Talk:Sustainability/Archive 31

Add link to Environmental technology?
Add link to Environmental technology? 99.35.12.88 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great idea - I've added it to the Lead as a link to technology - seems to be a suitable place for it.  Granitethighs  02:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

resource
Sustainable Shrinkage: Envisioning a Smaller, Stronger Economy by Ernest Callenbach 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good general reference. I have added it in the economic section thanks.  Granitethighs  07:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sociobiology, Culture, and Letting the Venn Diagram Progress Through Time
The mystery of culture as a component of sustainability might be better understood through recognition of its antithesis, sociobiology.

Sociobiology is the theory that natural selection applies to genes, not to organisms. The natural role of any organism is to reproduce its genes. Thus any behavior of any organism, including man, that is attributable to genes rather than environment is presumed to have been selected for its propensity to aid propagation of the genes.

In a complex organism like a human, propagation of genes is only partly supported by behaviors aiding survival and reproduction of the organism thats carries them. It is also supported by behaviors that aid survival of the group.

The simplest example of the group is the couple. Sexual reproduction is basic and widespread; even some single-cell organisms seek others, adhere and combine their genetic material when conditions for simple reproduction become poor. From the simplest to the most complex organism, genes display enough humility to specify that they shall change partners. Forms as complex as the aphid reproduce asexually when conditions are good. Forms more complex than that do not.

Among humans, practices for choosing and retaining a mate vary tremendously with culture. Appreciating the degree to which culture specifies this behavior might help understanding of the role of culture. Appreciating the prevalence of exceptions, often regarded as sin, might help understanding of the roles of sub-cultures (family traditions) and of genes. Culture does not extinguish un-disciplined reproduction.

History, especially the sort found in the Old Testament, abounds with examples of self-preservation at the expense of the group. It also abounds with examples of the benefits of individual self-sacrifice to the propagation of the group. Humans have long responded to their perception of history by making choices in their environmental, religious, scientific, legal, political, military and economic contexts. Through these choices, humans modify what would otherwise be the deterministic and probabilistic course of natural selection.

For these reasons, the social component of the sustainability Venn diagram might be better understood by adding a vertical dimension that begins at the bottom with the gene pool, progresses through the present social situation, and continues upward toward toward an outcome. We might see the nearly-random recombination of genes that comes from the present right to marry at will as one step of a progression from isolated cultures to one world-wide culture to something else.

In like manner, the economic component might be traced vertically from self-sufficient behavior (subsistence) to the complex structures of corporation, bank and government we now have and on to something else.

Of course, the environmental component passes vertically from a natural, biodiverse state (which paleontology shows has varied greatly over time), to the comforts and miseries of human exploitation, and hence to either extinction or intelligent management by an organized humanity.

Small-scale physical ecological models can help us visualize deterministic part of the process if we bear in mind their limitations. Almost any combination of organisms placed on a gelled medium in a petri dish in the dark progresses through a series of relationships as they consume whatever energy source was provided, and then the community devolves to inactive, spore-like forms or to extinction. On the other hand, a sealed terrarium with a variety of plants and animals in the light can persist much longer. Energy is available through photosynthesis, and the community of organisms somehow solves its problems. This works best with a container with plenty of height. a small amount of non-nutritive, non-degradable soil (sand, perlite and vermiculite), and just the right amount of water. That community can live thirty years or more.

What is the something else? The Venn diagram only depicts; it does not compute. An algorithm that progresses correctly from what we know by geology, paleontology and history to what we have now will be a starting point in predicting the something else. If it is widely known and trusted, it will also help shape the something else.

Sustainability does not mean equilibrium. Even if it could, we humans would find it boring and would accept the risk of upsetting it. In the religious context, Calvinists stated this very simply: the chief end of man is to glorify God. Religious or not, this much is clear: we humans are here to do something.˜˜˜˜  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhy67ygv (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Does this make sense to anyone? I don't follow it &mdash; starting with "Venn diagram".  Do you mean the actual Venn diagram, or the non-Venn diagram?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If this cannot be understood on the talk page then it is not suitable for the article itself.  Granitethighs  08:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See Euler diagram as it seems more directly related. 99.56.122.124 (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither diagram seems related to this subject, although the caption and labels for the Venn diagram report that they are related to the article, the caption and labels are not from a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the status of this discussion? 99.35.15.199 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No coherent arguments have been present in favor of inclusion. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin you are not the judge of coherent arguments. Watch your tone.  99.190.85.209 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a point there. I think what Granitethighs and Arthur Rubin are both saying is that the arguments presented above are not clear to them and based on what has been presented, there is no agreement that it should be added to the article. I agree with that, so there is no support for their inclusion. Sunray (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

UNsustainable
Suggesting new word:

"Unsustainable"

Potentially, it could be written as with uppercase UN - standing for United Nations.

Either way:

Unsustainable: That which cannot be sustained.

Examples: Example 1: Single (rural) parent - a 'survivor' who receives no maintenance from any absent parent. Works self-employed from home to look after their children, and isn't paid by clients for the work - E.G. due to a global economic recession. The parent has no money to pay the Council Tax bill - E.G. £460 The Local Authority take the single parent to court to pay the outstanding bill (twice), and the person with no money faces imprisonment for not paying a bill, because they have no money. If imprisoned - E.G. for one month, (given prisoner's cost UK£60,000 each per annum), this equates to approximate costs of UK£5,000 If imprisoned (with dependents under the age of 16), with no close family or friends, the children will be farmed into the 'Social Care' "system". Total costs to the Local Authority/Government = Judicial Fees, Staff Fees, Prison Fees, Social Services Fees, Adminstrative Fees etc. = Well over £5,000 (+ the outstanding £460 unpaid bill)

Environmental costs: All the staff employed in all the above services invariably use their own vehicles, powered by fossil fuels. Their offices were invariably constructed using cement, and often use standard electrical applicances, with electricity powered by a mains grid, primarily powered itself by fossil & nuclear fuels.

There is an old UK saying: "You can't get blood out of a stone". (As such, the Bailiffs will undoubtedly end up taking the single parent's household goods.)

Effectively, given the above scenario, a lot of people are employed - just to try to get 'blood out of stones' - they are all paid salaries, sickness pay, maternity pay, holiday pay, etc - which was potentially why there was a 'Council Tax' bill in the first place.

The Government ends up having to borrow more debt - on top of the debt mountain they already owe, and the Council has their grants cut.

The Council Tax goes up to cover the grant support which was cut - and all the rural/urban business people (and single parents), ALL have increased bills.

The scenario could extend into infinity - but for the fact that is really is "UNsustainable".

In fact, it even contraveines the United Nations (UN) Agenda 21, The Earth Charter, etc. (Which were specifically designed to ensure that people were lifted out of poverty & deprivation - esppecially the role of single heads of household - of which most are known to be women.

The example above is based on a woman's perspective - (in fact, it is my own).

"AnEarthMother"

Reference: This is one example of class material which will be used to teach students about "Environmental Sustainability".

In order to teach Environmental Sustainability, first we need to discover what is 'unsustainable'. This is just one example of what is not sustainable!

The rural economy is blighted by just such 'systems' - which 'milk' small entrepreneurs and business people.

Given the fact that Governments all around the world are all borrowing more money to get out of debt - and floating banks which ran out of money themselves, basically, the whole 'system' needs changing - especially as the latest UN figures show 1.4 world's consumption levels - and research shows that over half the world's food 'produced' - is wasted. (And that's one heck of a cloud of methane adding to the greenhouse gases - and which is 23 times worse than CO2.) E.G.  Examples 2 & 3.

Suggestions for 'change' entered into this years contest at http://www.ClimateCoLab.org

Signed 'AnEarthMother' - Founder: http://www.GlobalArkProjects.com (NET4NON) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.169.170 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not create articles about neologisms. See our notability guidelines at WP:NEOLOGISM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Systems based Sustainability
Thanks so much for all the hard work that has gone into this page. I'd like to suggest that there be mention on systems based sustainability in the article. This is, within the field of professional sustainability research and analysis, becoming a solid definition of sustainability. It's also used within the field of Industrial Ecology. This is because most definitions fail as they are not testable, but a systems based one is. It binds many different levels of understanding about sustainability together, including the community/integrated based views, object related hierarchies and it also offers ways to replace the popular but categorically criticized triple P system.

There is a definition of systems based sustainability we have developed which may be of value, which is part of the Symbiosis in Development framework. It's stood up to scrutiny for the last 5 years or so in the field in its primary form, has been simplified and made more accurate over this period, and has been very useful for people to make sustainability actionable, understandable and measurable. The problem being with most definitions, including the Brundtlandt commission (UN Charter definition), is that sustainability is not so much defined by them but the outcome of it described. They are inspiring but their utility is low. The Symbiosis in Development sustainability definition tries to remedy this, and make sustainability clear and unambiguous:

"Sustainability is a state of a complex, dynamic system. In this state a system can continue to flourish without leading to its internal collapse or requiring inputs from outside its defined system boundaries. Applied to our civilization, this state is consistent with an equitable and healthy society, as well as thriving ecosystems and a beautiful planet." - A.N.A. Bosschaert & E.M. Gladek, 2011, v3.0 (http://www.except.nl/consult/symbiosisindesign/index.html)

In essence, the last sentence is not strictly necessary for the definition, because it is already embedded in the result of the meaning of the first sentences. I think this may be of great value to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBosschaert (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate all the sentiments expressed here but make the following points. Any definition needs to come from a notable source. I am not sure of the status of 'Except' - is it a private company or what?  Secondly, and although highly irritating, it is not possible to provide "the" definition of sustainability. All anyone can do is put a definition into the public domain and seek support.  If you are very fortunate you might get consensus. Of course you can define the situation in which you want to use the definition, say "For the purposes of a particular work you are defining it as  ... " but that is another matter. I like this definition, although I'm not sure that it adds much, if anything, to the sentiments of other definitions discussed. It certainly does not deal with any issues of value or policy which might upset some people. Of course there will be those who will quibble. For example, does sustainability of necessity apply to complex systems? Does sustainability necessarily apply to closed systems? For the article there is a dilemma.  A lot of people (at least hundreds) consider that they have provided a satisfactory definition of sustainability. Do we include them all? Clearly not - so which ones do we include? Does this definition presented here offer something new or significant that warrants its inclusion in the article? My inclination would be "no" but of course it would be good to hear other views.  Granitethighs   10:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your statement that it's not possible to provide "the" definition of sustainability. That said, the systems-based definition has hardly, if ever, been refuted because it holds up in virtually all cases. I'll be happy to debate them. It's not a definition that was made for a particular case. In actuality, the ruling definition, that of the Brundtland comission, was developed rather quickly and for the specific goal of the report, and is thereby less universal, and it suffers from lack of actualization. We often jokingly say that definition defines a sport by telling you the desired end score of a match, but without defining what its rules are, or what the playing field even looks like. It's not a definition, it's a description of its results. This is of major importance, because if one does not know, or does not have an accurate description of what one's trying to do, you will always fail to do it. Which is what's happening all over the world.

You ask "Does sustainability necessarily apply to closed systems?". No, it doesn't, but it's the only way to evaluate it as such. In reality, a system is never truly closed, but it's also never truly sustainable. In the long run our sun will explode, our universe will collapse, etc. So in order to make the definition, and thus the practice, workable, sustainability can only be evaluated within a set system boundary.

You mention the definition provided above does not add anything to the sentiments already expressed. I think it does add something unique, and highly valuable, in its first section: the notion that sustainability is a property of a complex system. This is not defined anywhere else. Within the intent of the sustainability field, where we all more or less know what the idea is but find it hard to express it, the notion that sustainability is of necessity a property of a (complex) system is of vital importance. Any object-oriented definition of sustainability (as opposed to system-oriented) never holds up to scrutiny. An object can never be regarded as 'sustainable', or not, because it is dependent on context, time and spatial relations. This causes major problems in real life application, where sub optimizations often lead to worse results than was started with. Often well intended, but still. This is not to debate whether or not the above is 'the' definition, it's to indicate that regarding sustainability as a systems property is a major framework that seems to be missing in the article entirely. I think that should at least be covered in the article. Other major foundations and organizations are slowly shifting to this system-based way of thinking, as it currently provides the only substantial set of methodologies, frameworks and theories to solve some of the complex issues of sustainability.

You ask who Except is. Except is an independent collaborative organization consisting of about 50 sustainability experts from around the world, bringing together many different disciplines. It does not have a profit motive. It was founded in 1999 to develop the foundations of a sustainable society. One of its most important tasks is to develop understanding, methods, tools and educational material pertaining to sustainable development, as well as applying it in a real world context. It started out as using an object-based approach (like everyone else), but developed the systems-thinking approach SiD in the last 10 years as a response to failures of the object-oriented approach. Except is mentioned as an example becau se I know it best, but it's not the only organization working on this. For instance, look at this page of the IISD: http://www.iisd.org/sd/. As you see, they quote the Brundtland definition, and then immediately state that it's imperative that sustainability be regarded in a systems-based context underneath. That's because it is imperative, but the Brundtland commission definition does not carry it within itself, thus they have to amend it by sticking a sentence behind it that rectifies the definition. It doesn't actually improve the definition, though. That's why we have worked for many years to come up with a much better one.

I would suggest to write at least a paragraph pertaining to systems-based definitions and understanding of sustainability. I'll be more than glad to help, but I'm not sure if that's desired. In my professional experience, the page really has a gap in its understanding of how sustainability is viewed in the realm of professional application, and I'd like to help if possible. TomBosschaert


 * Thanks Tom. As you can imagine, we spent a long time on the “Definition” section of this article.  It was not plain sailing.  Several of us with scientific backgrounds, myself included, were attracted to systems-type factual definitions pointing out spatial and temporal constraints on complex systems, limits etc.  But it soon became evident other people regard sustainability as setting a value agenda, that it is almost akin to a political movement trying to galvanise social behaviour along certain lines.  This cannot be totally ignored and, as is often pointed out, WP is not there to provide “truth” only to present well-referenced viewpoints.  It strives to include all significant views, giving each due weight, and putting each view in context.  It does say in the “Definition” section that: “To add complication the word sustainability is applied not only to human sustainability on Earth, but to many situations and contexts over many scales of space and time, from small local ones to the global balance of production and consumption.”  The word “system” appears numerous times in the article, especially as “ecosystem”.  As I have said I think the system aspect of sustainability is very important.  I’m just not sure that what you initially suggested is the best way of inserting it in the article but there are many other ways - perhaps it would fit in the "measurement" section somehow, more as a matter of principle than definition. Anyway, what do others think?  Granitethighs   00:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi GT. I waited for a while to see if there were some more reactions, but it doesn't look that way. I think that the article does not mention system-based sustainability and that this is a large omission. I see the word 'system' mentioned but not in that context. An ecosystem is not analogous or an example of what's referred to when talking about system-based sustainability, it's closer to the network-theory definition of a system in that sense. I think you have a better idea of how and where to put it in the article. I'll be glad to help. TomBosschaert

Minor comment

 * ==Peace, security, social justice==

Social disruptions like war, crime and .... Depletion of natural resources including fresh water[145] increases the likelihood of “resource wars”.[146] This aspect of sustainability has been referred to as environmental security and creates a clear need for global environmental agreements to manage resources such as aquifers and rivers which span political boundaries, and to protect shared global systems including oceans and the atmosphere.[147]

COMMENT - Depletion of natural resources, in the context of water, is a regional issue, and therefore creates a clear need for regional (NOT global) environmental agreements to manage resources such as aquifers and rivers....Global environmental agreements are not applicable or the suitable framework/tools for the management of regional watersheds/ water management.
 * Point taken. Can you suggest more appropriate wording please - bearing in mind that the thrust of this section is to point out the strong need for environmental agreements between political groups that share environmental services and resources ... especially when there is the potential for conflict.  Granitethighs  23:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientific American potential resource ... regarding/related Planetary boundaries in general
Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet? "A five-step global plan could double food production by 2050 while greatly reducing environmental damage" by Jonathan A. Foley SciAm October 12, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe environmental damage wikilink? 99.181.138.228 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.  Granitethighs  10:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential resource, New Zealand example
The Myth and Reality of Sustainable New Zealand: Mining in a Pristine Land by Gundars Rudzitis and Kenton Bird in November-December 2011 issue of Environment journal. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will put it on the Sustainability in New Zealand and Mining in New Zealand articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource calling for sustainability
A Sinking Feeling; Why is the president of the tiny Pacific island nation of Nauru so concerned about climate change? by Marcus Stephen, the President of Nauru, November 14 & November 28, 2011 in The New York Times Upfront, excerpts ...

Also see Sea level rise, global warming-related climate change, and Small Island Developing States/AOSIS. 99.181.136.185 (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Add Portal:Society
Add Portal:Society. 99.181.132.138 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested this contribution be discussed ...
from Special:Contributions/Polainm

99.181.156.221 (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This, to my mind, is a rather verbose and convoluted expansion of "circular economy" discussion already in the article and explained more simply in the "Human consumption" section on materials etc. Perhaps if the points were written in a more reader-friendly way it might be easier to understand the issues being addressed. Anyone else?  Granitethighs  11:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Add Biophilia hypothesis ?
Add Biophilia hypothesis to Sustainability subsection? 99.181.156.221 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is already long - the connection between biophilia and sustainability needs to be strong - I'm not sure that it is.  Granitethighs  11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability and another page's Sustainable
Is this the same or similar to the usage of Sustainable in List of countries by Failed States Index? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this version being or been discussed?
99.190.85.111 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds Biosphere, Gaia hypothesis, Earth system science, ... 99.190.85.111 (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif
I suggest removal of the image. It's misleading, without the context that it represents an opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The two diagrammatic representations of the interrelationship between economics, society and ecology are both used quite widely in the literature and express different views of their interrelations. They are both described in the "definition" section with citations and "context" and they assist the reader to think about the issues involved. Why would you want to remove either them?  Granitethighs  05:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Granitethighs. Just take a look at the image's global file usage and you can see that it's used in many Wikipedias. Surely, we can't all be making the same mistake, can we? OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say that the image(s) were all added by the same people, but there are certainly cases (in the case of recently deceased individuals of questionable notability) where the same information has been added in multiple Wikipedias by the same people. Furthermore, not all Wikipedias have the same standards.
 * I'm just commenting on this Wikipedia, and the fact that we (per WP:NOR) need a source which connects the concept with sustainability, as that doesn't appear in the diagram. (Titles do not provide a connection; even in peer-reviewed journals, the title is the author's choice, and does not necessarily reflect an editorial review process.)  The "labeled" Venn diagram below, is at least plausibly related, although I corrected a minor error in sourcing.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Added verification failed; that concept is not in the source given. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur – I may have missed your point. Are you suggesting the caption is misleading? What about “A representation of the relationship between the three pillars of sustainability suggesting that both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits” Where can I see the above Venn diagram which has not been allowed here?  Granitethighs   22:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting the caption is misleading (but that's my opinion), and no source for the relationship between the caption or article and the diagram or concept behind the diagram has been provided. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I too am opposed to the removal of this image. I find it interesting, Arthur, that you seem to have a problem with it. Please clarify what your problem really is. To me it is utterly self evident and certainly requires no "source". Anyway, the image is juxtaposed with File:Sustainable development.svg, which maps out every possible alternate view. To me, that is the image that needs sources. For example, there is a region for people who hold a view that there can be an economy which is based on neither a society nor an environment. Now how you could possibly have an economy that has no people as consumers and no environment from which you can produce consumer goods. That diagram seems deeply problematic to me, perhaps a matter for psychiatric attention. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what do the theories expressed in the diagrams have to do with "sustainability"? There's evidence in the second (the real Venn diagram), but not in the first with concentric ovals (stylized from circles to allow the tags to be added).  If the sentence sourced to Porritt (2006, p. 46) is properly sourced, so would the diagram.  I'm saying there's nothing resembling it in Ott (2003), and the way you and I interpret the diagram has nothing to do with any of the concepts defined as "sustainability" in this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Arthur I am still not exactly sure what you are asking - I think we are at cross-purposes. You say “What do the theories expressed in the diagrams have to do with "sustainability". How doesn’t the following caption (which I suggested above) indicate the relevance of the subject matter to sustainability? “A representation of the relationship between the three pillars of sustainability suggesting that both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits” And in the text in the article, what is wrong with the Porritt reference and citation - to me it is absolutely direct, transparent and at the core of what sustainability is all about? Am I missing something? The two diagrams also occur in a book called Green Economics (among others), for example, which I can cite if you feel there are no printed sources adequately cited. There seems to be a consensus against removal of the diagram but I have assumed good faith and would like you to be satisfied that your case has at least been addressed.  Granitethighs   00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If of interest, further Talk on Talk:Individual and political action on climate change, and some asides on Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down. 108.73.113.97 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the IP making irrelevant comments, again, the statement connecting the diagram with the topic (sustainability) is what needs a reliable source. If the diagrams and the connection to "sustainability" are in Green Economics, that seems adequate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine - I'll fix it up.  Granitethighs  08:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although I don't have a copy of the book, I'm willing to believe that that book makes the connection.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is more specific Talk:Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change ... Adminitis? 99.190.87.1 (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is clearly inappropriate in that article, except in the context I sarcastically described earlier on that talk age. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * clearly is an overly strong word, Arthur, please see Talk:Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

. "Clearly" is a bit strong. What should be said is that, clearly, no sources have been provided to support the connection between that image, a caption, and that article. If a reliable source were provided for the connection, it's possible the other image might be usable in that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate is an extremism (Paul Collier) also, per wp's own Scientific opinion on climate change. Also see Sustainable Development: Linking economy, society, environment; per the link OECD Insights: Sustainable Development provides an essential introduction to the complex relationships between the economy, society and the environment. As global inequality and climate change become mainstream concerns, it asks the questions our generation needs to ask in terms everyone can understand.  209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a stretch, and I'm not sure that OECD qualifies as an "expert" for avoiding WP:SPS restrictions. It also supports neither the caption or the diagram, although it may loosely loosely support the connection to "climate change", but not as to either "... action ..." or "public opinion ...".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please work on decreasing your WEASEL weasel wording (a bit of, I'm not sure, although it may loosely loosely, and many of your other comments (Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin)). That kind of wording decreases effective consensus-building on content editing of wp articles.  99.190.87.216 (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(od) See current Edit/Comment .99.181.132.228 (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You rarely come up with a plausible connection between the source and the subject. In this case, the statement is both (apparently) abusrd (hence, dubious), and not confirmed to be present in the source by a reliable editor.  There have been other unreliable editors, where we (Wikipedians, as a whole) agreed that the material generated by that edit could not be added unless the source was verified.
 * What? 99.181.153.228 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

History of the concept
The following is a proposal for addition to the article and was initially placed just above the "History of sustainability" section. I feel it needs discussion by editors before being added to the article. I have several, not so much "objections" as "concerns". I will list these and hope others will provide input. "Sustainability" is a word that is used in many ways and contexts. This article on "Sustainability" does use the word in a special sense and that is made clear in the opening paragraphs. Because so many things can be made "sustainable" I find the assertion that the word was first used in relation to forestry and "sustainable yield" unconvincing. I, personally, would prefer more evidence here. Though I have no firm evidence I also suspect that the idea of sustainability - in ecological systems especially - pre-dated the idea of "sustainable development" so to say the terms were originally synonymous is either in correct or, at least, an oversimplification. I am also a bit concerned about the rather gratuitous introduction of the terms "strong" and "weak' sustainability here - it could easily confuse the reader and it is not obviously appropriate here. Also the use of the term sustainability in terms of something "lasting" surely must go back before ancient Greece.  I just feel all this needs tightening up before it is added.  It also uses up rather a lot of space in terms of the article balance - anyway, what do others think? See proposed addition below.  Granitethighs   22:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The concept of sustainability was originally synonymous with that of sustainable development and is often still used in that way. Both terms derive from the older forestry term "sustained yield", which in turn is a translation of the German term "nachhaltiger Ertrag" dating from 1713. According to different sources, the concept of sustainability in the sense of a balance between resource consumption and reproduction was however applied to forestry already in the 12th to 16th century.
 * "‘Sustainability’ is a semantic modification, extension and transfer of the term ‘sustained yield’. This had been the doctrine and, indeed, the ‘holy grail’ of foresters all over the world for more or less two centuries. The essence of ‘sustained yield forestry’ was described for example by William A. Duerr, a leading American expert on forestry: “To fulfill our obligations to our descendents and to stabilize our communities, each generation should sustain its resources at a high level and hand them along undiminished. The sustained yield of timber is an aspect of man’s most fundamental need: to sustain life itself.” A fine anticipation of the Brundtland-formula."


 * Not just the concept of sustainable development, but also but also its current interpretations have its roots in forest management. Strong sustainability stipulates living solely off the interest of natural capital, whereas adherents of weak sustainability are content to keep constant the sum of natural and human capital.


 * The history of the concept of sustainability is however much older. Already in 400 BCE, Aristotle referred to a similar Greek concept in talking about household economics. This Greek household concept differed from modern ones in that the household had to be self-sustaining at least to a certain extent and could not just be consumption oriented.


 * The first use of the term "sustainable" in the modern sense was by the Club of Rome in March 1972 in its epoch-making report on the ‘Limits to
 * Growth", written by a group of scientists led by Dennis and Donella

Meadows of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Describing the desirable "state of global equilibrium", the authors used the word "sustainable": "We are searching for a model output that represents a world system that is: 1.  sustainable  without sudden and uncontrolled collapse; and 2. capable of satisfying the basic material requirements of all of its people."

Addition suggestion
From Talk:Criticism of capitalism ...

Climate change (global warming) in the words of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is

99.181.141.90 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Is "sustainable" infinite? How long is something deemed to be unsustainable is not clear. Not all things should last forever.--99.45.156.176 (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Upgrade to version 2?
I see the ratings for this article have been getting progressively lower and lower over time until they now would seem to indicate a fair degree of dissatisfaction. It is a controversial topic and likely to generate a fair amount of hostility whatever its content but it would be good nevertheless to improve weaker sections to retain its GA status. The article also has 291 watchers so surely it should be possible to get feedback to see which areas need improvement? Does anyone know how to get feedback from a wide range of people so that this can be done?  Granitethighs  02:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I second that. This is indeed a controversial issue, and as a classical liberal myself, I really must dispute the neutrality of this article. This looks very much like a transcription of UN Agenda 21. Kakistoxic (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kakistoxic, could you please make actual recommendations for the improvement of specific sections of the article?  Granitethighs  07:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Circles of sustainability
A new diagram has been added to the site by an unnamed IP. IMO it is informative and thought-provoking and worthy of inclusion. However, its placement in the "Definition" section is of concern since it has four major categories that do not coincide with those in the other two diagrams. I suggest it fits more appropriately in the "Measuring sustainability" section as that is what it is more directly about, but it needs some explanatory text. What do others think?  Granitethighs  10:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO this diagram by itself has insufficient explanation and is biased.--99.45.156.176 (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The following text later was later added to the definition section: One emerging alternative to the triple bottom line is the Circles of Sustainability conception.It asks why economics is treated outside the social, and why other domains are treated as externalities to economic considerations ... then ... One model that takes all of these criticisms into account is the Circles of Sustainability method which instead of treating culture and politics as add-ons incorporates them into a four-domain model where all of the domains are social: economics, ecology, politics and culture. This has the effect of treating the economy as a social domain, thus responding to the main criticism of the Triple Bottom Line approach. By specifying subdomains within each of the four domains a complex cross-cutting matrix of the life-world is established.


 * Firstly, it would assist Wikipedia etiquette if the person who made the addition would take up a Wikipedia name and discuss these changes on this page before making amendments to the article itself. Much more importantly any substantial theoretical change to a GA status article (or any article for that matter) requires a citation, regardless of its merit - otherwise it is simply original research. Perhaps the IP who added this text anddiagram is unaware of this wikipedia policy. Could s/he please read the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability and Original Research and discuss their ideas on this page.  Granitethighs   23:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, but I am concerned that the triple-bottom-line approach, one that has the economic as central, dominates this page. I found the four-domain model on the UN Global Compact Cities Programme website. I started reading the material on the 'Circles of Sustainability' page and it makes strong sense. I will look for references and add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.13.71.197 (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The triple-bottom-line conception of sustainability still dominates this page, even though it is being challenged from a number of directions. I have reinserted a discussion of an alternative approach that attempts to overcome this problem. I note that the diagram for 'Circles of sustainability' has been removed, and I would suggest that it be put back in. I understand the question of the insertion needing references, and I have done so this time, as well as referring readers to the 'Circles of Sustainability' page where there are many more references.SaintGeorgeIV (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi SG4. Could you please explain this new approach a little more. For example I have a few questions: Economy, society, environment (the three pillars of sustainability) appears to be a close-to-consensus way of representing sustainability: that is why it has been emphasised in the article. Of course there could be many other ways of representing it in terms of both the categories used and their visual representation - but there is not space to include every suggestion. Your point about economics is fine but then why is not politics part of culture? Or culture just an aspect of society? Or economy part of culture? And why these particular categories? Triple bottom line is, I believe, a form of accounting based on the three pillars. If it is 'being challenged from a number of directions' then these directions need both explanation and citation, they cannot be simply assumed. Perhaps some of this discussion could first be included on this page. I am concerned that the enthusiasm for the Circles of Sustainability is a bit premature. I see for instance that Wikipedia does not have an entry under the title Circles of Sustainability. That would be one way of letting people know the benefits of this mechanism. While supporting the idea in principle, I am simply asking for a little more explanation, justification, and citation. The benefits of the Circle of Sustainability might be clear to you but not apparent to others who need convincing.  Granitethighs   11:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

All good questions Granitethighs, comfortably answered. The three pillars of sustainability is clearly the dominant approach, but it has a number of problems. It puts 'economics' as the centre of its three-circle approach; it uses the counter-analogy of columns which give the impression that that economics and the social are separate; it gets confused with the triple bottom line; and it reduces 'culture' to a subsection of the 'social', while 'economics' is treated as separate from the social. In relation to this last point the Wikipedia 'Sustainable Development' page talks about the following: [quote]


 * Working with a different emphasis, some researchers and institutions have pointed out that a fourth dimension should be added to the dimensions of sustainable development, since the triple-bottom-line dimensions of economic, environmental and social do not seem to be enough to reflect the complexity of contemporary society. In this context, the Agenda 21 for culture and the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) Executive Bureau lead the preparation of the policy statement “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”, passed on 17 November 2010, in the framework of the World Summit of Local and Regional Leaders – 3rd World Congress of UCLG, held in Mexico City. This document inaugurates a new perspective and points to the relation between culture and sustainable development through a dual approach: developing a solid cultural policy and advocating a cultural dimension in all public policies.[23] The Network of Excellence "Sustainable Development in a Diverse World",[24] sponsored by the European Union, integrates multidisciplinary capacities and interprets cultural diversity as a key element of a new strategy for sustainable development. The Circles of Sustainability approach defines the cultural domain as practices, discourses, and material expressions, which, over time, express continuities and discontinuities of social meaning.

I think that it would be too distracting on this page to get into an extended critique of the dominant approaches. There is in fact a wikipedia page called 'Circles of sustainability' that lists some of the ways in which the approach has been used. I have recently found some more in fact. The major website Citymart now moving to use the approach to order it knowledge-management scheme. There are also a number of academics now using the approach. Some sources are listed on the 'Circles of Sustainability' page.  SaintGeorgeIV  6:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)  P.S. I like your typography.


 * OK thanks SG. Some specific points as I am trying to follow what you are saying. Firstly, why is economics 'at the centre' of the three circle approach - it is simply one of three intersecting circles labelled society, environment, and economy in one diagram and at the 'centre' of the other because it is the least important subset of the three - I agree these diagrams could be improved though? I think I understand where you are coming from but the words you use are important. Once again, to my mind surely triple bottom line accounting in theory considers the three pillars equally. Perhaps this is not the case in practice but this needs spelling out clearly with referencing. I dont understand what you mean by 'columns giving the impression that economics and the social are separate' is that correct? Aren't they interdependent? What exactly are you suggesting,that as a matter of fact they are separate? You mention that a policy statement based on the paper “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”, was passed on 17 November 2010.  What exactly does that mean? Is it now endorsed by the UN as a recommended way of representing sustainability in which case it needs careful referencing and, yes, the article emphasis probably needs adjusting?  With due respect the sentence The Circles of Sustainability approach defines the cultural domain as practices, discourses, and material expressions, which, over time, express continuities and discontinuities of social meaning is twaddle of the worst kind.  At least the article we are discussing here attempted throughout to be clear in what it was saying. For the sake of the reader we need 1. A key reference to some literature arguing clearly why the Circles of Sustainability proposition has merit over the three pillar approach. 2. A very brief but simple and clear outline of that argument suitable for this article, and which can be readily understood.  3. A reference to the UN policy on Circles of Sustainability. Sorry to be so finickity but, although I found the COS page interesting, it did not hit home to me as a clear improvement on the three pillars.  In a topic where definition of all the key concepts is difficult I am struggling to come to grips with a general muddiness of ideas relating to COS.  Granitethighs   03:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear GT, you are asking fundamental questions that are being currently debated in the academic world of sustainability, but there are a number of misapprehensions in your response:
 * 1. economics is self-evidently at the centre of the figure of the three concentric circles. This works in one important way to indicate that the operations of economics are within the society and environment. However, by ignoring politics and culture at the centre of social life, which are always relational to economics, economics comes to again be featured as central.
 * 2. the venn diagram operates very differently (indeed in contradiction to the concentric circles). It places much of economics outside the social or the environmental.
 * 3. cultural theorists would object strongly to your dismissal of the definition as "twaddle of the worst kind". It is clear that this is not one of the areas in which you have been reading lately.
 * 4. the 'Circles of sustainability' diagram has drawbacks of being more complicated looking than the other two, but it has the virtue of giving equal weight to domains and showing their intersection in the middle of human practice.  SaintGeorgeIV  3:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In brief: The last sentence in the "Definition" section acknowledges the 'fourth pillar'. What exactly is the status of the following situation?

•UCLG’s World Secretariat announced (March 2011) that one of its key messages will be “culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development.” •The Committee on culture drafted the document “Lobbying for Culture as the 4th Pillar of Sustainable Development in the Process of the Rio+20 Summit”, offering ideas to be considered by cultural activists, networks and stakeholders preparing a submission to the Secretariat of the Rio+20 Conference in order to influence the initial documents for the negotiations.  Granitethighs  11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry SG I'm not helping matters by being obtuse. All I am trying to do is 1.clarify in my own mind the reasoning behind the four pillars - because the relationship between politics, society, environment, economics and culture is clearly complex and can be represented many way both diagrammatically and in the world of ideas. 2. I am also trying to establish, preferably with authoritative references, the current status of the "four pillar" proposal both within the UN and within the sustainability community in general ... so that addition of a new diagram is soundly argued and cited.  Granitethighs   11:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We now have added to the "Definition" section the following:
 * One emerging alternative to the triple bottom line is the Circles of Sustainability conception. It asks firstly why economics is treated either outside the social (the three-circle venn diagram) or central to the social (the three-circle diagram). Secondly, it asks why other domains are treated as externalities to economic considerations.[18] This alternative approach is now being used by a number of agencies such as the UN Global Compact Cities Programme.[19]
 * I will leave this statement but think that it lacks clarity. My understanding is that Triple Bottom Line (which is a method of accounting) was introduced because of the former emphasis on purely economic matters. The three pillars approach suggested that we must also take into account the environment and society when we measure costs. Doesn't this have some bearing on the content of the text that has just been added?  I am trying to follow what is being proposed but think it is unclear.  Granitethighs   08:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC

Your understanding of the triple-bottom-line approach as you've just expressed it accords with mine. I think that problem, GT, is that we are discussing too many variables at the same time, and we are trying to resolve them all in the same conversations. Your concerns are apposite. There is no simple clarity in the area of sustainability. I was simply arguing for including the 'Circles of Sustainability' diagram because it provides an alternative to the triple-bottom-line inspired diagrams on the page. The three-pillars image or analogy is a different image again from the various circle diagrams. When UCLG (not part of the UN) decided in 2011 to add culture as the fourth pillar of sustainability it criticized the triple-bottom-line approach, but effectively stayed within the same framework. Just added another pillar. This is the same move made by the Cultural Development Network and other like-minded cultural groups, although I know of no explicit moves in UN agencies to make the four pillars official. The 'Circles of Sustainability' is a four-domain rather than four-pillar approach and it is officially used by the UN Global Compact Cities Programme since at least 2010 (perhaps earlier). It posits four social domains, and therefore treats economics as part of the social. The four pillars approach as the social as one of the pillars. I will have a look at what is written in the text and think about how it might be clarified. I was at the Rio+20 Summit and do not know if the four pillars was formalized but I doubt it. I will look into it.SaintGeorgeIV (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead
I have just read the Lead after a few months off line and notice it has been changed considerably in recent times. In attempting to explain things in more detail the English has become messy and the mix of ideas even more so. Does anyone agree with me - because I think it needs a tweak. To my mind it was better before. I would hope that changes to the Lead of a GA article would be discussed on this page.  Granitethighs  03:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Having just returned after some time away, I tend to agree with you. I note your recent improvements in readability. However, I think that the lead, as it was when the article was awarded GA status was even better. It was readily understandable, yet complete. I think we should go back to that version. Sunray (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that Sunray - good to have you back on deck - could you please revert it to its original GA form?  Granitethighs  09:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, since no one else has weighed in on this, i will do so now. Sunray (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewording treatment of ecological economics in lead
I'm wondering about the treatment of ecological economics in the lead. Would it perhaps be a good idea to add a sentence about the energy and material transactions of humans creating a burden for the planet, due to current population and consumption levels. Sunray (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Lead and not lead.--99.45.156.176 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good Sunray: what wording do you suggest?  Granitethighs  04:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)