Talk:Sustainability/Archive 1

Types of sustainability
The following entry does not make any sense to me. I mean sense even in terms of English. FOLLOWING this entry, the text DOES go on to talk about types of sustainability in a way that makes sense even if one disagrees with them. It is as if someone has dropped this entry in here without paying attention to the structure of the overall article. What are "considerations for technical cooperation that affect three types of sustainability". If it means conditions for funding cooperative projects, why are the entries questions and why should it be technical cooperation that might lead to the outcomes the questions are about. The whole entry just seems to me to be some kind of jibberish and should, in my opinion, be deleted.

Quester67 18:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Types of sustainability The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has identified considerations for technical cooperation that affect three types of sustainability:

Institutional sustainability. Can a strengthened institutional structure continue to deliver the results of technical cooperation to end users? The results may not be sustainable if, for example, the planning authority that depends on the technical cooperation loses access to top management, or is not provided with adequate resources after the technical cooperation ends. Institutional sustainability can also be linked to the concept of social sustainability, which asks how the interventions can be sustained by social structures and institutions;

Economical and financial sustainability. Can the results of technical cooperation continue to yield an economic benefit after the technical cooperation is withdrawn? For example, the benefits from the introduction of new crops may not be sustained if the constraints to marketing the crops are not resolved. Similarly, economic, as distinct from financial, sustainability may be at risk if the end users continue to depend on heavily subsidized activities and inputs.

Ecological sustainability. Are the benefits to be generated by the technical cooperation likely to lead to a deterioration in the physical environment, thus indirectly contributing to a fall in production, or well-being of the groups targeted and their society.

The United Nations has declared a Decade of Education for Sustainable Development starting in January of 2005. A non-partisan multi-sector response to the decade has formed within the U.S. via the U.S. Partnership for the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. [2] Active sectors teams have formed for youth, higher education, business, religion, the arts, and more. Organizations and individuals can join in sharing resources and success stories, and creating a sustainable future.

What's about social sustainability? I think if we talk about sustainability it must include all aspects of live, otherwise it cannot be sustainable. If some procedure, say making clothes, is economicly and environmentaly sustainable, but done in sweatshops i would't refer to this procedure as sustainable. By social sustainability I understand a living, beeing, working together in ways every human beeing is respected and treated with dignity, ultimately the same way as oneself would like to be treated (see:Ethic of reciprocity). If we are aiming for a sustainable way of living we should not forget humans as beeing part of the whole.--Thai-flower 00:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Public Management
I don't quite know what to do about this.

There are three fundamental problems with this site.

First, it is assumed that if the issues are known current government structures are capable of doing something about them. Yet in virtually every area of public policy from education to health care public policy fails to deliver the desired benefits. Only two of the hundred plus speakers who addressed the G8 Alternatives seminars in Edinburgh at the time of the G8 meeting last year addressed the question of HOW to run a society in the long term public interest. It was assumed that if one shouted loudly enough the G8 "leaders" would do something about the hundreds of issues that were highlighted. Yet all the evidence is that, even if they were gentlemen of goodwill (which they are not) they would know HOW to run a society in the long term public interest. We find ourselves in the position of sailors in the world prior to Newton shouting at our captain and our priests to summon up a wind that would blow us home again. Until Newton had elucidated the concept of force and shown that its components could be mapped, measured, and harnessed it was impossible to do anything about the situation. We urgently need ways of thinking about, maping, measuring and harnessing the social forces which every day undermine well intentioned public action.

The second problem is related. It assumes we need values change. But all the evidence is that our values are in the right place. We simply find ourselves unable to enact them. Worse, we can all see that systems processes will undermine any small scale action - such as not using our cars - that we might take as individuals.

The third problem is also related. So far as I can see, a sustainable society will have to be as different from our society as an agricultural society was from a hunter-gatherer society. And, just as no one in a hunter gatherer socity could envisage what an agricultural society would look like so no one in our society can envisage what a sustainable society would look like. All we know is that we have to get rid of our cars, our planes, our defence systems, our chemical and energy intensive agriculutrer and so on and so on. But what would a society without these things look like? How would we gain meaning in our lives. (One fortunate thing is that NEF ... see Marks in refs ... has now shown that such a thing is possible without reducing the quality of our lives.) How to create a climate of innovation and learning without any blueprint, without any central authority being able to say where we are going? Now, this was the very question that Smaith and Hayek sought to answer. Their answer - the marketplace - does not, and cannot, work. But where is there any discussion of an alternative answer? One suggestion ... perhaps the only suggestion .. has been made by Raven in "The New Wealth of Nations". (There are, of course, other answers to the question of how to run a sustainable society ... Anarchism, Budhism,"spirituality" .. but this is not the question I am discussing here.)

So, I could write an entry along these lines, but, at present, I can't quite see where to put it. Any suggestions?

Quester67 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comments appear to be Original Research, so you should first find references for these opinions. Paul Studier 20:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Now then. The existing entry asserts ... entirely without evidence ... that the problem is "change resistence". This is a facile, common-sense based, assertion and is virtually meaningless. In response to your comment of 24 August I prepared a short, fully documented, piece showing that, far from this being the case, our prolems stem from ineffective forms of public management - forms of public management that fail to act on information in an innovative way in the long term public interest. In this connection I spent 3 weeks preparing, and having reviewed, a long piece on Public management (nb the heading is case sensitive)showing why existing forms of public management do not and cannot work (again fully documented so far as this is possible)and then going on to discuss the types of action that are actually required ... can be scientifically shown to be required ... not mere common sense assertion ... to find a way of ensuring that our species and the planet have a future ... any future. What could be more important? I have been away for 3 weeks and find that someone has deleted the "short" (2 page) linking piece from the main sustainability entry (but without deleting the references I introduced) but left the Public management entry ... prepared specifcially to relate to the sustainability issue. Yet, as things stand, there is at present no way for readers to get out of the sustainability entry to the key entry on the developments that are actually needed if our species and the planet are to survive.

I will review the linking material within the next few days and then drop a revised version into the main entry.

217.30.113.194 10:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why my name appears to have been changed, so I'll try again.

217.30.113.194 10:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Source needed
A source (footnote) is needed for the Hangroves and Smith 2005 reference. I tried searching on google scholar, but found no realted article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.229.141.151 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2006.

Sustainability project poll
I don't know if anybody is watching this page, but if you are, could you please assist me with the following: Tom Haws

I have been wanting to have a working WikiProject Sustainability or WikiProject Energy development. We currently have a WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations that is going nowhere. Please answer in poll format (Support or Oppose) the following proposals: Tom Haws

Move WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations to WikiProject Sustainability.
 * Support. This seems to be the biggest umbrella and the most acceptable term.  Tom Haws 22:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to define the subject best, to the point. --DanielCD 14:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Move WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations to WikiProject Energy development.
 * Oppose. See above. Tom Haws 22:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. doesn't keep global feel of other, seems too specific. --DanielCD 14:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simplify the WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations page to initially include just Participants, Guestbook, Polls, and List of categories and articles.
 * Support. Tom Haws 22:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Provided there is enough material here that doesn't go in WikiProject Sustainability. Oppose if there is more than 80% overlap. --DanielCD 14:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Energy development WikiProject
Please add WikiProject Energy development to your Watchlists and participate in any polls and discussion there. Thanks in advance. We really need some additional input. We are kind of at a standstill on some issues. The Sustainability project is still available for moving, and I agree it is more global and we should work toward it. This is a start. Tom Haws 05:52, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Global Green Charter?
The article seems to represent sustainability as purely a party-political green concept. It is not. I am thinking the article should be merged with Global Green Charter or should have Global Green Charter in its title. Laurel Bush 13:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC).


 * I've re-read the article with your comments in mind and confess that I don't understand your point. It seems to me that there is a need for a Wikipedia article on Sustainability because it is a term that many readers will be curious about.  The Global Green Charter is one attempt to pursue a program to achieve "sustainability" and there is some overlap between the articles.  However, Sustainability is the broader concept and should remain a discrete article, IMO.  How might we retain the article and still address your concerns about its "party-political green" aspects? Sunray 17:19, 2005 May 11 (UTC)


 * Sustainability is a distinc feild from the global green charter. To be honest I've not heard of it untill now but I've been working internationaly in the feild of sustainabilty and the built environment for severall years.

I take it now that the green politics box highjacks a more general article. Laurel Bush 10:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC).


 * What do you mean by "highjacks"? Sunray 18:33, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

PledgeBank
The following pledge may be of interest to those from the UK interested in this article. "I will write to the Environment Secretary calling for a levy on outdoor patio heaters but only if 100 other people will sign my petition."

http://www.pledgebank.com/heaters

Green politics sidebar vandalism?
Every article with the Green politics sidebar tag has the text "weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee hahaha" at the top of it. I don't know how to fix it, though.

VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template?
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:
 * (1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
 * (2) Rank of country’s HDI;
 * (3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Article could use more links to "Decentralising Technologies"
This Sustainability article is obviously an important one. I believe we should put our heads together on supplying more links to articles about "decentralising technologies" (techs that spread info, understanding, local control, local energy generation or derivation, etc.).

Clearly, computers and the Internet are part of the picture.But equally important are various forms of technology - for instance, "Alternative technology" or "Appropriate technology" that allow communities, regions and individual people to do a wide range of things in the physical and cultural worlds.

Think solar, DIY, etc, etc, etc.

Some of the articles to link to have been written (or at least started) others have not. Write them.


 * - M.C.

Other meanings
The article seems to have elided other common meanings of the term sustainability such as, "the sustainability of an electric arc is a function of..." and "the sustainability of the ISS depends upon its distance from the upper atmosphere..." The article seems to have commandeered the term for a single meaning. I can think of a few ways to correct this but I thought maybe yawl might have some ideas before I make changes. wgoetsch 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. For example, my definition of sustainability is "the ability to continue a defined behavior indefinitely." Compare that to the wikipedia definition of "Sustainability is a systemic concept, relating to the continuity of economic, social, institutional and environmental aspects of human society." You can perhaps see that the latter is a subcase of the more general first definition.

It appears the present entry on sustainability focuses on the human system combined with the biosphere. This is indeed the popular conception of the word. What were your ideas on how to correct the "commandeered the term for a single meaning" problem? --Jack Harich 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are talking about the difference between an encyclopedia article discussing a complex concept, and a dictionary listing the meanings of an English word. Maybe a disambiguation page should be added? 69.87.201.34 10:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sustainability index
A user keeps removing the section of this article titled "Sustainability Index", and disputes its academic value. Please post relevant discussion below.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I call into review the addition of the material on the so called 'Sustainability Index'.

The factual accuracy is not called into question, however the suitability of the material on a definintion of sustainability is questionable.

The index has not been widely accepted and is an extension of a strong measure of the amount of energy used in producing products.

I am sure it is factually correct but it is not suitable for this page as it is not an index of sustainability that anyone has adopted. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charliebrown (talk &bull; contribs) 01:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
 * As the section properly cites its sources, I do feel the section should stay, but if it is not a widely used or accepted theory in Sustainability circles, a rebuttal would be appropriate within the article.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  01:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the originator of the posting can review the academic value of the material being placed promenantly on a definition of sustainability. The goal here is to provide visitors with a clear understanding of the concepts of sustainability and my fear is that the page will loose credibility with the addition of the material.
 * That sounds fair. You may wish to discuss this section with the editor that originally added it to this page: User:Sholto Maud (Sholto Maud's talk page). I am not an expert on this subject, but I'll keep an eye on this page to help out when it's needed.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  02:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience in this matter, I really just want to get a strong definition of sustainability on the page as it has the potential to influence many people.
 * Perhaps for now the material can be moved to the last slot on the page so as to clarrify its accepted importance?


 * Re: "I am sure it is factually correct but it is not suitable for this page as it is not an index of sustainability that anyone has adopted"
 * If the above argument is going to hold any weight, then there needs to be a definition of what is "suitable" for this page. There is no such statement.
 * Charliebrown is wrong that no one has adopted the sustainability index. Charliebrown can refer to the citations given. Additionally Charliebrown may wish to do a search of the sciencedirect academic database. A search for "emergy + sustainability" has "34 Articles Found." A search for "emergy + sustainability index" has "6 Articles Found".
 * Further to this, a search on scopus academic database for "emergy + sustainability" found 65 academic articles, and 510 web results. One such web result http://www.actahort.org/books/519/519_25.htm is from International Horticultural Congress which has an article on "EVALUATION OF RESOURCE FLOWS OF TOMATO PRODUCTION SYSTEMS UNDER GLASS ACCORDING TO THE METHOD OF EMERGY ANALYSIS". Another http://www.ulb.ac.be/ceese/STAFF/safonov/Brasil4.pdf gives "Systems Modeling of Brazilian Sustainability with Emergy Flows Diagrams". These seem to suggest that definition and discussion of the emergy sustainability index is important for sustainability discourses, both internationally and here at Wikipedia. Sholto Maud 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "strong definition of sustainability"
 * If a strong definition is a mathematically rigorous definition, then it appears that one needs a quantitative index, and sustainability metric. The index provided is used by academics around the world to give the sustainability discourse rigor and strength. Sholto Maud 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have had some time to expand the section. Perhaps this will help contextualize the discussion?? Sholto Maud 04:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Concept and Issues
This section seems to be repeated 10 times in total. I've deleted all but the first.--Discus2000 18:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of sustainability
When i read definition of sustainability in the beginning of this article i realized that i can't understand the sentence It is the same construct as virtuous or vicious spiralling, and the compound consequences of this can be mapped ahead of a time if a system's gravitational cooordinates are wholly specifiable. I am not a native english speaker. 1) i suspect that virtuous or vicious spiralling is right or left spiralling. 2) What does the phrase "gravitational coordinates" mean here? Is there some real sense, or is it used just as couple of beautiful words?

Actually i suspect that my not understanding of it is connected with initial dumbness of "foundations" of sustainability, rather than with complicated language. Gravitational effects that can't be explained by Newton's mechanics and need general theory of relativity, are obviously unable to affect human life at this level. Just too thin effects for us on Earth to feel them. General theory of relativity has it's own "areas" where it's significant -- i.e. strong gravitational fields. E.g., the trajectory of ray of light, passing nearby Sun, curves on the angle of about one second. I think, that a sudden fall of a meteorite, or unexpected tectonical processes of high amplitude, or a new decease are much greater challenges for sustainability of human civilization than such effects, as curvature of ray of light. But "gravitational coordinates" must sound good for people with power and money. ellol 20:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I erased this sentense, as too little speaking about the sense/meaning of sustainability. IMHO, just some "magic" words. ellol 20:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted what I believe is an important and useful addition to the defintiion of sustainable development as it has evolved through the series of UN summits, in particular the definition of SD as a "framework" for addressing the goal of improving the quality of life for everyone. Since this was agreed to, after quite a bit of heated debate, by world leaders at the 1995 World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen, this definition represents one of the more formally negotiated definitions for international policymaking. Jbarber

Templates
I've now removed the green politics template as well. Nowdays the terms is much more widesprean than just the Green movement. 20 years ago it would have been relavant as the greens were the only ones singing the sustainability tune. There may be a case to write something about sustainability and political parties in the main text. --Salix alba (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Environmentalism
I was thinking sustainability is a more "business"ized term for environmentalism. was I right? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.76.99.106 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Your question made me think that environmentalism might just be a "radical"ized term for sustainability :-) However, if you compare the two articles Environmentalism and Sustainability there does seem to be the tinest difference.  Ah words! So different and yet so similar! Sunray 22:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

SUSTAINABILITY means to focus on the long-term impacts of continuing an activity. Will it mess things up somehow eventually? It could mess up the environment. But it could be fine that way, and still mess up other things. So this opening sentence is great: "Sustainability is a systemic concept, relating to the continuity of economic, social, institutional and environmental aspects of human society." But the following sentence could be problematic, with too much emphasis on just environmental problems: "It is intended to be a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in a very long term."

On the other hand, ENVIRONMENTALISM should be a broader concept than only analyzing proposed activities to see if they will have adverse long-term eco impacts.

For one thing, the focus of Sustainability is activities that seem OK short-term, but might be bad long-term. If an activity has immediate, horrendous short-term eco impacts, that would be an Environmental issue, but not even worth considering in Sustainable terms.

I do think Sustainability is a more technical mode of thinking, and Environmentalism more touchy-feely-squishy-caring-emotional. 69.87.201.34 11:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * basically the difference is that enviromentalists (radical environmentalists at least) try to put the environment first, humans second, and take little account of "economic sustainability" or infact refute the validity of that phrase, in that it's impossible to have an "economically sustainable" system (businesstalk: continue to be able to profit from the practice) without exploiting the environment, or the people. sustainability as a movement came after environmentalism, and is basically environmentalism trying to fit into the capitalist system. most environmentalists would say that economics is irrelevant to true sustainability, and that only environmnetal and social sustainability are important. --naught101 13:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

linkspam
That external links section is really out of control. Please review: Wikipedia is not an internet directory. Some of those links will not inform the reader about the issue of sustainability, but instead lead to websites that are green projects at colleges, etc. While I may find these interesting, that's not the purpose of the external links section. Thanks! --Rkitko 16:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Please go ahead and weed out the ones that are not worthy.  Be bold... Sunray 06:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I went through and took out the links I felt were unnecessary; tried to leave the ones offering further information on sustainability and removed those that where more focussed on local community building. --jwandersTalk 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed
The following footnotes were removed from the sustainability metric section perhaps because not in the right citation format. If someone has the time please put them in the right format so that the citations are correctly referenced. Cheers. Sholto Maud 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Went through the history and put these back into the text. No one has said why they removed them, which is a little unfortunate.Sholto Maud 11:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Temporary Removal Pending References
The following table and ratios do not have references. Wikipedia policy is to provide citations to published peer reviewed documents, else it is called Original Research. Could the original author please provide peer reviewed references for the calculations. Sholto Maud 21:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Emergy Yield Ratio is the ratio of the ratio between the total amount of Renewable Emergies (R), Slowly Accumulating Renewable Emergies (SR) and Non Renewable Emergies (N), compared to the Non Renewable Emergy (N), according to the following formula


 * $$ EYR = \frac{(R+SR+N)}{N} $$

The Environmental Loading Factor is the ratio between the total Slowly Accumulating Renewable Emergy (SR) and the Non Renewable Emergy (N), compared to the Renewable Emergy, according to the following formula


 * $$ ELF = \frac{(SR+N)}{R} $$

R, SR and N are in units of 1022 EmJoules

Political ideology templates
A while a go I put up the green politics template, but it was removed because sustainability is not a purely green political idea/issue. But I think that it is logical that if something is included on a template, that the template is than included on that page as well. Sustainability is currently also on the christian democracy template. If I would include both could that solve the issue of not making sustainability partisan? Social justice for instance includes three templates: Christian Democracy, green and progressive. There it was combined with a discussion of the term in different political traditions--C mon 23:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of these templates belong here, or really on any pages in their "Ideas" boxes. To me, the template's presence implies that the political movement somehow owns the idea, as if one can't agree with the idea without first being affiliated with one of the political movements.  I find it more accurate to say that the idea is open to anyone, and these political movements have choosen to subcribe to it—and this I think is better conveyed by having the political template link to ideas pages without a template.  We should still include the fact that sustainability is one of the central ideas of these movements somewhere in the text, and could even have an "ideas held by the Chistian Democrary" category, for example. --jwandersTalk 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I included the templates after waiting a week of no response and now they are removed in one hou r. Please next time respond when some-one proposes something which is apparantly so controversial.

There are five reasons to include the templates on this page.
 * 1) It implies that a political movement is associated with a particular idea, like a category would. The category does not exist, the template does. So I chose (like many people with templates on other pages did) to use the template.
 * 2) the relation with the green movement is blatantly obvious especially when it is done in the history section, which is about "twenty years ago".
 * 3) It was removed under WP:NOT: I don't think this applies, I want to include the CD template, I'm not advocate of that.
 * 4) It is logical, if a concept appears on a template, that it should be included on the page.
 * 5) I included mulitiple templates, in order to convey the non-ownership of the idea.
 * I would prefer some constructive, neutral (i.e. not hostile towards particular political ideologies) debate, instead of removing things without discussing it. -- C mon 16:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I did not remove the templates, merely posted my opinions of why they should be removed above. User:Brimba removed them, quoting that in this article they are counter to WP:NOT.  I assume he or she meant Wikipedia is not a soapbox and I'm inclined to agree.  I think discussing the opinions of sustainability held by the various political parties in the article is fine. Labelling with a large template, however, conveys advocacy, whether it is intended to or not. --jwandersTalk 17:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What if we prominently place the Template:Environmental science on the page, making clear that sustainability is not a partisan issue but a matter of science. And include the template:green politics somewhere down in the article, namely where sustainability and green politics is discussed. And include some discussion on the Christian Democratic view on sustainability with a template. That way it is not claimed by one party, and first and foremost by science. --C mon 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Sustainable Development?
Currently there is a separate, and rather underdeveloped, article for sustainable development. This article covers all the information that should be in that article; this article essentially is an article on sustainable development. I strongly feel that the two articles should be merged or, perhaps, the sustainable development article should be deleted and this one should be renamed sustainable development, given that this term is a very dominant term in the field of international development. Thoughts? --The Way 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No merge. The topic "Sustainability" is a much broader concept. In part, its definition relied on the Brundtland Commission report which used the term "sustainable development."  The two terms are, nevertheless distinct. We should maintain both articles. Sunray 05:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No merge For the reasons by Sunray. Brimba 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No merge "Sustainable Development" a la Bruntland is an entirely diversionary fudge (see Trainer ref now in main article). We need RADICAL - ie total - change in the way we live if our species and planet are to survive. Quester67 07:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No merge Indeed in 'Sustainable development' the notion of 'development' dominates. It is important to keep the distinction and not confuse these two very different concepts. See Robinson in Ecological Economics 48 (2004)... --193.174.41.196 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No merge Sustainability is something that has to continue after the "development" phase is over, so it's clearly a separate topic. (How many votes are needed before the tag can be removed from the article?) Plymouths 08:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I have marked this article with the NPOV tag because it asserts the recommendations of various individuals without any discussion of differing opinions. Furthermore, it asserts these recommendations to be correct and implementable (e.g. "most people's hearts are in the right place for us to move forward") - implying rather strongly that this still-contreversial opinion is the only one in existance and is "right." (76.214.251.189 05:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC))


 * There hasn't been much debate of this. I agree with the contention that there could be more balance in the article. However, this is an article on "sustainability" and it is therefore important to outline the concept to the reader. Criticism gets pretty technical and may be beyond an entry-level encyclopedia article. To address the concerns identified above, I suggest we add a brief section that problematizes the concept, without getting too technical. After all, 100% sustainability is virtually impossible for species that are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, which includes humans. I will add a section about this. Sunray 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links and See Also
We really need to get control of the number of "External Links," and remove the ones that don't conform with WP:LINKS (lest this page become a link farm). Essentially we need to go through and see which links are necessary to the article, and which links are just there to promote another website. (Or at least that's how I read WP:EL.) I'm glad to take a shot at it by looking at each of the links myself - but maybe one of the more regular editors wants to take a first crack? You may be better positioned to know what's really needed for the article. We might also want to see if we can shorten the See Also section, if anyone has any ideas for how to do that. --TheOtherBob 21:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not the best-situated person to do this, but it needs doing, so here's my ideas for trimming this down. My idea was to try to cut it back from "all books and links on the subject" to "the key resources on the subject," which I see as a few that would be good references.  I also think many of the ones I've suggested for deletion have good arguments for being included in and of themselves - but there are just so many that we have to make some choices to trim.  I've also been fairly aggressive, with the hope that those more knowledgeable than myself will step in and comment on any crucial ones I marked "delete."  The further big disclaimer is that I'm not really an expert in this area - so if you are, please add your thoughts: --TheOtherBob 21:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that it is not prudent for a non-expert to cut the list back. Unless there is some independent means of assessing the value of the references, in my opinion no references referred to in the text should be removed. Else one is pushing a subjective point of view on a valuable resource. If there are too many links not referred to in the text then perhaps there should be a sustainability links page in Wikipedia which the sustainability article links to? Sholto Maud 04:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.Indeed - but, as I noted, somebody's got to do it, because this is entirely out of control (and constantly being added to - it's becoming a link farm). The flip side, and I think the better view, is that unless there is some independent means of assessing the value of the references, we shouldn't include them.  After all, it's better to include too little than to include something that's not encyclopedic just because we don't know enough to keep it out.  I think you and I are perfectly well-suited to evaluate what the sources are, though I'd prefer someone with more expertise do so (i.e. we can tell the difference between a significant textbook and an institute's article on a minor sub-issue.)
 * 2.To address one sub-issue, I don't think you're accusing me of pushing a POV, but wanted to ask. If so, please show me what you mean - I certainly didn't intend to include any POV in cutting this down.  But if you think I've emphasized one view to the exclusion of another, let me know.
 * 3.As far as a links page, I don't think we typically do that on wikipedia - but if there's support for such an approach, I'm open to it. --TheOtherBob 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: 1. I'm not convinced that we have to do anything about this matter at the moment. While there should be as few exceptions as possible it is not clear that the 'normal' rules about referencing need to be applied strictly in this instance. No one could claim that "sustainability" is a closed topic. As you say it seems to be true that "we don't know enough". Hence the topic is not necessarily amenable to an encyclopedic article in the recieved conception of 'encyclopedic'. Perhaps then our understanding of 'encyclopedic' needs revision rather than the article? One might argue that the article is actually an accurate depiction of our current understanding of the matter.


 * Re: 2. POV sub-issue. No I'm currently not making any accusations, but I believe that any cuts would represent a POV bias. This is because, as above, the topic is currently under what seems to be a high degree of flux. There is certainly no global consensus about what sustainability is, or how it might be measured, or indeed if it can or should be measured. Sholto Maud 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Obviously I disagree with that - to the extent that this topic isn't encyclopedic, it doesn't, you know, belong in an encyclopedia. (But it is, so it does.)  I don't want to take the discussion too far into the philosophical, but encyclopedias require some form of rules rather than pure discretion, lest they become something they're not.  Nor do I want to take this too far into the merits of the article itself, but articles about unsettled or open topics are written all the time - they lay out what is known and what is not known, and that's fine.  What you seem to suggest is that the article become some other creature, unlike any encyclopedia (or wikipedia) article ever known.  That's just not what we're here to do.  Nor do I see any reason that an overly crowded, link-heavy article advances any alternative encyclopedia conception in any event.


 * In so far as the meaning of "encyclopedia" is contested we will find resolution in the philosophy of encyclopedism. I'm not going to go in to it too far either other than to say that in 1600's encyclopedia was understood differently by different people - some, like Leibniz, thought it was a dynamic instrument for the unification of science. So as to the sustainability article the character of the creature depends on one's point of view. Sholto Maud 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In so far as the meaning of "encyclopedia" is contested, we should instead seek resolution in the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Even Leibniz presumably had some set of rules for his view of an encyclopedia - we operate under the Wikipedia ones here.  Different conceptions of an encyclopedia belong in a different encyclopedia. --TheOtherBob 02:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. I don't share your pessimism on this point; these things are done all the time. To the extent one POV is inadvertantly favored, people discuss, things get worked out - the process works even in controversial or "in flux" articles.  Nor, respectfully, does your logic really follow there.  That the article is in flux doesn't mean that removal of a type of source introduces POV.  Let's say we said "published works by scholars, but not webpages by random people."  The published works by scholars could present any point of view, and probably present all or most of them.  We haven't excluded a POV - we've chosen to include the most reliable source.


 * Agreed that these things get worked out. However note that some non-institutional voices, which might be stereotyped as "random people", claim it is the high energy institutions (publishing houses, universities etc.), that support academic scholars which are unsustainable. Sholto Maud 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - we should work to include those to some extent. To that end, we should probably revise my initial proposal below.  Suggestions? --TheOtherBob 02:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But no reason to talk in the hypothetical - let's test this hypothesis. What POV do my first-draft cuts favor? --TheOtherBob 04:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The following are not rigorous reasons for DELETION: "sounds like an article, but not a majorly important one? I can't find it, so it's hard to say."  "probably interesting, but again more of a point of view piece than a reference." "sounds like a white paper, not a central resource." You also propose several DELETIONS without reason. Without a metric for determing the value of any reference, and how important it is to the article or to maintaining global sustainability, it will be difficult to provide rigor to one's reasons. I propose you come back to this task once we know more about the matter. Sholto Maud 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This gets closer to addressing the question we should be asking: which references should we include? So I think that's a helpful first step.


 * We're going over old ground, but your argument about not knowing much about the subject cuts both ways, of course. If we know so little about sustainability, how can we possibly have reason to include any references, or even an article, about it?  But then I disagree, again, with the idea that sustainability is so nebulous as to be undefinable.  I also disagree with the idea that we can't build a metric to determine what links to include.


 * Indeed, I've proposed (albeit sloppily) a metric for choosing which references to include - as your examples demonstrate. But I will try to make it clearer:  (A) Reference works that are widely used are preferred over white papers, student notes, minor articles, etc. (though I take your point that if a major POV is only presented through unconventional sources, we should nonetheless include it.)  (B) Neutral points of view are preferred over those pushing a position (though I take your point that we need to include examples of certain major POV's).  (C) Resources on the central issue are preferred over those on sub-issues or that are only tangentially related.  (D) If we can't find it, it's not much of a resource and should not be included.


 * But I'm proposing to deal with what has become a very long list; reviewing the resources in and of itself is a chore. (Hence the skimpy reasons for deletions - I even got tired of capitalizing "keep" and "delete" by the end.)  I'm not really willing to spend weeks arguing about the definition of encyclopedias, the definition of references, the definition of articles, and the definition of soup before we even get around to talking about which references to include.  So to the extent that people are interested in talking about ways to shorten this list, I'm game.  To the extent that people are dedicated to the view that we shouldn't even try, I'm not willing to fight about it. --TheOtherBob 02:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I don't wan't to get into soup either. As you say, I agree that sustainability is not so nebulous as to be undefinable. Yet we seem to acknowledge that "our" current knowledge of the matter is nascent, and, therefore, that some of the content of the aritcle is, for the want of a better term, "emergent". (Moreover, as a user-defined encyclopedia, Wikipedia also has the emergent property). It may be that even some of the most scholarly work will be subject to substantial revision in the light of a greater understanding. Hence while A) is preferred, amidst the flux it is difficult to interpret what are central or sub-issues (C), and what are neutral points of view (B). In light of this, further proposals:


 * 1. Propose that all references cited or footnoted in the article should be retained in the reference section until such time that a more authoritative source can be given supporting, or falsifying the same view.


 * 2. Propose a small blurb in the Bibliography section acknowledging our difficulties here in dealing with provisional and emergent knowledge of the matter.


 * 2.1. Propose we make use of your lovely navbox collapsible collapsed in the article to contain all the current Bibliography and external links so that they can be hidden and so as to shorten the article. (something like the below but using wikipedia color) Sholto Maud 10:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased article
I have added a POV-check tag to the article. It is written from a pro-sustainability point of view throughout, and does not contain a section describing criticisms of the concept of sustainability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ppe42 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I completely agree Spoofer25 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If youre looking for some valid debate about the merits of Sustainability then you might want to check out the Future Cities Project. I think they present some ideas that are generally excluded from articles like this. http://www.futurecities.org.uk/articles/art01072.html --Helm.ers 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the article you reference above (Future Cities Project) and do not see the word "sustainability" mentioned. Thus I don't understand the point being made. The article does make some sweeping generalizations, such as this: "... the self-proclaimed environmental ‘movement’ seems to be in group therapy at the moment..." As if the environmental movement is some sort of cohesive group of people, all of whom have the same issues.


 * What are the criticisms of sustainability? Please outline them here, so we can address them in the article. Sunray 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sustainability and business addition
A recent addition makes a general claim about American small towns enacting legislation to increase sustainability requirements, but bases the assertion on one town. the sources all seem to lead back to an "energyspin" blog posting. The writing seems rather promotional and the claim is much broader than the sources support. Since the sources don't seem to be particularly solid I thought it could do with more scrutiny. Is there any real substance to the claim? -- Siobhan Hansa 01:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

POV check tag
I have removed the POV-check tag for now. I need to know, more specifically, why some folks regard the article as having neutrality problems. I have been researching critiques of sustainabilty in preparation for writing a section on it. However, there are two types of criticism: 1) critiques of the term sustainability which tend to be based on the fact that 100% sustainability is not achievable; 2) critiques of industrial capitalism which continually attempts to appropriate the term. I'm not sure whether the second of these critiques is within the scope of an encyclopedia article. But, having looked into it, am not at all clear on what was meant by the claims of lack of neutrality.

So please, if you think that the article has neutrality problems, do state your concerns here. Sunray 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the difficulty of the concept of sustainability coupled with the need to fight for it as a society in order to provide society with a long-term viable future is so important, I believe the use of phraseology that specifically weighs one definition of the concept as "most acceptable" or "most-used" or "best understood" needs to either be heavily defended (which makes it POV) or is best left out (to attain neutrality).--Markisgreen 23:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You requested a citation for the following sentence: "One of the most often-cited definitions of sustainability is the one created by the Brundtland Commission." While I don't disagree, at all, with the point you make above, about the importance of the proper definition of the term, I do think that this particular definition is undisputedly the one most often cited. I wasn't trying to be flippant in my response. If one looks at the definitions of sustainability (e.g., by doing a Google search with the term: "Define: Sustainability" you find that the Brundtland definition is at the core of a significant number of definitions. Not surprising, since Brundtland really brought the term to public attention.


 * I don't think that "Most often cited" implies either "most acceptable" or "best understood," just that it is often used. So while a citation on this might be nice, I would suggest that it is not necessary. Could the lead be better written?. Can the article be improved?  For sure, but I don't agree with your revert. One has to explain why a definition of "sustainable development" relates to sustainability. If anything, more needs to be added to the lead, not removed. Sunray 03:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not interested in an edit war and neither of us are vandals so I'm not going to undo or revert Sunray's change (though I do disagree with it). I don't feel sufficiently informed to improve the article in the manner that Sunray has suggested at this time, so I guess I have no choice but to accept that we agree to disagree and leave it alone for now. I don't feel that Sunray's re-insertion of the sentence makes the article more encyclopedic, but rather less.  However, I will leave this issue to others to consider and arbitrate as I feel editor disputes over minor phrasings are unproductive and possible damaging to the point of the article and the wikipedia project in general.  I don't think having the sentence there damages the article significantly so I am not going to worry about it until I have a more productive and useful alternative.  If I do manage to enrich my understanding of the concepts involved sufficiently to provide what I might think is a better alternative, in the near future, I'll suggest it on Sunray's talk page or here.--Markisgreen 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)