Talk:Sustainability/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Definition

We need to bite the bullet. I have added the Definition scratchpad below and made some amendments. Three points: firstly, in the context of the whole article this section is, if anything, already too large; secondly, IMO because of NPOV we need to be careful of imposing what we would like here rather than what “is”; thirdly, the last points have a SD bias and may need some work – but they are an attempt to give people something to hold on to after all the former “woolliness”. I have “borrowed” the drift of the opening sentence – let me know if you think it is plagiarism or how I can make it less like the quote I gave before (which we all seemed to like). As usual I have cut back to the bones.

Sustainability is many things to many people. It can simultaneously be an idea, a property of living systems, a manufacturing method, or a way of life. For some people it is little more than a hollow buzz word. Although the definition of sustainable development given by the Brundtland Commission is the most frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from the fact that it may be seen to encompass all human activity. It is a very general concept like "liberty" or "justice", which is accepted as important, but a "dialogue of values"[12] that defies consensual definition.[13] It is also a call to action and therefore open to political interpretation concerning the nature of the current situation and the most appropriate way forward. The Brundtland Report plea to protect the environment for future generations is less controversial than the implied negotiation between environmental, social and economic interests recommended by the 2005 World Summit. A further practical difficulty with a universal definition is that the strategies needed to address "sustainability" will vary according to the particular circumstances the level of sustainability governance under consideration. For a more tangible summation The European Environment Agency Sustainable Development Program has listed eight broad objectives that distil the recurrent themes of the global sustainability agenda: [14]

• provide future generations with the same environmental potential as presently exists (address intergenerational equity)
• manage economic growth to be less resource intensive and less polluting (decouple economic growth from environmental deterioration)
• better integrate sectoral and environmental policies (integrate sectors)
• maintain and enhance the adaptive capacity of the environmental system (ensure environmental adaptability)
• avoid irreversible long-term environmental damage to ecosystems and human health (prevent irreversible damage)
• avoid imposing unfair or high environmental costs on vulnerable populations (ensure distributional equity)
• assume responsibility for environmental effects that occur outside the area of jurisdiction (accept global responsibility)
• introduce rules, processes and practices that ensure the uptake of sustainable development policies at all levels of sustainability governance (apply sustainability governance)

Go for it. Granitethighs (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I like this a lot. I would like to add it to the article. The only thing I found myself wondering, was whether it should precede the history section. It seems rather fundamental information that we need to get across to the reader up front. However, it does build on the Brundtland quote, so it can't be switched without major re-working of the two sections. Perhaps we could broaden the title to "Definition, organizing principles." What do you think?

I would be happy for you to proceed here as you see fit Granitethighs (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I have edited the links in the "History" section. It was easy to prune the links, since most have already been mentioned in the body of the article. In the various sections, we can either use the "Further information" template ({{see|article link}}) or the "Main article" one ({{Main|article link}}). Sunray (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's much better thanks Granitethighs (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are my notes on the subject, just throwing them out so that maybe some of it can be incorporated. As I understand the function of Definition section, it should include alternative definitions and critiques. --

Some have criticized definitions of sustainability for being watered down, trivialized, and catering to people who above all do not wish to be made uncomfortable. The Brundtland Report has been criticized for being vague certainly is in terms of methods as you point outand contradictory, urging “forceful growth” as well as sustainability but failing to show that these values are compatible. The definition itself “gives no hint regarding the courses of action that could be followed to meet the needs of the present, but which would not limit the ability of generations, throughout the distant future, to meet their own needs the dot points at least lay out major areas that need to be dealt with, even though it is obvious that non-renewable resources consumed now will not be available for consumption by future generations.”, notes Albert Bartlett. In addition, Michael Ben-Eli has written: “The currently prevailing definition of sustainability emphasizes cross generational equity, clearly an important concept but one which poses difficulties since it is not always easy to determine future generations' needs.” He has recently proposed a definition anchored in the relationship between a given population and the carrying capacity of its environment which implies measurable variables. The definition states: “Sustainability pertains to a balanced interaction between a population and the carrying capacity of an environment such that the population develops to express its full potential without adversely and irreversibly affecting the carrying capacity of the environment upon which it depends.”Yes, this can be applied from local to global levels. Perhaps it should go in - we do make this point strongly in the lead, but perhaps it is lacking in this definition section

The Swedish Natural Step organization has specified that “sustainability essentially means preserving life on Earth, including human civilization.” It also adds: “The practice of sustainability is about creating new ways to live and prosper while ensuring an equitable, healthy future for all people and the planet.” I like "creating new ways to live and prosper while ensuring an equitable, healthy future for all people and the planet" although again I think this has been largely covered already, but some good wordsCivilizations have in the past have been the cause of large scale biodestructive behaviors, and whether preserving them or leaving them behind will be one of the many questions connected with actual sustainability practices in the coming decades. It is certainly quite easy to imagine a world where the biosphere makes it, and so do humans, but civilization as we know it does not.

(This is another Bartlett quote, one with which I can identify, and which enlarges the concept without running it into SD.) “Others see at the heart of the concept of sustainability a fundamental, immutable value set that is best stated as 'parallel care and respect for the ecosystem and for the people within'. From this value set emerges the goal of sustainability: to achieve human and ecosystem longevity and well-being together. Seen in this way, the concept of sustainability is much more than environmental protection in another guise. It is a positive concept that has as much to do with achieving well-being for people and ecosystems as it has to do with reducing ecological stress or environmental impacts.” I love the sentiments but needs paring down creating new ways to live and prosper while ensuring an equitable, healthy future for all people and the planet -- V.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.228.183.145 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I do like the ideas but it needs to be as brief and succinct as possible. Sunray has offered to edit this and that is fine by me so we can all have a look - he now has my comments too

How about this one?

Sustainability is many things to many people. It can simultaneously be “an idea, a property of living systems, a manufacturing method, or a way of life.” [citation] Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from the fact that it may be seen to encompass all human activity. It is a very general concept like "liberty" or "justice", which is accepted as important, but a "dialogue of values" that defies consensual definition [this sentence has a problem; is there a word missing?]. It is also a call to action and therefore open to political interpretation concerning the nature of the current situation and the most appropriate way forward. A further practical difficulty with a universal definition is that the strategies needed to address sustainability will vary according to the particular circumstances the level of sustainability governance under consideration.

Some have panned definitions of sustainability for being watered down, trivialized, and catering to people who above all do not wish to be made uncomfortable. The Brundtland Report has been criticized for being vague and contradictory, urging “forceful growth” as well as sustainability but failing to show that these goals are compatible. The definition itself “gives no hint regarding the courses of action that could be followed to meet the needs of the present, but which would not limit the ability of generations, throughout the distant future, to meet their own needs, even though it is obvious that non-renewable resources consumed now will not be available for consumption by future generations.” [citation Albert Bartlett].

The Swedish Natural Step has specified that “sustainability essentially means preserving life on Earth, including human civilization.” Civilizations have been accompanied by large scale biodestructive behaviors, and preserving ours or leaving it behind will be one of the many questions connected with actual sustainability practices in this century. It is certainly quite easy to imagine a world where the biosphere lives on and so do humans, but civilization as we know it does not.

Others have attempted to craft definitions focusing on the balance between population and carrying capacity. [citation] It has been remarked that a variety of definitions, each looking at sustainability from a somewhat different angle, may be the best perspective. [Hassan et al] Moving past sole concerns with negative environmental impacts can refocus human societies on the positive meaning of sustainability: the combined well-being and longevity of ecosystems and the people within. [citation] V.B. (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the content, but think it needs some work. It is written in essay format, rather than as an encyclopedia article. For the time being, I am going to add GT's re-write. Then perhaps I could take a bash at editing this. When we have something we all like, we can add it. Sunray (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means, bash away. V.B. (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and "Further reading" sections

I propose that we change the structure of these sections. Since we have a blend of footnotes and citations in the article, I would suggest that we use one "Notes" section for all. Then we can re-title the "Further reading" section as "References." This is the format used by most Featured articles. If folks agree, I will make the changes right away. Sunray (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That all makes good sense. Granitethighs (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

References generally mean footnotes, referring from the text to sources. But I am ok with whatever makes sense to you, to make the article conform to common usage. V.B. (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The Guide to layout permits either "Footnotes" or "References," or both, depending on the circumstances. Since we already have a "Further reading" section, we should probably keep that. Then we could have a combined "Notes and references" section. Sunray (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. V.B. (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Phenylalanine has proposed that Sustainable food system be merged into this article.

Oppose. The sustainability article is already plenty big. If we were to merge every small article that has "sustainable" in its name, the "Sustainability" article would become massive, unwieldy, and boring. I think that the small article is fine as it is. Sunray (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Same. Sustainable food system can definitely expanded from a stub to a full article on its own (sooner or later) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. V.B. (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll remove the tag. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)