Hang on- as development is presumably the aim of the MDGs we are writing about, does that mean that we cannot over-develop?

I recently read that African women have a far lower chance of getting breast cancer than Western women. Where did we go wrong here?

‘Development' was formerly seen as the means to achieving a rationally-guided society governed along scientifically certain principles, faith in reason being the driving force for the humanitarian reforms in Europe of the Enlightenment period.

Applied to agriculture, this appears to have meant an increase in the intensity of production without respect for natural crop cycles. In order to qualify for Common Agricultural Policy  funding from the EU, a common source of pains for developing countries' economies, a minimum farm size of is currently required.

Tomatoes are artificially grown year-round in greenhouses producing quantity but not quality as part of agricultural monoculture. 

(Further thinking for our French readers, where I came across this- http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2010/03/DAUM/18889)

Soil quality appears to be decreasing throughout the Western world. Meanwhile, the best practices of crop rotation and irrigation, knowledge learnt from the Incas and Ancient Egyptians, have remained the same.

It could in fact be said that its ‘development’ appears to have become a goal in itself, without ‘daring to know’ the costs of its pursuit. Notions of efficiency and competition have so dogged the CAP so as to distract it from its reason for existing, the quality of the food it produces; whilst shedding its workforce and even having a negative effect on the livelihood of those of other continents as export subsidies persist indirectly.

Personally, I wonder if the whole goal with development should be that each path is unique and best for that particular culture. What are the signs of over-development, if that exists and is it time for 'decroissance'?