It is a vague enough term to mean different things to different people, but the debate, which was encapsulated in a three-part series in The Royal Gazette last week, is worthwhile because Bermuda must make some hard decisions about what kind of society it wants to be.

The economic boom which Bermuda has enjoyed since the end of the Second World War, with one notable interruption, has brought higher standards of living to much of the population and the benefits, in terms of improved standards of education and material gains, are there for all to see.

To be sure, not everyone has benefited and some have benefited more than others, but on the whole, Bermudians enjoy a standard of living that would have been unimaginable to their grandparents' generation.

That's a good thing, and in many ways it is nothing short of miraculous, given that in that time, the economy has seen agriculture collapse, tourism rise and decline and international business boom.

Development has brought costs as well. Open space has vanished at an alarming rate, rush hour traffic jams which began at Crow Lane now start at Barnes Corner and housing and population density are increasing stress on the environment and on the social fabric of the community.

Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson and former "green MP'' Stuart Hayward have argued that quality of life, not the standard of living, should be the benchmark for measuring Bermuda's success and to some extent they are right.

At the same time, those who look back to a more relaxed and laid back Bermuda are dreaming if they think that those supposedly halcyon days can be recreated.

What is needed now is a decision on what kind of Bermuda the community wants for the future and how what is desirable about today's environment can be preserved.

In the excellent TV series on Bermuda's history, world-famous ornithologist David Wingate notes that he has been so deafened by the rise in noise pollution that he can no longer hear bird calls. That is a telling symbol of the changes which have been wrought on the Island.

If Bermuda wishes to maintain its environment, it needs to make hard choices about land preservation, what kinds and how many vehicles it is prepared to accept, how it wishes to control emissions and where development should be concentrated.

It also has to decide what size population is desirable and whether Bermuda has reached its maximum carrying capacity.

These are not easy decisions. Refusing people permission to build on their own land carries a financial cost and efforts in the last development plan to preserve arable land and open space were often overturned at the appeal level.

Equally, focusing development of office and residential space within Hamilton and thus preserving open land outside the City will require a change from the idea that people are entitled to their own Bermuda cottage.

Making the right decisions on these issues will often mean making politically unpopular policies. The big question is whether the Island's leaders have the guts to follow their consciences, and not the polls.