Talk:Sustainability/Archive 4

Discussion of revision
I have copied the current points for discussion here so that we can follow the thread. The definition used by the old version was: "Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely." Personally, I prefer to say something like this: "Sustainability is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely (within the given limits of life on Earth)." Because the ability to sustain life the crux of the whole concept, is it not? V.B. (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I moved the links from the intro section down to the bottom of the section so that we can discuss them last. I would like to see the whole intro to skip the sustainable development stuff, and just focus on the concept of sustainability (in the sense of ecological sustainability). I don't think any pre-explanations are needed (I mean by this the very first sentence). Maybe the term came from sust. dev. documents, but maybe not, maybe it came from the permaculturists or some such. In any case, it is not the provenance of the governments or NGOs. V.B. (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The definition given in the old article was OK as a dictionary definition of sustainability in a general sense, but the article went on to develop its own themes - discussing weak and strong sustainability, environment and population issues etc. and this alters what you are actually talking about. To opt immediately for environmental sustainability suits me fine. Trouble is the UN has spent years discussing this issue and the outcome was an acknowledgement that environmental sustainability is inextricably linked with social and economic factors. We cannot suddenly create environmental sustainability without political and behavioural change and since technology (and other things) are so closely involved, so too is the economic system. I am a biologist who would prefer to ignore socio-economic systems but I must concede that this is a valid point: environmental sustainability cannot be treated in isolation from these other factors - this is referred to in the environmental, social and economic section lower down. Perhaps this is the source of of an interesting question. Two Wikipedians have said to me that sustainability is a concept. This is of course true, but I would also argue that it can be a state of a system. We talk about "sustainable living" which is not only an idea but something that influences peoples behaviour, it could even be argued that it is "code of behaviour" or a "political system" - as pointed out later in the article it has been described as a kind of "dialogue of values". Sustainability is about "doing" things as well as "thinking" things. Do you disagree, is that part of the difficulty? To put all this another way: if you confine sustainability to "environmental sustainability" then there is little point in including factors like governance, migration, peace and security, and the effects of economic growth on the environment. We turn full circle - all I am saying is that I do not believe environmental sustainability will do as the only part of the sustainability equation. Yes, there are real problems with the idea of sustainable development but, I would maintain, to think that just talking about environmental sustainability solves the complexity is a mistake. Is ther another way? Granitethighs (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We seem to be jumping into some philosophical issues at the top here. OK with me, but there are also editorial issues to be dealt with. Here are a few:
 * The article has become somewhat of a link farm.
 * At 59 kilobytes in size, we need to think about article size.
 * The current lead does not adhere to guidelines for the lead section.
 * Further to the previous point, the current lead does not provide a general definition of sustainability; nor does it outline what the article will cover.
 * The lead sentence has been mentioned by more than one editor here: "Sustainability is a program..." does not seem to be an assertion that we want to make. Lead re-written. 19:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The previous lead introduced the problematic of sustainability. I remember when it was written&mdash;by an academic in the field (not me). At the time I thought it was a tad "academic," however, it did introduce the problem of sustainability. Various people have commented (then and now) that we need this.
 * [More to follow in due time, but this should get us started].


 * Granitethinghs says that the previous version placed over-emphasis on the environmental component of sustainability. I agree, but the answer is not overly-simplified nostrums about "sustainable development." We are not a mirror site of the UN. I propose that for starters we restore the previous lead and then work on that. Sunray (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pfft. Global warming stands at an alarming 99kb size. I think it may border becoming a link farm, but great on including all major issues in the article (we haven't get to minor ones yet...) As for lead section, I know it needs to be improved (will work on it in a day or two). Other concerns are legitimate, so you can be bold and change it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a point. I would have preferred to work versions out here first, but I do think that the previous lead was vastly superior to one by Granitethighs. So I have been bold and reinstated the previous one. As agreed, it does need some work, but I think it gives us a much better platform to work from. Sunray (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Granitethighs, you make some good points. I see now what you were trying to do. My take on the philosophical side is this: Sustainability is an ecological concept from the start. After all, why discuss/act on ideas re economics or governance except *in reference* to life's (and humanity's) survival? I agree that the social and economic issues must be part of the consideration, but *under* the general ecological concept. Your conception subsumed sustainability under the economic and political rubric, and that is backwards to my mind.

I agree that it refers to the state of a system. I think it ought to be linked not only to ecology, but also to systems (understanding of feedback, inflows/outflows etc.) I don't think it is a political system. It does inform and influence human behavior (or so we hope). UN has spent years of discussing this, but so have many other groups. This article is about sustainability, not about UN take on sustainability, agreed?

Sunray, the article not only became a link farm but the links have again favored sustainable dev.

The question that's been in my mind is whether the format created by Granitethighs can be preserved. Are the three pillars pillars of sustainability or of sustainable dev.? I am going to review the article as a whole again. V.B. (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some comments on the comments.
 * 1. We have all now agreed that the (new) lead can be improved and that the reinstated (old) lead is inadequate. Our problem is that we need a clear statement about what sustainability is ... reality is whatever we put here will annoy someone as there is no agreed definition (the argument has gone on for over 20 years and, frankly, I dont think we are going to solve it here). People come to sustainability with all sorts of preconceptions (dont exclude myself here). I am happy to work towards something we can all live with - we seem to all be coming from the same direction anyway. I like the "International program" bit below the opening - fits well, and I will suggest improvements to the opening - but this takes time.


 * 2. I agree about the "link farm" but what is considered good Wikipedia procedure here? In writing the article I realised that there are vast amounts of fascinating topical information in Wikipedia that people would want to research so that in many ways the article itself would act as a jumping off point and stimulation for people interested in related issues. I am happy to defer to an experienced Wikipedian on this one. Incidentally the (old) article was distinctly unhelpful here (although there was a See Also section). Also, again, I am not a "sustainable development" person but SD is mainstream: if the article totally ignores SD or develops a very strong anti SD position then its objectivity and credibility would be up for grabs. Sure tone down the SD stuff if you like.


 * 3. Size. Yes it is long - but it is a huge, all-embracing topic. I'm glad someone pointed out that "climate change" is nearly twice as long (climate change is a small part of sustainability). We can pare it down but I did think carefully about what should go in - I think you'll find it is actually quite succinct (again, try re-reading the old version in relation to economy of words). For example, what the hell have Governance, Peace and Security got to do with the price of fish? Trouble is, after some thought, it is clear that they do relate strongly to sustainability. Each of the headings I chose are major and important topics. If someone can think of a way of cutting down without leaving out important information that would be great. I certainly would not want to see it get much larger!

Incidentally - you environmental science students, how do your courses deal with defining sustainability? I would like to think more about these points but right now have other things to do. Will be be back with renewed enthusiasm so look out. Keep up the recycling and "swap til you drop". Granitethighs (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, with some trepidation, I have done a direct redo of the intro. I decided to put it up rather than clutter our discussion here. See what you think. I incorporated sections of the old text. I did change the definition because it seems plain that sustainability is not just about any system, but it is about our human systems and our ability to survive (at least in this context)... even tho the term itself can certainly be applied to the sustainability of squirrels, for example. I also made the ability to *sustain life* over the long term its main thrust.

Re "link farm": I noticed that a number of the links in the link clusters you made, Granitethighs, are redundant. Why not just embed them in the text? Only create extra links if they absolutely don't fit in the text anywhere? Traditionally, that's what people use the "See also" section for.

Re SD: I don't think the article should ignore it. It should certainly create a linkage to the article on SD, explain it briefly and summarize the controversy regarding it. SD is mainstream as SD, not as sustainability, tho it seems there are vested interests who would prefer to conflate and confuse the two. I came across this quote from the Philips website: "Sustainability has progressively become a comprehensive concept that stands for economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity (triple bottom line). [...] A few enterprises have already started to embrace sustainability as a framework for driving growth, increasing shareholder value, heightening stakeholder satisfaction and protecting and enhancing corporate brand reputation." Argh. V.B. (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and one more thing: keep in mind other definitions can be included in the Definition section, and critiques made. V.B. (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Next: History, Definition, and UN program
While folks are still working on the intro, I thought I'd take a peek at the several following sections. After consulting a number of wiki's best articles, it seems the most common way to proceed is to move on to the History which then forms the second section (unless there is another introductory note that is needed [e.g. etymology]). In which case History is the third section. What to do with the Program section? My suggestion is to incorporate it into the historical part. History could be divided into Background covering the early formative years (e.g. back to the landers, organic ag, Buckminster Fuller, et al. The history proper then emerging with Donnella Meadows, Brundtland Commission etc etc. Any thoughts? V.B. (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the idea of having history as the second or third section. Perhaps given the importance of definition in this case, we might want to make Definition the second section. That would allow us to bring in some of the issues and challenges relating to the concept. The history section would logically provide background on some of that. Sunray (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead
I think it is worth being thorough. The lead is the hard part and we need to follow WP procedure. I have listed the procedure here and broken it up into parts.

What we have to do (the WP procedure):

1.     The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

2.     The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.

3.     The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

4.     While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless must not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.

5.     The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

What we have done so far:

Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely. As applied to human communities, it is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely (within the given limits of life on Earth). Sustainability is often defined as the practical ability to satisfy the basic needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs.[1] A sustainable society must be organized in such a way that the ways of living and the patterns of activity of its members are not in conflict with the inherent ability of nature to maintain life.

Sustainability requires that human activity only utilizes nature's resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. Vital human ecological support systems include the planet's climatic system, systems of agriculture, industry, forestry, fisheries and the systems on which they depend in turn. In recent years, public discourse has led to a use of "sustainability" in reference to how long human ecological systems can be expected to be usefully productive.

The implied preference would be for systems to be productive indefinitely, or be "sustainable." For example, "sustainable agriculture" would develop agricultural systems to last indefinitely; "sustainable economy" can be an economic system that can last indefinitely, etc. A side discourse relates the term sustainability to longevity of natural ecosystems and reserves (set aside for other-than-human species), but the challenging emphasis has been on human systems and anthropogenic problems, such as anthropogenic climate change, or the depletion of fossil fuel reserves. Sustainability can be examined on a number of levels, from local all the way to planetary.

Comments and suggestions:

1.      I think it would help if we start of with sustainability in general, leading to human sustainability in particular (no ranking in importance implied here). The second sentence is problematic. A human community can be sustainable even though the global community is not living sustainably: the global human community has to live within the global (?natural resource) limits of the Earth. This is the problem of sustainability applied at many biological and organizational levels. Sentence three: I am a bit surprised that after being so derogatory about SD we quickly introduce the UN’s SD agenda. This is the only formal citation in the whole lead – and cedes all authority to SD. Remember, if we come up with what we think is a really good definition, but it has not been published, then we are doing original research (which is not what Wikipedia is about). In this opening paragraph the logic runs like this ... sustainability maintains something indefinitely ... to be sustainable human communities must live within limits ... sustainability is often defined in terms of what is left to future generations ... a sustainable society must ?live in harmony with nature. Is this how you think it should flow? The word sustain originated in Middle English and simply meant to “keep going” (along with several other senses). Ecology only originated in the ?1920s but certainly it has given the idea a push.

Suggestions: We need a short summary of the article itself and citations from reputable published sources: we are not creating original thinking here – more reporting. I have incorporated your ideas and tried to give an intro that flows more smoothly and logically from sustainability in general to sustainability in particular, with a close eye on the WP guidelines. See what you think; I have inserted it in the article. I have also downplayed the SD aspect – hope you approve. If you are happy with this I will work on citations and Wikifying. Granitethighs (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you've done it again. A complete rewrite. Not one sentence taken from the work before you intact. First paragraph does not deal with definitions at all. Neither does the third. Second paragraph only mentions the supporting requirement regarding resources. The third paragraph launches into what we must do. Huh? How about sticking with introducing the topic? Frankly, if you really want to list what would be effective to get us there, don't forget the plague. I am sure citations can be found.

Sheesh! And the &!*% UN sus. dev. program rears its ugly head again. I'll be damn. I thought we could have a compromise by mentioning the Commission's definition, since it's so well known. The footnote was not enough for you? Tell you what, if you just want to write your own, why don'tcha rename it the politics of sustainability and we can have sustainability back?

I don’t know what passes for collaboration in your world. Is it erasing the work of your collaborators in toto and substituting whatever you want until they wear out?

Ok, ok, deep deep breathing. Not mad anymore. Here’s an idea: I will do a revert, and you try again. See if you can show respect for the text you want to modify. V.B. (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * VB I am trying to make this thing work. If I were to reply in your style we'd be in dire trouble. Let's make this all much simpler. Why dont we accept what has been written by you insofar as it complies with the Wikipedia recommendations for the lead to an article. Let me suggest ways that it can comply more fully:


 * that there is at least one citation and that it does not defer to sustainable development (I got the impression that was your preferred position), that is, a published definition that we can all live with. Making up a definition is original research.
 * that there is a paragraph summarising the content of the article - and that this reflects published sources (as it stood it did not do this).
 * that the introductory sentences deal with the complexity of the notion of sustainability in as clear a way as possible (at present it does not draw clear attention to the many senses of sustainability both in human and ecological terms).

Perhaps best if you do most of the writing and I will make suggestions from the sidelines otherwise its stale mate. Sorry, but we can do better working together and we can also do better than the current lead. Am I collaborating now? Granitethighs (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this? "that the introductory sentences deal with the complexity of the notion of sustainability in as clear a way as possible (at present it does not draw clear attention to the many senses of sustainability both in human and ecological terms)."

Can you elaborate? How would you write it in your own words?

I added another definition and three citations. As for your second suggestion, I agree, but would prefer to leave it for later, when the article is redone. I am not all that happy with the second half of the intro, and maybe your suggestion will later make it snap into place.V.B. (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's talk about how we could work together collaboratively. While I agree with Granitethighs that V.B.'s first reaction did test the limits of civility, I think he raises a valid point. The problem with major edits to the article directly is that it can lead to reverts when there are differences between various editors. I think we should try to avoid that. Instead, I propose we work on major changes here, first. We can sort things out, get consensus, then "go live." With that in mind, I've moved Granitethighs new version of the lead here for discussion:


 * Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or so the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems, and to humanity in general. The term is widely applied to different levels of human and biological organization and to human activities so we have, for example, global sustainability, household sustainability, ecosystem sustainability, sustainable development, sustainable agriculture, sustainable community, sustainable living, etc.


 * More specifically still, it is now evident that humanity is living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean human global sustainability, a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite limits. The United Nations Sustainable Development program is one aspect of this agenda.


 * It is becoming increasingly recognized that human sustainability will depend on careful management of human direct impacts on nature, on the atmosphere, oceans and water systems, the land (especially forests and cultivated land) including protection of organisms and habitat from extinction and the control of biological invasions. Management must also tackle the driver of these direct impacts, the human consumption of energy, water, materials and food and the waste that this brings.


 * Notes


 * I like this version. However, it needs some work. For one thing there were no citations, thus it was original research. I've added one, plus a couple of "citation needed" tags. For another it is from a particular POV. I've struck the last sentence, as it sounds like WP is trying tell the reader what is needed. I think we should bring in differing views and juxtapose them. The notion that we can "manage" our way to sustainability is one. However, it needs to be balanced with another point of view. Also, we need to provide an overview of what will be in the article. Perhaps we should map out what is going to be in the article&mdash;an outline&mdash;here first. We might even go on to write/edit the rest of the article and come back to the lead. As far as the definition goes, I like it. However, the Brundtland definition (despite the fact that it is nominally a definition of sustainable development, is actually, as V.B. says, the most widely accepted definition of sustainability. For that reason, I do not think that by using it we "defer to sustainable development."


 * Finally I would suggest that, if we are going to collaborate, we set ourselves a goal. How about we go for good article status. If that goes well, we could go for featured article status. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am more than happy with this approach but a bit surprised. On the one hand, Sunray, you seem abundantly reasonable but then suddenly become uncompromising - but that is probably just my false perception. I'm sure we can get along. You seem to be setting the ground rules here but that's fine by me while we are on the same wavelength. I agree the lead does not have to be perfect immediately, we might all modify our thinking as we go along. I feel flattered that you have put my version up for editing but wonder how VB feels about that. Anyway, let's get on with the business at hand because I think we are making positive headway and its a great topic to get stuck into. Here's a few comments at this stage - I wont alter what's been done, you can do that yourself as you see fit.
 * I am happy with the Brundtland Statement as it is innocuous and relatively simple. It was also the beginning of the "human sustainability" thrust. Put it in where you feel it fits and follows the flow of ideas. It was later that things became more complex and controversial.
 * I take the point about the last sentence but think that somehow (reworded) it needs to included because it refers to much of what sustainability has come to mean to governments, local communities etc. ... i.e. it is part of the "summary" requirement for lead articles.
 * I think sustainability is still used legitimately for biological systems that lie outside human influence (more or less) that is why I included "sustainable ecosystems" (some other example would do), otherwise the existing list of "sustainabilities" looks good.
 * My outline of the contents of the article is essentially the headings in the contents as it exists. I am not inseparably wedded to this though - please suggest something you think might be more appropriate.

I look forward to an amicable and productive collaboration on the way to a featured article. Granitethighs (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's close enough to be GA already. We just need to improve the lead and I'll get someone to review it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ready? You gotta be kidding. Parts of is is the identical mirror of the article on sustainable development. I don't think so...

Let's compare the first two paragraphs then:

Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely. As applied to the human community, it is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely (within the given limits of life on Earth). Sustainability is often defined as the practical ability to satisfy the basic needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs.[1] Or to state it another way, sustainability is the management of environmental and resource systems so that their ability to support future generations is not diminished.[2] A sustainable society must be organized in such a way that the ways of living and the patterns of activity of its members are not in conflict with the inherent ability of nature to maintain life.[3]  Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or so the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems, and to humanity in general. The term is widely applied to different levels of human and biological organization and to human activities so we have, for example, global sustainability, household sustainability, ecosystem sustainability, sustainable development, sustainable agriculture, sustainable community, sustainable living, etc.

The paragraph on the left states clearly what sustainability IS. The article on the right does not (apart from the most general "engineering" sense which I think is besides the point in the article and I would remove it from both). Left: has two definitions, plus a clarification of what it means for human society, in a nutshell. (By the way, I corrected the place in left paragraph as it was not clear that it refers to the entire human community. I think now it does.) Then right: moves on the specify applications without ever defining what he means by sustainability. That sentence ought to come later.

I asked Granitethighs what he means by his requestion addition above, and never heard back. Did you mean by it your third sentence in this paragraph? V.B. (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Following with my take on the second paragraphs.

Sustainability requires that human activity only utilizes nature's resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.[4] Vital human ecological support systems include the planet's climatic system, systems of agriculture, industry, forestry, fisheries and the systems on which they depend in turn. In recent years, public discourse has led to a use of "sustainability" in reference to how long human ecological systems can be expected to be usefully productive. --- More specifically still, it is now evident that humanity is living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature.[1] Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean human global sustainability, a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite limits. The United Nations Sustainable Development program is one aspect of this agenda. Left paragraph deepens what was said in the first paragraph in its first 2 sentences. The rest could use help. The right paragraph begins with “more specifically still” after providing virtually no specifics in the first paragraph. (?). The first right sentence is very similar in meaning to left first sentence, except that sentence is a positive expression of what is required by sustainability, whereas right sentence is styled in the negative. Left follows with grounding the whole concept in ecological understanding. Right stresses global sustainability (already implied in the left ecosystem definition, as well as in the first paragraph). A good point, as long as it is noted that the concept informs human behavior from personal and local all the way to planetary. I am opposed to showcase UN in this introduction; there are many other groups, organizations and calls to actiion and some of them should properly be mentioned below, and not one of them ought to get center stage unless a very good reason for it can be shown. V.B. (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I follow with my take on the last paragraph in both versions.

The implied preference would be for systems to be productive indefinitely, or be "sustainable." For example, "sustainable agriculture" would develop agricultural systems to last indefinitely; "sustainable economy" can be an economic system that can last indefinitely, etc. A side discourse relates the term sustainability to longevity of natural ecosystems and reserves (set aside for other-than-human species), but the challenging emphasis has been on human systems and anthropogenic problems, such as anthropogenic climate change, or the depletion of fossil fuel reserves. Sustainability can be examined on a number of levels, from local all the way to planetary.

It is becoming increasingly recognized that human sustainability will depend on careful management of human direct impacts on nature, on the atmosphere, oceans and water systems, the land (especially forests and cultivated land) including protection of organisms and habitat from extinction and the control of biological invasions.[citation needed] Management must also tackle the driver of these direct impacts, the human consumption of energy, water, materials and food and the waste that this brings. The left paragraph, which I mostly took over from the old version, gives examples to further understanding. I like its mention of anthropogenic problems, but the gist of the message can certainly be done in other ways. On the right, there is a sudden jump to solutions. I think it is too early for that, or maybe inappropriate for the intro, I am not sure. I suggested previously that it be fleshed out after the whole article is finished. I want to avoid here some human-arrogant sense is that we KNOW what will bring about sustainability (which we don’t), and that human management is key (a dubious proposition since human managers have gotten us to this precipice).V.B. (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead - a useful compromise?
Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or so the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems, and to humanity in general. As applied to the human community, it requires that human activity only use tilizes nature's resources at a "sustainable" rate. at which they can be replenished naturally. is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely (within the given limits of life on Earth). In 1987 the Brundtland Report, specifically addressing sustainable development, expressed this as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". y to satisfy the basic needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs. [1] Or to state it another way, sustainability is the careful stewardship of environmental and resource systems so that their ability to support future generations is not diminished.[2] A sustainable society must be organized in such a way that the ways of living and the patterns of activity of its members are not in conflict with the inherent ability of nature to maintain life.[3]

Sustainability requires that human activity only utilizes nature's resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.[4] It is now evident that Humanity is currently living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature.[1][5] Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean a call for action, for a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite resource limits.

Sustainability has become a controversial and complex all-purpose term is widely applied in many different ways: to different levels of biological organization (sustainable wetlands, sustainable gardens, sustainable forests), to different levels of human organisation (sustainable individuals, sustainable households, sustainable countries) and to human activities, disciplines and more (sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture, sustainable economics). so we have, for example, global sustainability, household sustainability, ecosystem sustainability, sustainable economy, sustainable agriculture, sustainable community, sustainable living, sustainable cities, sustainable architecture etc. In recent years, public discourse has led to a use of "sustainability" in reference to how long human ecological systems can be expected to be usefully productive. [can this be referenced?] This article examines, among other things,  some of the ways the ideal of sustainability is being used, or should be used, to guide human actions. V.B. (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am ok with the last paragraph. I would only delete "sustainable individuals" (as I have never heard it said, it sounds kinda silly) and rewrite the sentence as "sustainable households, sustainable towns, sustainable countries" -- a minor point.

I would prefer if folks used a different color for their changes and left a signature. I am having to go back to my version elsewhere. If my words were left intact with other edits inserted, it would make it easier. I am new to this collaborative editing too, so I am wondering it that would be doable.V.B. (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can folks explain the deletions in the second paragraph? After all, the root of sustainability is in ecology. Please tell me more. V.B. (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the first paragraph, we can hardly define sustainability in reference to sustainable rate. That's a circular argument.V.B. (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
I am not sure of Wikipedia practice for collaborative editing (alright you can have a good laugh over that one). I liked Sunray's idea of a "scratchpad" of the lead to which we could add and remove edits so that we can see how the text is changing as we each make our edits, like you would on a written text or a word processor using "track changes", that way it is easier to follow the flow of changes between versions. Part of our difficulty, apart from all the ideas, is getting text that makes a good "read". The above seems a bit awkward, a bit repetitive and maybe longer than it needs to be to me. At this stage I have the following comments.


 * I am essentially satisfied with the edits made by Sunray - so we have a consensus of 2 here. My only concern was that the lead should provide the reader with a summary of what is to follow and I am not sure it quite does that yet - but we could work on this later.
 * VB the opening, I think, has to catch the way sustainability is a very general idea (to keep going). But (as you point out) it has gained a special place in ecology through the idea of sustainable biological systems. But now perhaps because of sustainable development, perhaps not, it has in the popular mind been applied particularly to human systems to the point where it is often used in the sense of a general goal - a sustainable global human community. The examples of different kinds of sustainability that we give indicate this (but I think examples need to be kept to a minimum to make the point). Because sustainability, it seems to me, is not exclusively applied to humans one biological example like "sustainable ecosystems" might not go astray.
 * The point I did not get back to you on you have included. Somehow we need to get across the idea that sustainability is about both biophysical units - sustainable wetlands, sustainable gardens, sustainable forests and fisheries ... but also organizational and administrative units - sustainable individuals, sustainable households, sustainable countries and so on.

I know you realise all this, and that the ideas have been included, but it could be more succinct. I think if we put the Brundtland definition in it needs to be quoted in context and accurately but I hope you agree with the way it is stated in reference to sustainable development only. I'm sure we all find this process agonisingly slow and nit-picky - but I guess that's what consensus is about. I've tried to pare it down to the bones - please do not take the deletions personally VB we are very close and making progress (even if it is slow). Granitethighs (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we are making good progress and that we are fairly close to consensus on the lead. My reason for saying that is that I agree with you both. I do think that it is easier for us to take one (or two at the most) versions that we can mark up with changes (say strike out for deletions and a different color for each person's changes. The reason I would remove phrases such as "ecosystem sustainability" or even "global sustainability' is that they are not linkable to articles. The way to use links, as V.B. has said, is to incorporate them into the text (rather than list them). As to collaborative editing. I have worked on several FAs and GAs that experienced remarkable collaboration. I think that we have the makings of that. But I wouldn't underestimate the magnitude of the task. Sunray (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to Granitethighs: I am encouraged that you think we can work together. As to my being: "abundantly reasonable but then suddenly... uncompromising..." I like to get agreement on what we are going to work on. You will find that I will be faithful to agreements. However, I tend to insist that WP policies be followed and that guidelines be deviated from only for good reason. Beyond that, it will be what the editors of this page agree on. Sunray (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great - I appreciate having an experienced Wikipedian in the team and am more than happy to follow WP procedure. Granitethighs (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Some background
I am not likely to agree to any version of the lead that specifically refers to sustainable development. Sustainable development is a highly problematic concept, and very controversial in sustainablity circles. Basically, the feeling out there is that the sustainable dev people are aiming to dilute sustainability in such a way that it makes no one uncomfortable, and waters down sustainability to status quo that is greened around the edges. I personally think that sustainable development is possible, but this whole controversial area ought to properly be treated as a subtopic that refers to the sustainable development article. The lead must not contain grossly controversial issues. I have nothing against a footnote re Brundtland. I would welcome it if folks here explained their point of view on this important issue, as it stands in the way of us moving forward. (Also viz the entry of Prometheus in the earlier thread on Sustainability vs Sustainable Development, which was never really responded to.) V.B. (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * VB I understand and sympathise ... no, more ... I agree with your concern! I was prepared to ignore sustainable development altogether in the lead but did not feel that strongly about it. As I understand it, you introduced the Brundtland statement (or near word-for-word version of it). Sunray said "the Brundtland definition (despite the fact that it is nominally a definition of sustainable development), is actually, as V.B. says, the most widely accepted definition of sustainability. For that reason, I do not think that by using it we "defer to sustainable development."" (I, GT had used this phrase previously). I essentially agreed to follow Sunray and VB by including it: I also indicated in the wording that sustainable development is just, as it were, one aspect of sustainability. If there is any problem at all it seems to me that it arises because we can hardly use this definition without being honest about the context out of which it arose. On the other point, I did reply to Prometheus about the conflation of ideas, my point being that, yes, my wording could be improved but that the article, carefully read, simply did not conflate the two. I think we are well on the way to deflating sustainable development now so I hope this issue will no longer arise. Prometheus, after his initial comment, implied this would be acceptable to him. Finally, I had not thought of the different colours for our separate edits, OK, done, good idea ... we are really steaming along now.

Well, back to the scratchpad ... where are we at? Granitethighs (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that is good news indeed. I included the reference primarily in deference to (what I thought was) your take on this. Now that you have clarified your position, I am hoping it will please you to skip any reference to Brundtland or development, and use instead, among others, the definition that EPA uses: Sustainability means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Do I have it right now, by you? :-) V.B. (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The definition that you just quoted, above&mdash;the one used by the EPA is the Brundtland definition. The Brundtland definition has been taken over as the definition of sustainability. This does not in anyway invalidate anything that either of you have said about sustainable development', (with which I agree). It has to do with the use of language, and with etymology. Putting our three points of view together suggests that we use the EPA definition with a footnote that traces its origins to Brundtland. Sunray (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am ok with that. V.B. (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead - again
I am posting a new version of the lead. See some of my notes re the edited version in that section. It would be very helpful at this point if any editing changes or deletions were explained below, so that we have something to go on as we try to understand where each of us is coming from. Thanks! ---

Option 1

Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state or condition indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or so in recent years the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems, and to humanity in general. As applied to the human community, it is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely (within the given limits of life on Earth). Sustainability is often defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. A sustainable society must be organized in such a way that the ways of living and the patterns of activity of its members are not in conflict with the inherent ability of nature to maintain life.

Sustainability requires that human activity only uses nature’s resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. It is now evident that humanity is living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean a call for action, for a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite limits.

Sustainability has become a controversial and complex all-purpose term that is widely applied in many different ways: to different levels of biological organization ( sustainable wetlands, gardens, prairies, forests), to different levels of human organisation ( sustainable households , sustainable cities towns, sustainable countries ) and to human activities and disciplines and more (sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture, sustainable economics). V.B. (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Option 2

Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state or condition indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or s o in recent years the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems, and to humanity in general.

There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature.[citation needed] consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean a call for action, for a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite resource limits. This is sometimes expressed through the idea of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.[citation needed]

Sustainability has become a controversial and complex all-purpose term that is widely applied in many different ways: to different levels of biological organization ( sustainable wetlands, gardens, prairies, forests), to different levels of human organisation ( sustainable households , sustainable cities towns, sustainable countries ) and to human activities and disciplines and more (sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture, sustainable economics).


 * This is looking good. A few minor tweaks (mostly copyediting). I think we should stick with the more all encompassing "process or state" in the first sentence. I marked a couple of places for footnotes. Finally, I reiterate that we should use existing links where possible and not add our own neologisms, such as "sustainable economics." Sunray (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is shaping well. I agree with the changes you made, Sunray. V.B. (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We should also consider addressing the POV of this version. There are a other significant points of view that tend to qualify the statements made in this version. One is the sustainable development approach: all is well, we can manage our way out of this, no major changes to lifestyle, just develop technologies to fix the problems&mdash;and I think we should refer to this viewpoint briefly in the lead. The opposing viewpoint is that human civilization is not sustainable, that human beings are a virus-like organism which, at current population levels, will kill the planet. A less extreme version of this is the view that the laws of thermodynamics do allow human civilization to be sustainable. It will inevitably die out. Advocates of this view tend to argue that we cannot talk about the "sustainability" of human systems, only "more sustainable" or "less sustainable" practices. Sunray (talk)
 * Um? Who wrote this? Sorry, what is POV? V.B. (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to sign (you can always check who posted something by looking at "history").
 * POV = point of view. WP:NPOV recognizes that achieving a neutral point of view in an article often requires presenting various alternative points of view. Sunray (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Option 2
Granitethighs (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added an Option 2 to the above and labelled the agreed text Option 1.
 * I like all the changes made - happy with Option 1. Option 2 does not change or add any ideas - it was an attempt to help the flow and to abbreviate what I felt was still a slight tendency to repeat i.e. I'm keeping it to the bare bones. Just let me know if you dont like it, or like only some of it or whatever. Its all good by me.
 * Sunray, I think VB and GT are probably sympathetic to a range of POV - but we need some words to think about and I guess it needs to be quite brief.
 * I can add good citations where they are flagged and when we decide to move on
 * we probably need one more example of human organization sustainability
 * I was not sure that the ecological sentence or two was needed - but happy with consensus here of course


 * Glad we are so close. I vote for version 1, as it includes some important info I do not wish to leave out. There is no need to be so parsimonious with the space allotted, is there? I hope not. GT: I wonder if "sustainable bioregions" would fit the bill?

I completely agree with you, Sunray, that a range of POVs be expressed, but I would like to see it added in the body of the article rather than the lead. Let me see if I can explain more clearly... here is an (imperfect) analogy: if I were writing a lead to an article about Judaism, would it be appropriate to mention the (from the point of view of Judaism) controversial and conflictual POV of the Jews for Jesus? There is a tense relationship between the two, and it would not be fair to the POV of Judaism to force such a controversial POV into the lead. Am I making sense? There is similar tension among many sustainability people regarding SD, particularly the version of it you mentioned above. I would be happy to sketch out a section on the controversies and offer it up for comments here, once we are done with the lead. V.B. (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do like the second paragraph of Option 2. It puts the problem squarely in front of the reader. I also like the way it reads. I do think that Option 1 does a better job of keeping the definitional stuff in the first paragraph. Perhaps I will add a version 3 that combines them.


 * As to the other views: What tends to happen is that if we don't cover them in the lead, someone will come along and insert their text. That usually results in some conflict between editors. Also, one of the groundrules on writing a good lead is that it should summarize what will be in the article. I will look for some citations that set out the major points of view. Sunray (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK Sunray - if you could do those finishing touches we will be about done by my thinking. I am the only one who has offered an overview of the content of the rest of the article - I guess that is our next hurdle because it (eventually) will need to be referred to in the lead as you say. Granitethighs (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Option 3
Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or s o in recent years the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems, and to humanity in general. As applied to the human community, sustainability has been expressed as This is sometimes expressed through the idea of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean a call for action, for a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite resource limits.

Sustainability has become a controversial and complex all-purpose term that is widely applied in many different ways: to different levels of biological organization (e.g. sustainable e.g.,wetlands, gardens, prairies, forests), to different levels of human organization ( sustainable households , (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities) towns, sustainable countries ) and to human activities and disciplines and more {e.g., (sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture sustainable economics).


 * If we add other points of view, they could be briefly mentioned in para 2. As to the different levels of human organisation (BTW, are we using Brit or Yank spelling? We have to pick one and use it throughout), I added "ecovillages." I'm a devotee of that approach to sustainability, but realize that it is far from mainstream and may not be appropriate here. Sunray (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's not bad. I could sleep at nights knowing that this was the lead! I added an e.g., and deleted a comma, and capitalized a C. My writing tradition is Brit but Yank is fine by me - I'm just inclined to forget out of habit. I go for this one. Perhaps the POV can be added later? Up to you to make the running on POV. Whew! Granitethighs (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I veto version 3, as it has again thrown out my key concerns. Why are we going in circles? We all agreed on 1 already. A collaborative process can be pretty effectively sabotaged if folks don't say "good enough" at some point. -- I am quite ok with ecovillages and eco-municipalities. -- The sustainable development POV is NOT the POV of sustainability and as long as someone wants to keep inserting it in the lead, we will have a conflict. Again, we have gone over this a number of times. If someone does run in some day with it, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. (As for the humans as viruses and survival of civilization, I don't think it belongs to a definitional lead, but if you can craft something that makes sense, let's look at it. The main problem with that is nobody has suggested that sustainability is meant to save civilization in its present form. But heck, that's a whole different can of worms.) -- I have never seen a lead that summarizes everything that comes later. That just does not make any sense. Besides, how can we summarize it when the article is yet to be finished? We previously agreed to do it later. Again, going in circles.V.B. (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch. That smarts! What is it about Option 3 that brings in the "sustainable development POV"? I wasn't GTs version 3, it was your continued insistence that we bring it in somehow, that I was responding to here. I thought that Granitethighs was faithful to Option 1 in his draft. He just simplified the language. No, he threw out the very definitions/clarifications I have struggled this whole time to keep in there. In fact, if you look closely, *none* of what I wrote is included, apart from my suggested EPA definition. Are you referring to the definition? If so, please recall our discussion on this:


 * "Well, that is good news indeed. I included the reference primarily in deference to (what I thought was) your take on this. Now that you have clarified your position, Please note, and I am bolding it: I am hoping it will please you to skip any reference to Brundtland or development, and use instead, among others, the definition that EPA uses: Sustainability means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Do I have it right now, by you? :-) V.B. (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Where I said "skip any reference to" I meant of course in the text itself. I have never objected to footnotes, nor do I now.


 * The definition that you just quoted, above&mdash;the one used by the EPA is the Brundtland definition. The Brundtland definition has been taken over as the definition of sustainability. This does not in anyway invalidate anything that either of you have said about sustainable development, (with which I agree). It has to do with the use of language, and with etymology. Putting our three points of view together suggests that I am bolding my agreement: we use the EPA definition with a footnote that traces its origins to Brundtland.' Meaning, as a replacement for the Brundtland definition. NOT as a replacement for all I wrote! Sunray (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am ok with that. V.B. (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)"


 * Or am I missing something? Sunray (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

V.B. responds to Sunray in red. Sorry, forgot to login, I am going to save it anyway. V.B.4.228.183.131 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seemed to me that GT and I had tried hard to be faithful to your version. By throwing it out? Strange way of doing it. However, frankly I have to say that it can be improved on. So why didn't you? I posted many notes, and no one responded with theirs. Take for example these sentences from Paragraph 1:


 * As applied to the human community, In *any* living community, this is what sustainability *is*.: it is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely This I added for the picky types who are sure to point out the Sun will die some day.: (within the given limits of life on Earth). I thought we were all in agreement that the following definition ought to be mentioned as it is so well known. It is a different, and problematic definition, and has been criticized. Those criticisms can properly be addressed in the Definition section.: Sustainability is often defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.[citation needed] I see some repetition in the following, but it really is an important addition; first we say what the definitions say, then note in general sense what the society must do to be sustainable. A lead in to the rest of the article.: A sustainable society must be organized in such a way that the ways of living and the patterns of activity of its members are not in conflict with the inherent ability of nature to maintain life.


 * Do you not see the repetition? You say that sustainability:
 * "... is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely... (sustainability is the ability to sustain... (tautology) True, thank for pointing out the circularity. Shall we say maintain, or continue with, or some such?
 * "... is often defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising... (defining it again)


 * Then you say that a sustainable society: "... must be organized in such a way that the ways of living ... are not in conflict with the inherent ability of nature to maintain life.


 * The second paragraph continues: "Sustainability requires that human activity only uses nature’s resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. A clarification. The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future..." The whole field arose from this ecological consideration, and I think it's essential to broader understanding. The bureaucrats did not invent the field, the ecologists did. (abiltiy of nature to maintain life; use nature's resources at a rate ... they can be replenished naturally..." &mdash; more repetition).


 * I thought that GT condensed this all rather well. I gave it some editorial tweaks and voila. You don't agree with it? What do you want to do? Sunray (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea for you to make a proposal that builds on what GT and I have done. Sunray (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I did already, in version one. I would be happy to go over it again and fish out and incorporate the various tweaks we gave it since then, if that's what you have in mind. V.B.4.228.183.98 (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Combining options 1 and 3
Point taken about the importance of the ecological roots. Here's a re-working, re-inserting that:

V.B.'s editing in purple.


 * Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or so I n recent years the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems., and to humanity in general As applied to the human community, sustainability has often been expressed as This is sometimes expressed through the idea of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.


 * Sustainability requires that human activity only uses nature’s resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean a call for action, for a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite resource limits.


 * The sustainability concept, simple at base, has come to generate controversies and complexities in practice as it has been has become a controversial and complex all-purpose term that is widely applied in many different ways, to different levels of biological organization ( e.g.sustainable e.g.,wetlands, gardens , prairies, forests), to different levels of human organization ( sustainable households , (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities) towns, sustainable countries ) and to human activities and disciplines and more {e.g., (sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture <S>sustainable economics</S>).

Guys, don't kick me for the edit to the last paragraph. I was the culprit who put it in. I learn as I go, and have been mulling over how simple the concept really is, but the devil is in the working out of "how." I just caught it. V.B.4.228.183.45 (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope that this one passes muster for all. Sunray (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am happy with this new version you've suggested Sunray. However, I can never resist minor edits that I think increase clarity and readability. A couple of minor points. We are talking about sustainability used in several slightly different senses here (dont think this is sufficiently significant to require disambiguation). We can help make this clearer by splitting the paragraphs differently and making slightly different conjunctions. The second minor point is that having "roots in ecology" sounds a bit strange to me and I think re-expressing this sentence in a slightly different way reads better (see below). Finally "at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally" doesn't quite sound right to me but I can't think of an alternative way of expressing it; similarly for "keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite resource limits" - neither are in any way critical, I just think they could be crafted better. The following version is simply to see if you think it improves what we've got. Welcome feedback. We can always return later anyway. We now have our required (no more than) 4 paragraphs. Could someone who knows how to archive please do that at a suitable cut-off point please? Also, how do you change the colour of the font - I meant to put my suggestions in green but couldn't see how. Anyway it should be obvious what I've done. I am happy! Granitethighs (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Option X

Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or s o in recent years the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems, and to humanity in general.

As applied to the human community, sustainability has been expressed as This is sometimes expressed through the idea of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.; it :Sustainability requires that human activity only use s nature’s resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. As an ecological term it refers to The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.

There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean a call for action, for a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite resource limits.

Sustainability has become a controversial and complex all-purpose term that is widely applied in many different ways: to different levels of biological organization ( e.g.sustainable e.g.,wetlands, gardens, prairies, forests), to different levels of human organization ( sustainable households , (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities) towns, sustainable countries ) and to human activities and disciplines and more (e.g., sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture <S>sustainable economics</S>).


 * I like your edits. The only tweak I would make is to return the definition to the first paragraph. My reason for this is twofold: 1) Definitions should be contained in the first paragraph and ours expands on the "general" one given. 2) According to the MoS, one or two-sentence paragraphs should generally be avoided. Other than that, if V.B gives it the nod, we have ignition. I like to think that we are taking the time to ensure consensus now so that it will flow more easily in the future. (Please let that be true!). With trust in each other's abilities, we should be able to race ahead (comparatively). As to changing font colour, it goes like this: [the text here would then be in green] . I will archive. Sunray (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fabulous - that's fine, go for it. Thanks for the font info. and archiving. I can add the citations (except the one concerning ecological sustainability, which VB can presumably source).
 * If VBs OK with the latest then we're off and running. Granitethighs (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See purple edit above. How close are we? V.B.4.228.183.45 (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are going to have to tell me the answer to your own question. The addition to the first paragraph seems repetitive. As to the addition in the last paragraph: "A simple and elegant concept" is not really encyclopedic, IMO. Sunray (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To say that a concept is complex is ok, but to say it's simple is not? How so? V.B.4.228.183.45 (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was really the "elegant" that struck my eye. That turn of phrase just didn't seem encyclopedic to me. I do think the term is sometimes controversial and I do think that the difficulties humans have with it, tend to make it complex. I also think that the laws of thermodynamics present difficulties for humans. So I'm much happier with "complex" than simple (and think we could find a citation that says that). Bottom line, if challenged, we have to be able to source everything. Sunray (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well, skip elegant (though mathematicians use it all the time!). I was thinking in these terms: Sustainability itself is so simple a child will have no trouble understanding it. Which is pretty important, no? Here is an example; if you want to use the Ogallala aquifer sustainably, just withdraw water at or below the replenishment rate. Nothing could be simpler. The complexities come when trying to make it happen. On the other hand, I agree with your take on thermodynamics... hmmm...--


 * As for "ability to maintain a way of life indefinitely" it does not repeat anything else in the lead; we are not talking here about the next couple of generations or the next 40 years; we are talking for all time and nowhere else is that stressed. V.B. (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely you jest. The opening sentence defines sustainability as "the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely." I make that twice that "indefinitely" is repeated in the span of a short paragraph. The phrase "future generations" gives another take on the word "indefinitely," surely. Methinks we "cavil on the ninth part of a hair." Will it always be like this? Sunray (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No bloody need to be sarcastic. We've all worked hard on this. I missed the first point, ok. I have redone the first paragraph, and the third, above. V.B. (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to be sarcastic. How does one say "I think you've made a mistake" in a gentle way. I tried to keep it light. Evidently I failed. Sorry. Sunray (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh heck. If you really want it to be controversial and complex, go with it. Just do me a favor and skip the "all-purpose." V.B. (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason for the "all-purpose" is that sustainability now seems a buzz-word that, as we point out, is used to cover a multitude of circumstances and situations. However, if what you are suggesting is that by removing "all-purpose" we will have reached consensus ... and can move on ... then I'm all for it. What does the final version look like? Granitethighs (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's V.B's last version:
 * Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or so I n recent years the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems., and to humanity in general As applied to the human community, sustainability has often been expressed as This is sometimes expressed through the idea of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.


 * Sustainability requires that human activity only uses nature’s resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean a call for action, for a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite resource limits.


 * The sustainability concept, simple at base, has come to generate controversies and complexities in practice as it has been has become a controversial and complex all-purpose term that is widely applied in many different ways, to different levels of biological organization ( e.g.sustainable e.g.,wetlands, gardens , prairies, forests), to different levels of human organization ( sustainable households , (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities) towns, sustainable countries ) and to human activities and disciplines and more {e.g., (sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture <S>sustainable economics</S>).

It doesn't pick up GT's point about "all-purpose" I cannot discuss it any more. The eyes glaze over. I'm putting it up in the article. Sunray (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks great!
Thank you both Sunray and GT for this excruciating but in the end productive experience. The lead looks mighty fine. :-)


 * I cleaned up a few minor glitches (spaces, parentheses in the wrong place, missing caps) and wikified. Also rewrote footnote 1 as we agreed to link to the EPA site, noting Brundtland as the originator. I have saved the original citation in full and posting it here for GT's convenience as I am sure all the detail will find its use. For example, I noticed that there is something wrong with footnote 8, in the history section, which comes up as a red warning. Perhaps it would be just the place for it.


 * ref name = Brundtland>Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427, Development and International Co-operation: Environment. While this definition was coined by the commission to describe Sustainable development, it has been widely adopted as the definition of "sustainability," and is used by organizations as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency./ref

V.B. (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A huge improvement on my (GTs) efforts and, IMO the former lead as well. I am happy with it as is. However, still a few points I would like your views on:


 * Reference 1. I am concerned at the claim that the US EPA coined this definition. It is essentially (with a few words different) the same as that of the Brundtland Report. The wording here needs, in my view, to be altered for factual accuracy. That is, this definition was NOT coined by the US EPA.


 * On procedure … I made suggestions for slight changes (which I have now labelled Option X, so that they can be seen in our discussion). Sunray’s response to these changes was:

“I like your edits. The only tweak I would make is to return the definition to the first paragraph. My reason for this is twofold: 1) Definitions should be contained in the first paragraph and ours expands on the "general" one given. 2) According to the MoS, one or two-sentence paragraphs should generally be avoided.”

VB you completely ignored these edits when two of us had essentially agreed on them. In the light of this I ask that you do not dismiss the following suggestions out of hand.

V.B. responds in red. GT responds in green. S responds in blue (could we stick to one colour, please?)


 * Change of words to: “As an ecological term it [sustainability] refers to the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.” Just a stylistic thing. I think this is more direct and clear - fine if you disagree. I disagree.


 * The lead starts off by drawing attention to various “kinds” of sustainability and then paragraph 2 comes down hard in terms of human sustainability – but this transition is not quite clear. I tried to make this transition clearer in Option X. If you agree, needs slight wording tweak. It usually is a bad idea to combine two short sentences into one long one, unless there is a weighty reason for it. To me, it's clear. GT's version reads best, IMO


 * I tried looking up the “definition” given in Reference 2 and could not find it. We also probably need a simpler and more authoritative source than the one given. I modified the link to go directly to Ss but you still need to scroll down to find it. The definition is from the USFS's glossary on eco-management, which is unavailable at the moment. I will check later to see if it's back on line.


 * I have added the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as an authoritative scientific source. (as ref 4) Looks fine.


 * I feel the sentence starting “There is now clear …” would be best as a separate paragraph. Would that be in line with WP procedure Sunray? I have felt all along that turning it all into 4 paragraphs is a bad idea... does not work as well. Also, English usages specifies that paragraphs have some heft; turning 2 sentences into a paragraph is frowned on, if I remember my lessons correctly. agree with V.B


 * “The sustainability concept, simple at base, has come to generate …” was never really agreed on by us all. This opening sentence to the final paragraph now reads clumsily to me – needs a tweak. IMO “simple at base” is a gratuitous and unjustified remark. In the lead we seem to be homing in on “human sustainability” which is fine by me. However, on this front there is a debate in the literature about sustainability as a “concept” and sustainability as an “agenda for action” – I don’t want to get into this debate but suggest we keep it simple by only referring to sustainability here. Ok, so what do you propose as relacement? I am open to improvement. My preference would be for the following or a slight variant. Sustainability has become a controversial and complex all-purpose term that is widely applied (?used) in many different ways:. We could remove the "all-purpose" if you really cannot live with it; or replace it with "general-purpose" (I understand fully and agree with about sustainability being simple in principle: trouble is, in the context of the generality of the introduction and its ideas, mixing simples and complexes in with all the rest just turns out sounding confusing or strange. This could be solved by expanding what is meant by "simple" but we just cannot afford the luxury of the space needed to do this in this part of the article)


 * Sunray, you seem to be the best among us at English usage. Should it be "use" or "uses" in para 2. Also do we need the comma after each of the e.g.s in the last paragraph? My 2 cents... use is probably the one, and I would skip the commas. Neither. "Human activity" doesn't use something, humans do. I will modify it.

VB I appeal to your good nature and ask for a fair consideration of the above points.

You got it. But I am starting to think all three of us ought to go and get a life... ;-) Thanks pal. We've now been through a lot together. You are absolutely right, think I'll get some fresh air  Having been away from this all day, I don't know what you two are talking about!

Now what? Granitethighs (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * GT: Valid point about coinage, I went and modified the citation. If you want to go back to "coined" rather than "originated," feel free.

V.B.4.228.183.250 (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let me say my piece about all-purpose, general-purpose. First, it sounds like a detergent. :-) More importantly, one of the big criticisms leveled against sustainability is that it means anything and everything, and consequently nothing. Do we really want to encourage this sort of perception?


 * Other than that, I have nothing further to add, and would much rather begin to focus on other parts of the article. So go ahead and reshape that sentence as you best see fit. A book is about to come out on Sustainability Principles, which has a section on history. I'll see if I can glean any good stuff for us here. V.B. (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK we can get rid of "all-purpose" unless Sunray feels really strongly about it. As an encyclopaedia article I think we have no choice but to be as objective as possible about the way the word "sustainability" is used, and the reality IMO is that it is now applied to just about everything - after all, people hope that virtually everything in life that they like will be sustainable. Although I sympathise with you on this one I dont think we can set the agenda here - only report (with citations). I do think the opening two paragraphs are more specific so all is not lost. I will go ahead and insert the updated sentence (without all-purpose - it does have the detergent ring about it). Also I am keen to move on too. Am happy to let you and Sunray make the running on modification to the rest but I will dip in occasionally to let you know what I think. So that I am not wasting time I can work on formatting if you like. Sunray is the experienced Wikipedian and there has been talk of the article as a "bloated" "link farm". That's OK - how do we follow a more acceptable Wiki-procedure? ... the "Main articles" headings I hoped would be a help to readers but perhaps that's just not so: there may be other formatting and organisational issues. Anyway - that's enough for now. If you could both cast a final glance over the finished lead.

Granitethighs (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! V.B. (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)