, alchemy, and spiritual purification requires a deep cultural and philosophical understanding, which can deter casual learners or practitioners. Ayurveda, while profound, offers a more straightforward entry point with its focus on balancing vata, pitta, and kapha. This accessibility has made Ayurveda the preferred choice for both practitioners and patients, sidelining Siddha as a niche or “mysterious” alternative.

Conclusion

The suppression of Siddha in favor of Ayurveda is not necessarily a deliberate act of malice but a consequence of historical biases, cultural priorities, and modern market dynamics. Siddha’s Tamil roots, esoteric nature, and lack of institutional support have confined it to the margins, while Ayurveda’s alignment with Sanskrit, colonial validation, and global wellness trends have propelled it to prominence. To reverse this trend, greater awareness, research, and investment in Siddha are needed—lest a valuable piece of human heritage fades into obscurity. Both systems offer unique insights into health and healing; it’s time Siddha received the recognition it deserves alongside its more celebrated counterpart.