Talk:Sustainability/Archive 15

Further thoughts on outline
Sunray has asked us to think about the outline before we get thoroughly under way – he said “How about each of us takes a look and see what improvements we can suggest.”

Needless to say I have taken him up on this challenge and this is what I have come up with for your comment. I think after history we need a clear structure. I also think that in what follows we are talking a lot about environmental sustainability in the face of human activity – what we called before human global sustainability. In terms of intuitive headings my inclination would be to answer two “simple” questions – 1. What is the problem? 2. How do we fix it? In the former we make a statement mostly about the state of biological and Earth systems - the title could be something quite different from the simple one here. The latter I suggest has two components: the evidence on which management must be based – which I like to call “Sustainability accounting” but there is plenty of choice here (also called “Measuring sustainability” or “Sustainability metrics”, “Sustainability reporting” etc.). The second component is the management “action” method, the way decisions about sustainability are implemented. This will clearly entail the usual political process of legislation etc, but it also involves a whole range of informal decision-making, like me deciding to cycle to work. The word often used to cover both formal and informal decision-making is “governance” so that is my preference. I will try and reorganize the present outline into these broad headings if you think this approach has legs. On Nicks comments above - Nick I agree about the complexity and messiness - all this is conceptually extremely difficult to deal with and present in a simple, clear way. In a sense we are covering "everything". Trouble is I think invasive species and peace and security (and all the other stuff) although seeming in a way well off the mark cannot be ignored: they are vital to the story. Although Wikipedia does not allow original research I do not think it is too arrogant to suggest that in devising a "way of presenting this story "we are actually doing pioneering original research that it would allow.I have not seen anything quite like it anywhere (alright I can hear you chuckle ;-) at that one) - but I think it is perfectly valid and, frankly, also a valuable contribution to the history of ideas, if we can make it gel. The following builds on what I said above - still plenty of massaging to do but see what you think: if it is broadly accepted then we have a lot of summarising to do.


 * Definition - establish the various contexts in which sustainability is applied – starting from the most general and moving to the more particular
 * In a general sense – endure
 * Ecosystem sustainability
 * Wide application nowadays to a range of activities and items in space and time
 * Specific application to a global human program
 * History - a summary of the development of the concept of sustainability
 * Early Concepts & Writings - 1800's, first writings & concepts dealing with sustainability
 * Hotelling's Rule - beginnings of the modern concepts of sustainability
 * 1950s Environmentalism - mid 20th century, Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, etc
 * 1980s Advent of the UN “sustainable development” and integration of environment, society and economics as part of governance of human sustainability. Other recent developments
 * Earth systems and sustainability
 * Environmental
 * Atmosphere
 * Climate change and air pollution
 * Land
 * Forests
 * Agriculture
 * Water
 * Freshwater
 * Oceans
 * Extinction
 * Invasive species
 * Social
 * Population, migration, urbanisation
 * Peace, conflict and security
 * Cultural, psychological and behavioural change
 * Economic
 * Decoupling economic growth and environmental degradation
 * Sustainability accounting
 * Human technology and consumption
 * Energy
 * Water
 * Materials
 * Food
 * Ecosystems
 * Sustainability governance
 * The sustainability transition
 * Barriers to sustainability

Granitethighs (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * GT, today I've made further updates to the outline to include comments regarding the content of each section. I understand your thoughts, but I feel the outline is becoming well resolved, there is plenty of space for content regarding economic and social sustainability. In the proposed outline, we're defining sustainability, then providing information regarding the history of the term, we then describe sustainability by outlining it's various aspects/concepts. We then turn to sustainability as a scientific discipline and how to measure it before discussion it's inevitable application. We can then discuss the difficulties in the application of sustainability and any current efforts that exist. All the while we shall include summaries of all sub topics of sustainability and provide links to all the related main articles where the content of each can be discussed in further detail. I feel we ask your two simple questions within the description and application sections. If one wants to learn about the state of current biological systems, they shall be directed to the appropriate main article, the overview subsection of the description section is intended to establish the current state and direct people to where they need to go for more info. The disciplines of sustainability accounting/metrics/reporting/etc will be discussed in the sustainability science and measurement sections. Nick carson (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick, I think you will see from the above outline that we are essentially in agreement. I am all in favour of the economic and social sustainability (it is critical) but I suggest it lies slightly deeper in the text - it was a late arrival on the sustainability scene and complicates matters conceptually as we set the scene for the reader in the early sections. I am not sure how to deal with the biological systems because in a strong sense it is the biosphere (biological systems) that sustain us and hence they are pivotal to sustainability. Certainly keep them brief, but hiving them off elsewhere - not sure. I'll have to think about that. It might be tricky finding the balance but that's part of the exercise. At the moment I think my priorities would be to reduce the double discussion of economics, the history section, and the explanation of the UN and its history - but that will hopefully shake out as we go along. I will have another look at the extended outline you have done. Incidentally, where do you live? - I'm in Blackburn South.

Granitethighs (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * GT, we are indeed in agreement with practically all of the content and it's basic order, but there are a few things I disagree with; I don't think we'd be hiving them off elsewhere, we've got whole other articles which discuss the human impact on the biosphere and the biospheres themselves, if people are interested in or want to know about such subject matter specifically, they can read about it at their dedicated articles, but we have to focus on sustainability. I think we should combine the best elements of each of our definition subsection proposals, yours is more defined and mine is simplified. Your section earth systems and sustainability is almost entirely the same content as my description and application sections, but I hold strong with my initial proposal for these sections, I think they better synthesise the fundamental questions as you discussed of what? and how?. It still allows for all the content you mention, such as the relationship between earth systems and sustainability, but simplifies the order in which it is represented by saying "this is what sustainability is all about, the concepts behind it and how important they are" and "this is how we can apply these concepts". Your sustainability accounting section is covered in my measuring sustainability and sustainability science section, which I feel are a better proposal as they are more encompassing, less specific, thus less complicated, within which we can direct people to where more specific information can be found (within their respective main articles). Sorry if that all sounds a bit negative, but I feel this is an outline that separates the subject matter out into its fundamental parts best. Blackburn South hey? I'm from around the Warrandyte area. Amazing :] Nick carson (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick, OK, I dont think it is worth extended debate at this stage. I'm with you. We are broadly in agreement - any minor differences should come out in the wash as we go along. I guess we "build up" the article from scratch and what is already there? Do a first pass so to speak and see how it looks and feels then. What does everyone think? Granitethighs (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good :] Nick carson (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick... I agree with your assessment.. and Granite thighs... I would like to make it clear again that in my opinion you are over weighting the U.N. stuff, and trying to spill it over into the entire article in multiple ways... I am also going to put the three articles you have been presenting in a relatively new section in the article, that you created without debate or putting on the talk page after the fact... into the U.N. section where I think they belong... and would also say again that trying to highlight recent articles that you created and have pretty much been the only editor of...one of which had zero citations until recently and all of which are iffy in my opinion as to notability... that virtually no one but yourself has edited, that are barely start articles seems like a bad idea as to presenting well rounded information. It appears to me that these relatively new and not really recognized areas as to disciplines... that are mostly U.N. concepts are being given undue weight... and it is arguable they should even be in the U.N. section.  sustainability science sustainability governance sustainability accounting I have brought this up now about 4 times to no comment or debate. It is noted that these article are a kind of walled garden that lead to themselves and mostly the same information... all U.N. dominated, sourced pretty much exactly the same with similar information citations and refs... and they also employ terms that also refer to better known concepts concerning the same material... and because of that I may suggest that they be dropped altogether from the article or be looked at closely even to see if they are sourced enough and connected enough to be considered here for this article, because even the terms used to name the articles could arguably be thought of as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms  because as said these titles are recent and made up to describe process's that have been around for a while.  skip sievert (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Skip – most eloquent and discrete. A few comments. 1. If you had read the note above you would have seen that I am advocating culling the UN stuff. I share your cynicism about the UN but I do not think that our pov is relevant in presenting the article. 2. These terms are not neologisms – but it is true these important fields do not have well-established terms. I am not worried about the terms but I think the ideas are important and I will not accept their demise easily. What about we both concentrate on making this Sustainability article a really good one? Granitethighs (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick, I am happy with the bare bones of the outline, the content of each heading will no doubt evolve as we work. I say this because I see quite a lot I would want to alter to a greater or lesser extent in the comments after each heading, however, at this stage I think it is more important to get on with the work. Granitethighs (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Broadside
I am not at all happy with the way this page has developed or the way it is apparently going.

It is heavily overloaded with detailed evidence whereas a short summary of the state of the planet ... including many economic, social, and other issues which do not appear to be mentioned ... would suffice.

More seriously, there appears to be no systematic discussion of the barriers to doing something about the situation.

It is easy to make a list of thngs "Governments" should do.

But the reality is that they can not and wil not do them.

One has somehow to understand the sociocybernetic processes which are so inexorably heading us in a direction which vast segments of the population have for decades known to be a disaster course.

It is necessary to devise knowledge-based, systems-oriented, interventions ... not recommend system wide changes based on "common sense" ... to remedy the situation.

In short there is no discussion of the issues it is most important to discuss, or even easily discerned links to such discussions within the Wikipedia.

Quester67 (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Quester. You are welcome to join the consensus team that has just started to re-work this article (see sign-up at top of page). That way we can all benefit from your thoughts. The points you raised are currently being addressed so now would be a good time to make a contribution. We can then discuss how "sociocybernetics" will contribute to a more systematic discussion. A couple of comments: firstly, it is not the business of an encyclopaedia article to say what "ought" to be happening  (npov). Secondly, there was once, in my view, an excellent short and to the point section on "barriers to sustainability". It was deleted by an enthusiastic editor who thought it was too "negative". Thanks for your comments. Granitethighs (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi :] if you do decide to join the rewrite team then just make sure you use the subsections at the top of the talk page where the rewrite and discussion for each section is being done. We've got almost all the content we need, it just needs to be reorganised into the new outline, which is also at the top of the talk page. Nick carson (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Granitethighs. You are right. That section did exist. I added to it, then it was whittled away and finally deleted completely. There are still signs of its onetime existence in the list of further readings that are no longer even mentioned in the main entry. I am tempted to resort to conspiracy theory to explain what has happened. But the current entry is so overloaded with evidence for what "everyone" knows that it is impossible to see the wood behind the foliage. The main pillars that drive this whole system are just not visible. The fundamental writings of Vandana Shiva, for example, who shows how the growth of this non sustainable superstructure are embedded in reductionist science, are reduced to a statement about her role in advancing feministic issues. Equally, Bookchin, whose work shows that this process has been advancing at an exponetially increasing rate for milennia ... regardless of apparent social form .. is again reduced to an entry in "further reading". The work of people like Nic Marks and Lane ... who show that, even in the present day, it is possible for societies to offer long high quality life almost within a sustainable ecological footprint provided one abandons the myths of materialsim (which are responsible for so much detruction), suffers the same fate. Rees's conclusion ... which should hit readers between the eyes .. that it would require 3 to 5 back up planets engaged in nothing but agriculture for everyone alive today to live as we do ... is essentially dismissd in a numbered note which says it has been contested! The whole artivle seems grounded in an assumption ... oh so convenient for those who hold power ... that if one simply and endlessly documents all this stuff (which, despite reassuring words in the opening paragraphs, acutally relate to only one aspect of the problem) benign governments will do something about it. Write a report and someone will do something! We studied 8 to 11 year old children working on environmental projects in schools: most of them already knew that that was just rubbish. Yet here we have a report in an enclopedia which fails to chart the rocks in a way which makes them clearly visible, analyses the forces driving us against them, and examines the barriers whch have, for milennia, prevented the observations of many acute observers of society having any impact.

Given what has happened to what WAS there and my own experience of having my own reviews of available evidence eliminated as "personal essays" I am afraid I am most reluctant at this point to set about trying to remedy the entry ... which I certainly do not think is "near completion". However, if anyone cares to trawl through "history" and ressurect some of what was there I will add my tuppence worth. But I currently have no idea when next I will be able to re-visit the site. Quester67 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * These are good points. I was always puzzled by the fact we recognise deep concern for the fate of our planet as a diagnostic feature of gifted children - but do not, alas, use the same tool to identify gifted politicians or bureaucrats.   But there are very few writers who succeed in conveying the true urgency of the situation without sacrificing neutrality and credibility (and none of them are on our editing team).  And yes, you are right there is a whole industry devoted to producing words on paper and hot air about the problems, and precious few people doing anything practical about solutions, so once you start talking hot air it's very easy to keep going.
 * I personally will come back to your points whenever I write something, because I do share your views.--Travelplanner (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your knowledge regarding the history/development of the concept of sustainability, and sustainability in general, is much welcomed, even if you just add any content that is not already there, if you like you can also add it here with a note and I'll incorporate it into the rewrite. Try not to get too bogged down with suspicions, don't let your motivation waver, I too write my own material regarding the transition of existing urban environments to sustainable urban environments and the fact is that hardly anyone will listen to information delivered in that form. The key to transitioning our society, systems, behaviors, everything, towards becoming sustainable lies in the education of the general public. I'm involved with the UN as part of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, we're currently establishing an online media centre where people can ask questions and engage in discussion with experts in sustainability-centered fields. We're also working on a number of large scale community education campaigns and stunts. We have to recognise that the majority of people don't understand the importance of sustaining our own existence and if you do, then its your responsibility to educate people. We also can't waste time getting bogged down in needless complexity. Get back to basics and spread the word and change will happen, humans are inclined to evolve, wether we like it or not. Nick carson (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Quester, I was curious about your comment that material you had added to the article was dismissed as original research, so I looked up some of your edits. The edits I looked at were some time ago. In February, 2008, you added some thoughtful information on Bookchin and social ecology. It was reverted by an editor with the notation "editorial." I restored it and added "citation needed" tags. I think that Bookchin's perspective is important (and evidently others do as well). However, we will need citations for everything. Would you be able to think about where in the current outline this belongs and propose something? Sunray (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a time when I was quite hopeful of the Wikipedia. But it has turned out to be as susceptible to wishful thinking as, for example, the Bruntland report. Like court jesters ... reports like these demoonstrate the horror of the situation and then lead their audiences to audience assume that the problems, now public, will be fixed. I am away from home at present and have read and re-read the main entry several times. Frankly, apart from the opening paras, which stem from an earlier era (ie more than 3 years ago) it strikes me as superficial and popularistic. The pics are merely gloss and add nothing. A few well chosen graphs (like the population one) would make the case much more forcefully. There is virtually no discussion of other huge non-sustainabilties ... like the non-sustainability of the financial system itself or the way in which the ever increasing divisions in wealth and well-being within and between societies are heading us into a nuclear war scenario. Contrary to the assumptions behind the current entry, the problem is not a lack of knowledge of the situation, it is an inability to see any way of doing anything about it. "Everyone" can see that there is no point in doing anything because they are dealing with a system (in the technical sense) in which common-sense based attempts at change in single variables are negated by the reactions of the rest of the system. Current formulations of social science are inadequate to the task ... and despite portrayal in the film "Lions for Lambs" and Seddon's "Systems thinking in the public service"... we have been unable to trace s single significant work on the reform of public management since the writings of Adam Smith and John Stuar Mill. Another Bookchin quote makes the point clearly: the changes that are needed ... and quickly ... must be so great that the resulting society will not even be recogisable as a "political economy" at all. Likewise, in the entry as it stands, there is virtually no discussion of the drivers that are heading us in a direction in which none of us wants to go ... And have been do so for millennia ..not just 2,000 years ... despite the protest of endless acute observers of society. Just as understanding the forces which crash sailing boats against the rocks was dependent on the work of one or two scientists, so understanding these social forces is not going to emerge from more tracts from conventional political scientists (still less economists) but from the work of one or two people. In that context I have to say that Bookchin's Herculean study of the role and inexorable emergence of hierarchy ... with its associated insistence on the creation of "work" to occupy the masses (and thus destroy the planet) and legitimise hierarchy ... viz division which compels participation in a destructive system ... and Shiva's work on the role of reductionist science and monocultures ... seem to me to be the only two contenders for nomination for that position in the context of understanding our plunge toward self-extinction as a species. But no doubt their views would be regarded as "personal points of view" ... (I should perhaps make clear that I am refering to the first two thirds of Bookchin's "Ecology of Freedom" ... not to his other excellent, but more popular, works). So. To conclude. To complete this entry properly, it would be necessary to generate and have links to a series of other entries such as the unimaginable (and much less well known) horrors embedded in the workins of the financial system, to the failures of current forms of public management whether through the "market" or current forms of bureaucracy and democracy and so on. This would be a Herculean task ... with each of the entries being easily dismissed as "too negative" or PPV (ie unamerican point of view).

OK. So. Sorry, Wikipedia. I fear that the current editorial process is not facilitating the advance in understanding that is needed. Antipation of the effort required to generate the necessary network of cross-linked entries associated with awareness of the likelihood that they would be neutralised or eliminated does not lead me to feel that I should make it my top priority to contributing to their creation.

But, just incase there are a few readers who read this comment before it is eliminated, I would urge you to read Bookchin's "Ecology of Freedom". So far as I know it is the only book that documents just how deeply embedded are the processes currently driving us toward our extinction as s species, carrying the planet as we know it with us. Quester67 (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Quester. Your comments here will not be deleted - and thanks for sharing your thoughts. As a wikipedian working on this article I sometimes feel like a newspaper reporter on the deck of a sinking ship. I am standing there with my notepad recording the whole event as accurately as possible so that, if the boat doesn't sink or, by some miracle, we are all saved, people will have a precise account of exactly what happened. Of course, as I stand on the deck, everyone around me is shouting "Why don't you do something". Being a recorder of the situation seems a kind of impotent and useless distraction when we need to be working together to get the lifeboats ready. However, as a wikipedian (and not a newspaper reporter on a sinking ship) I have another life where I can do my best to change the world as I see fit (although cynical despair is never an option no matter how hopeless the task). In the meantime, here, on this page, I simply report, as accurately as possible, that is my job, I am not "making a case". The pics in the article are on our job list as is the "financial system" and economic aspects of sustainability. A section on cultural and behavioural change, no matter how poor, has always been a part of the article in recent times, if not always. A succinct summary of what you regard as the "drivers of unsustainability" would be really useful thanks. I will make a special effort to read Bookchin - my best wishes Quester. Granitethighs (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I keep trying to stop thinking about this entry. But can't.

Maybe I will work up the energy to suggest a revised structure.

But I do have a number of problems with Wikipedia policy.

I would like just to mention one of them, but when I start writing about that several others surface.

As I see it, what should be in this entry is a clear statement re the non sustainability of chemical intensive and energy intensive agriculture ... and the impact of those things on a whole series of other things like the food chain cycle and the seas etc etc.

The detail should not be in here but in a linked back up entry.

But here one encounters problem no. 1. The end statement will be treated as a political statement. Reason: it offends those who believe in The American Dream. But, in reality, in the Marks Happy Planet study, the USA comes 140th in the list. It does not offer particularly high quality of life and what it does offer is bought at enormous cost. In reality it is one of the leaset efficient and most destructive countries on the planet. But the dream over-rides logic. Hence Bruntland.

THE BRUNTLAND ENTRY IN THE WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS NO REFERENCES TO THE CRITICISMS (which are actually devastating).

OK. Maybe you can sell that one.

But, if we are to do anything about this situation one needs to understand some of the drivers.

Then one gets back to the writings of one or two people ... and, in my poking around, that takes one to Bookchin and Shiva.

So one would like those entries to summarise what these authors actually say.

But, no, Wikipedia policy seems to be to sanitise entries by listing eg degrees, positions held etc.

Just look at the Carsons/Silent Spring entry. It is reduced to 3 lines about pesticides. And ... I don't have it in front of me ... perhaps 12 lines saying it was criticised by eg Monsanto.

The Vanana Shiva entry should say something about her basic work on reductionist science and monocultures ... of mind and culture as well as agricultures. The cultural one is highly relevant in that the monoculture of what might be called Americanization drives out other thinking. It is perhaps easier to see the relevance of reductionist science. One of the major drivers to our extinction is the way we embrace single-variable "science". So it is thought to be perfectly OK to study the short term effects of fertilizers and pesticides on crop yields and ignore effects even 10 years down the line, never mind the effects on birds and the food chain and on rivers and the seas etc. etc. etc. But this embrace of reductionist science is deeply embedded in our thinking. So, sorry, granitethighs, if you really do want to do something, the target is not quite where you thought it was.

But my point is that there is no summary of Shiva's work in her Wikipedia entry. There is no discussion of Bookchin's work in his entry. Perhaps even more amazing is the absence of any discussion of Kinsey's work in the Kinsey entry - although, in that case, there IS a way round ... by going to "Kinsey report".

Now that's interesting from the point of view of this sustainability entry.

OK If it is not possible to include summaries of people's work in their biography pages ... perhaps it would be possible to generate some kind of back up pages to do so.

This is very important.

If you do get onto the imminent collapse of our financial system ... which has huge implications ... you will need to describe the role of eg the IMF, the World Bank, and the Federal Reserve bank from a very negative point of view.

One might avoid the accusation of offering a political and personal viewpoint by citing eg Susan George ... but I wonder what her biographical entry says.

I do/did know what the entry on Adam Smith says/said. It no where explained what the basic market theory he was advocating was meant to do. It was not about making money. It was about public management. It was a design for a society which would innovate and learn without central direction (note the link to Bookchin and Deming). But it has been picked up and used to promote its opposite in exactly the same way as, as Bookchin shows, has the writing of influential philosophers over milennia.

Yeahbut. Of course. That's a personal point of view! But how is anyone reading the sustainability entry going to get to a point beyond shouting at politicians and expecting them to do something (cf "Lions for Lambs") unless one can somehow get back to what these key writers were saying and then engage in some criticism of them.

Hence my earlier comment about the need to set up a network of linked entries and find some way round some of the more simplistic interpretations of Wikipedia policy.

By the way, there ARE ways round. Some really good entries on some really controversial issues. But I don't want to mention them incase someone takes a hatchet to them!

But I do feel that moving THIS entry forward requires some basic thought about what heeds to be said in THIS page and link back to background pages which in turn lead still further back.

Best wishes,

Quester67 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to be a little more specific about the developments that are needed and embedded in the comments I made a few days ago, I have prepared the following network of suggestions.

It seems to me that the current “sustainability” entry should be dramatically reduced in content and made much more hard hitting.

It should more or less be reduced to the following:

We face at least the following imminent disasters
Collapse of Biosphere

(Due to CO2, CFCs, destruction of rain forests etc.)

Collapse of Food Base

(Due to destruction of the soils, seas, atmosphere and population growth. Note the role of both chemical and energy intensive agriculture and inability to dispose of both the products and by-products of industrial production. )

Collapse of World Order

(Due to treatment of Third World (including activities of World Bank, IMF etc)

Collapse of Financial System

(Due to the fact that prices no longer mean anything, usurous lending of money created out of thin air, inequity in incomes within and between countries, and irresponsibility of bankers)

Collapse of everything

(Due to nuclear winter as countries fight over diminishing resources and seek to impose partis icular ideologies on a world-wide scale, but in the end triggering release of stockpiles of nuclear material currently held in armaments and power stations.)

Editorial comment: Each of these entries requires a link back to a major page reviewing the, often surprising, evidence supporting it. Much of the material needed to support the first and second of these statements is, to judge from the current page, well known to at least some members of the current editorial team. However, even here, more needs to be made of Wakernegel and Rees’s summary statement that 3 or 5 back up planets would be required to enable everyone alive today to live as we live; it can’t be done, but those concerned are determined to try … and that will be the end of us all. It is less clear that the non sustainability of the financial and world government system is well known to the current editorial team. Reference may need to be made to the work of Susan George (Fate worse than debt), James Robertson (Future Work), John Raven (New Wealth of Nations), and Ann Pettifor (Coming First World Debt Crisis) among others.

Then there is a need for a clear summary statement:

It follows from what we have seen that radical transformation in our way of life is inevitable.

We are currently set on a disaster course of immense proportions. A disaster course which is becoming exponentially worse.

The only'option we have is whether we will act in time to get control of the situation or whether we will wait to be pushed around - and probably eliminated as a species - by forces beyond our control.

Editorial comment. Note that these are neither political statements nor personal points of view in anything other than the sense in which Galileo’s and Newton’s conclusions were political and personal points of view.

Then the entry needs to move toward analysis and explanation.

It is clear that the forms of public management that have emerged over millennia have failed to devise ways of acting on information in an innovative way in the long term public interest.

Again, such a statement needs to be linked to a detailed entry on the objectives and failures of the main forms of public management advocated or pursued today. Unfortunately, such an entry is even more open to the accusation of being political and personal than the statements made above.

En route, the simplistic notion that what is required is a change of values needs to be addressed.

Having got to that point, one has to ask what are the drivers which have, for millennia, headed society in a direction in which the most thoughtful people alive at the time have known to be a mistake … and have, from time to time, sought to devise alternative public management arrangements to avoid.

At this point one comes up against the cutting edge of advancing science.

Very few people have noted that the processes listed above form a system, in the technical sense, and cannot be tackled independently. That is, the attempt to tackle any one component on its own is negated by the reactions of the rest of the system. The name that comes to mind here is Stafford Beer … but there are a few others who ought to be mentioned. So the need is for a link to Systems thinking and sociocybernetics. And the sociocybernetics entry needs to be considerably (re)developed.

At this point the field of citable authors narrows still further.

On the one hand there is Bookchin’s demonstration (in “The Ecology of Freedom” that the social forces promoting these developments have been continuously and inexorably at work (despite the protestations of thoughtful people) over millennia. They cannot be vaguely attributed to “capitalism”.

On the other hand there is Vandana Shiva’s observation that the roots of these developments in modern society are deeply embedded in … not the “science” of popular critique … but in the thoughtways of reductionist science.

Finally, and here one really has to do battle with the question of whether Newton’s was a personal or an objective point of view (and most of his work was initially rejected by the scientific community). For, in the end, one has to ask “What are the sociocybernetic forces that are responsible for the autopoietic march of hierarchy, dominance, and destruction?” Unless we quickly set about understanding and intervening in them as a system we are destined for extinction in the near future, carrying the planet as we know it with us.

This is not a conclusion to be dismissed as “personal” or “too negative”. It describes an objective reality which more people need to recognise and act upon.

Quester67 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is completely recognised as fact, there are many people and groups, not the least of which include movements like Environmentalism, Car-free movement, Cradle to Cradle. In addition, the United Nations has indicated their desire to educate the world on the facts you state and conduct education programs around the world, they'd probably appreciate any knowledge and help you had to offer. We will be sure to include any information you can contribute provided you can verify it, and I personally have insisted on the inclusion of a "application/implementation" section to explain the various ways in which we can implement the concept of sustainability across the many facets of life on Earth. One of my biggest goals in being part of the editing team for this rewrite is to achieve simplicity and clarity in the subject matter, as sometimes things can get a bit disorganised and out of control when dealing with such an encompassing subject. Feel free to contribute to the talk pages on each individual section :] Nick carson (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Measuring and monitoring
Sustainability measurement assists sustainability management by providing and improving evidence-based quantitative measurements. Sustainability measurement indicators may include benchmarks, audits, indexes and other metrics connected to sustainability. ref Hak, T. et al. Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 67. Island Press, London.

Sustainability accounting uses physical resource theory dealing with physical resources and their conversion in various systems. Sustainable development and environmental science as well as ecological economics contributes to those concepts. The systems can be societal (e.g., technical, such as energy conversion systems (thermoeconomics) or an industrial process), geophysical (e.g., the atmosphere or a mineral deposit), or ecological (e.g., an ecosystem or an organism). The conversion of physical resources in societal systems is studied with reference to human needs, availability of resources and the possibilities of incorporating these conversions in the natural system. Another important task for resource theory is to develop methods to optimize resource conversion processes. The systems are described and analyzed by means of the methods of mathematics and the natural sciences. ref http://exergy.se/goran/thesis/

Something like this gets at the issues pretty well. skip sievert (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Skip, there seems consensus that ecological economics needs representation in the article, either in the History section and/or the section devoted to economics and sustainability. You are clearly the person for this input. The article at present, as TP points out, is accessible to a broad section of the community: the ideas, by and large, are expressed simply and in simple language. I know it can be annoying to "dumb down" your thoughts - complex situations and systems can be misrepresented this way. However, that is the nature of this beast. For example, I have a tertiary education and find it very difficult to follow what you are driving at above. I do not know what "physical resource theory" is, and therefore seeing how various disciplines link in to it is a problem. Thermoeconomics is totally new to me. I understand that we need to optimise resource conversion processes but is this what you are meaning? There is a similar lack of focus and clarity in the current History section. Dont get me wrong. I think what you are saying is important but it needs to be expressed simply and mostly in simple words i.e. in discussing economics, is it be possible to be economical with words? We cannot suddenly hit people with exergy, emergy, sociocybernetics, thermoeconomics or whatever, and expect them to be instantly tuned in. I am inclined to think that a proportion of people reading this article will be young people doing sustainability studies - often in secondary school. They may have been asked to do projects explaining what sustainability is, what it is trying to do, and why it is important. I feel we owe it to them to make a complex situation as simple as possible or they will quickly lose interest. I would really appreciate your ideas on ecological economics in as simple a form as you can manage - indicating how they link in to "big picture" sustainability - or the argument for them "being" the big picture. I am impressed with the depth of your reading on economic matters as shown in the history section, but I am still not clear about the major ideas that environmental economists have wrestled with in the past and are wrestling with now. Granitethighs (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned this before.. but Ecological economics is as close to actual sustainability focus as is possible in modern mainstream sustainability thinking because it supposedly puts ecology first. Reality is that it does not though. It only claims to. The heterodox interpretation of Natural resource economics and Biophysical economics is related directly to change. Real change. There is no real hope in the present economic model. At all. It is based on growth. That is a dead end. The world will be destroyed on this course. It has however been known for some time what an alternative system could look like. That would be a science based system that does not use a Price system. That is heterodox currently but could change into mainstream as Technology continues to destroy the concept of work and the labor theory of value.


 * I could go on... but, Wikipedia is not a blog of course. Here is a reference point you may find interesting.... it was written by perhaps the most well known geo scientist of the 20th century. M. King Hubbert - http://www.technocracy.org/man%20hours%20and%20distribution.htm - I would also say .. it probably is not a good idea to have low expectations of an audience. In fact it is probably best to present the very best and most intellectual information... available. And, it is a fact that any one with a good 8th. grade education can understand this material. It is not that complicated or hard. This idea of assuming things are difficult to understand, is probably not the best to pursue. Mostly all this information is very simple. skip sievert (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to be clear, concise, simplified, and rich in substance. We cannot get too bogged down in all the various terms and subterms and whatnot. This is an article on sustainability, such a subject is so massive that we must summarise the subject matter and point people in the right direction to access more detailed information... Sustainability --> Renewable Energy --> Photovoltaics --> then they might follow external resources and links to very specific websites about emerging photovoltaic technology. This is the way it has to work taking all things into consideration, or else the article will end up being too massive and will fail to achieve it's goal of describing the subject matter itself. C'mon, lets get stuck into these section talk pages :] Nick carson (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think being clear, concice and simple is possible, and that a quality of richness can come from making best use of everyday language. I too spent a lot of time at university so I have learned to decode sentences like (in Skip's quote above) "The conversion of physical resources in societal systems is studied with reference to human needs, availability of resources and the possibilities of incorporating these conversions in the natural system."  But even after you understand it, it leaves you cold.  There is an element of economic jargon that presupposes a whole mindset - a cold, reductionist mindset that ignores the complexities of human society and of the natural world. Skip you are quite right that this mindset is dominant, and especially so in academic and policy and business circles.  For all its dominance, it's not actually all that common a view, the world is full of people who think differently, the language we speak was created by people who think differently.
 * So please please let us not write any of the article in economic jargon - not even resource economic jargon - not even the economic bits.
 * Some days I am proud to be a New Zealander, I was wondering how to explain my disquiet to you guys when I found this in the daily paper on the lunchroom table: "Holding a title to property [...] establishes a regime of rights - to capture, to exclude, to develop, to keep. | Rangatiratangais asserted through the collective exercise of responsibilities - to protect, to conserve, to augment and to enhance over time for the security of future generations."
 * The latter sentence could almost do as a definition of sustainable management, I think it's a rich and meaningful sentence and the fact that (one word excepted) it's in plain english helps to convey a complex message. I aspire to write like that.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well put. Nick carson (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is, indeed, a nice turn of phrase. It emphasizes a collective stewardship that I don't see present in the definition in the source you provided, which seems to have more to do with chieftainship and authority. Do you mean to imply a kind of servant leadership with respect to the land? Sunray (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right the dictionary definition of Rangatiratanga isn't great, it's defined better in the quote - but oh, the hassle of finding a proper citation for what it really means :-( Which is side-on to my point which is, English is just fine for communicating ideas of stewardship and guardianship and process and hence sustainability.  If I say "GT is a gardener" (I think he would be) people aren't going to take that to mean he owns a garden, or that he necessarily consumes the produce from one, but they will know he has dirt under his fingernails.  So much of the economic/sustainability literature claims to be "valuing" the environment but actually devalues nature - and people too - by stretching the metaphor with economic transactions way too far.  I think to write a coherent article on sustainability we need to pick a writing style, and I sincerely hope it's one that doesn't get locked into using terms like "natural resources" as equivalent to "nature", or (my personal least favourite) "ecosystem services" or...Good writing in plain English isn't "dumbing down" at all, it's really hard to do, but I think it's also really important.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your completely right and I hope that our writing style thus far, particularly in things that have been almost completely rewritten such as the 'History' section. But one small thing to note; while we should by all means write well in plain english, we need to watch that we're not vague in our wording, for example; "natural resources" is less ambiguous than "nature" as nature, in plain english, refers to flora and fauna of Earth, 'natural resources' is better to use where we may be talking about things like mining, logging and whatnot as it implies the that which in nature we humans use (resources) in the various ways.


 * Perhaps irrelevant to this discussion but relevant to the article overall, I am of the belief that we as human beings have evolved to such a level of intelligence that we have the capability to understand how the various aspects of 'life' on Earth interrelate. Thus it can be said that being the only species of life with such intelligence on Earth, it is our responsibility to not only sustainably manage the actions of our own species, but also help other forms of life affected by the results of our actions or inactions. This can be seen as stewardship or guardianship and such. Nick carson (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Expressed another way, for our own good and that of the biosphere, with its biological cargo, humans must now manage the planet. When I was a nipper I perceived the world as boundless and full of mysterious and unknown regions to explore and exploit without restraint; it was full of totally different and isolated countries. It is amazing how quickly the perception has changed from one of independent and competing countries exploiting the planet for all they are worth, to one of global stewardship; this is a complete about-face that has occurred in less than a generation and I agree, it takes some getting used to because of its apparent arrogance (playing God with nature) - but do we have any choice? On the language thing I must say I dislike the economisation of nature - natural capital, natural assets and so on. Again, when I was a nipper people spoke of the use we made of nature as "nature's bounty" ... which has now become "environmental services" (everything is market driven). However, I temporarily succumbed to Sustainability Accounting soI haven't got a leg to stand on. Unfortunately I think some of these terms are in the general vocabulary now whether we like them or not. Whoops, where were we? Granitethighs (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedtime reading
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/environ/charter/report.htm I dont know that this solves anything but it covers a lot of our ground - worth a look. Granitethighs (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Signing out for awhile
This is coming together brilliantly. Having not helped much for a few weeks already, I am not going to be able to help at all for a few weeks more, you may not notice a lot of difference. On the 25th I'll be watching my extended family show off their near-religious devotion to conspicuous consumption, and straight after that I'm off here with kayaks, children and partner - and the laptop is definitely not coming.

I'll be back at the start of February and really look forward to seeing what is achieved, if there's any work left to do I'll happily pitch in.

Good luck and go well, --Travelplanner (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sections moved
Have moved the Lead and the History section to the main article. The Definition/Scope section look very odd currently, and seems in flux. Is a section called that really needed? I would like to caution main players again about over weighing the U.N. material and related material in the Sustainability article. It does no one any favor to do this. The U.N. material is going to be presented, so it does not have to be repeated in every section over and over and continually used in ref/citations over and over. This approach is antithetical to a good article and also is not neutral and is pov editing. That material is going to be covered, but to force it through out various sections of the article seems like a really bad idea. skip sievert (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing constructively
The so called team which is not something I have signed on to... and if there is one, is just part of the editing process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEMOCRACY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy - Please no longer revert/edit war on the main page user Sunray. It is pointless.

I have made improvements in the article. You can make them also. That is how wikipedia works. I am not a part of a team except I follow guidelines to my best ability and obviously consensus should be tried to be gotten at. The Sumerians sustained themselves for several thousand years and created much of society as we know it with large scale farming and hydrology and lots of other inventions. Does that say something? I cut the material already. I suggest that if you have a problem with editing, request for comment... instead of edit warring as you have recently done... since many eyes are following it and you seem to have a case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN - No comments on getting rid of the unneeded definition/scope section.?.. that I can see here. Please do not refer to this editor as a member of a team beyond normal guideline aspects. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey skip :] The reason why we created an editing 'team' and created talk-subpages for each section was because this is a big complex task that needs to run smoothly and be well organised. Regarding the Sumerians, if they were able to sustain their own existence then why arn't they still around today? Though, I must admit I'm not familiar with their history. Nick carson (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem at all with the 'team', the idea is for everyone to constructively work together in the article. I actually do not think myself that this task is big or complex, mostly just grunt work of assembling good information and creatively presenting it, and as things go along, more people (I hope) can get involved here also. skip sievert (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sumerians and other potential examples of (un)sustainable cultures
I think the Sumer stuff is important because they documented their culture. We have records of their hydrology, they were the first large scale agriculturists, they developed the first large scale trading mechanisms based on commodity money, which is something they grew literally barley. They did manage to maintain a very homogeneous culture as to the basics for over 3.000 years in the same area despite problematic aspects of the soil there and a lot of pointless warfare. As to why they are not still around? In a sense they are. Saddam raised all kinds of environmental hell by draining the ecosystem related there... swamps... and the war has wrecked the country... but many of the original Marsh Arabs are still around though http://www.laputanlogic.com/articles/2004/01/24-0001.html skip sievert (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to continually have to repeat myself here. As I said on the History subpage, Sumer has been given as a prime example of unsustainability (see A Short History of Progress). Sumer and Easter Island are cited by Ronald Wright as examples of civilizations that failed due to depletion of their natural resources. Your comment that they were the "first large scale agriculturists," is a clue to the problem. Just like modern agribusiness and particularly factory farming, the Sumerians were despoiling their nest on a grand scale. The whole theme of the history section is that humans, for all their ingenuity, have tendencies that are unsustainable. I won't get into discussion of the "first large scale trading mechanisms," except to say that these are also ancestors of the current banking system, which is now in global crisis. My other concern about including Sumer is that there are other civilizations that have proven more sustainable (China, Egypt), but we do not have space to cover this in the history section. I would like Skipsievert to address these concerns and collaborate on a solution. Sunray (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I already reduced the material from where it was. This made it so I already have cut some material that Granitethighs liked. Failed? after several thousand years... so the point you are making is lost I think. Ronald Wright may be a genius... but it takes more than one person discussing something in a certain way to make it notable or not. It may be that I can reduce the Sumer section a tiny bit... but I think it is important for a lot of reasons mentioned and also that it is an example of the first large scale involvement of man and his environ. skip sievert (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If the Sumer example is considered as such, I pose a better example in Indigenous Australians, while they did develop basic agriculture, they progressed further a complex hunter/gather system. They sustained their existence over an entire continent, almost 7 million square km. They were around for not just 3,000, but several tens of thousands of years, remains have been dated at 40,000 years and some estimates are as high as 50,000 years. Their population at the time of permanent European settlement has been estimated at between 318,000 and 750,000. Everyone should at least investigate this example of a widespread, high population society living sustainably over an entire continent as one of the best examples of human sustainability. Check it out! :] Nick carson (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, all pre-technology as we know it societies, did that. So actually it goes all the way back to about one and a half million years ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF4yfK-hlqU&feature=related and extends to Australia and American indians and all other groups on the planet. We have the first written records in Sumer though as to the actual dynamic of what people were thinking and experimenting with. We have the invention of the wheel in an effort to control hydrology etc. It was an epoch changer also because they developed the Bronze Age which came out of the Neolithic age. For these reasons among others this was a landmark time that changed the dynamic of humans and how they interacted with the environment. It can also be noted that some speculate that humans in Australia wiped out the larger giant species of animal grazers there... about 10,000 years ago by their burning techniques.


 * Energy was harnessed for the first time in Sumer to increase food production..(animals pulled carts - potters wheels made long term storage viable among many other inventions)... and this made it possible for people to have the leisure time in order to contemplate other issues... and this also created the first groupings of what is referred to as civil society constructs... contracts, money, written religion, etc. - Not a bad idea to add that information though Nick somewhere just before the Sumer stuff if you can work it into the time line...present it and source it so we can edit it further. skip sievert (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We must remember that advancements in technology may not be sustainable, therefore would be irrelevant to this article. We're only interested in sustainability here. I think the connection between increased leisure time and development of concepts concerning sustainability is a loose one, if they had developed understanding of more sustainable concepts they would have utilised their technological advancements with reduced resource consumption, etc, etc.


 * You should also note that the majority of bushfires in Australia prior to European settlement were started by lightening strikes or independent ignition of dry fuel sources. Indigenous Australians conducted controlled burns, it was in their interest to burn smaller areas of land as if they allowed the fires to get out of control they would become a threat not only to their food sources but their own or neighbouring clans. Nick carson (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could be... but.. according to the vid I put up here above, in a later segment, there may well be a connection of so called controlled burning and the demise of large animal grazers in Australia. So it probably does not make sense to glamorize/romanticize or make noble savages out of American Indians or the original groups in Australia, as they were acting in accordance to the technology that they had. if they had developed understanding of more sustainable concepts they would have utilised their technological advancements with reduced resource consumption, etc, etc. No argument there. They did not understand what we understand though... and can be looked at in an historical overview. Any serious hope of sustainability currently is wrapped up in technology and the scientific method of understanding our world. http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html - skip sievert (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, despite saying I'd be away, and it being culturally improper for a New Zealander to do anything like work in January, I can't help weighing in with my opinion on this one (on a borrowed computer).
 * There's something in the words "noble savages" and the proposition that "they did not understand what we understand" that's pretty badly off the mark. People around the world understand very well the things that matter to them.  For any number of cultures, this includes understanding how to use natural resources at a rate that maintains productivity into the future.  This understanding may well have been learned the hard way - the links between human settlement of Australia and the extinction of megafauna there are still contentious, but there's no real disagreement in New Zealand that the Moa was hunted to extinction by early Maori, and that this and other environmental impacts led to severe food shortages and some very hard lessons learned.  Modern Maori are not uniformly noble, or savage, but have put in place systems like rahui (restrictions on gathering resources) and kaitiaki (nominated guardians of a resource or ecosystem) which have stood the test of time.  I don't think it's glamorising or romanticising at all to learn from these and other examples of sustainable practice from other cultures.
 * I like the current, brief mention of Sumer - it is short, relevant and fits the storyline of the history section well. But nobody can ask the Sumerians how they managed to persist for so long, and what their rules and systems were relating to sustainability.
 * For that reason, I've added a couple of sentences in the History section about Polynesian resource management. It's interesting to me that the fourth national park in the world was created by the Maori chief Te Heuheu Tokino, and that a substantial portion of the coast of the Cook Islands is closed to fishing by a raui (rahui).
 * I think it's an important addition because some of the challenges of sustainability (as distinct from sustainable development) have been solved by others already, only our culture is so absolutely sure that we are smarter that we've assumed that the task is to work it out for ourselves and we're blind to the examples of other cultures. Giving another cultural example in the History section is an opportunity to show, in what is after all an international encyclopedia, that we as editors have taken an international view, rather than the perspective of a specific culture.
 * I don't think what I've said is romanticising the noble savage at all. What I know of Pacific (polynesian / melanesian / micronesian) cultures is that a big part of sustainability was population control, combined with restrictions on resource use to levels which we now describe as poverty.  I don't know that life was unhappy or unrewarding (although some of the methods of population control clearly made life pretty short for some) So while in my view Pacific cultures (and no doubt others around the world) have come up with answers to some of the problems of sustainability, they certainly haven't solved the "sustainable development" puzzle.  To maintain human population at, or higher than, current levels and to increase material wellbeing, while reducing environmental impact, is clearly going to involve a lot of technology, science and new thinking (if it's possible at all).  I know Skip has quoted his source accurately, but I think it would be more correct to say "Any serious hope of sustainable development currently is wrapped up in technology and the scientific method of understanding our world".  I don't think my change alters the main thrust of the history section much at all (the section is, by the way, really good).
 * I'm not wedded to using a Polynesian example - Nick may have a better, Aboriginal Australian one - but I do think it's important to give an example of sustainability as practiced in a current, living, non-European culture.--Travelplanner (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the raui (rahui examples and have further edited the history section a little, here and there, for what I hope is clarity and simplicity. skip sievert (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just spotted the "number of hits" button in the history tab - if you've not seen it sustainability scores pretty well at several thousand a day. Granitethighs (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. V. interesting. Sunray (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)