Talk:Sustainability/Definition

Archives
Archive 1: Initial discussion/drafts Archive 2: Modified diagram/Jan 14 Draft Archive 3: Arriving at a version for the main page Archive 4: Arriving at a version for the main page part 2 Archive 5: Archiving older versions and discussion

Definition
Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination". Where we are now, where we need to be going, and how we are to get there are all open to interpretation and will depend on the particular context under consideration. What can meaningfully be described as sustainable will depend on the scale of space and time that is appropriate to the item under consideration. For example, if time criteria have not been met, then assertions of sustainability are more like predictions than definitions. This difficult mix has been described as a "dialogue of values that defies consensual definition". Sustainability has been regarded as both an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice" and as a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance. The idea of sustainable development is sometimes viewed as an oxymoron because development inevitably depletes and degrades the environment. Consequently some definitions either avoid the word development and use the term sustainability exclusively, or emphasise the environmental component, as in "environmentally sustainable development". The dimensions of sustainability are often taken to be: environmental, social and economic, known as the "three pillars". These can be depicted as three overlapping circles (or ellipses), to show that they are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing. While this model initially improved the standing of environmental concerns, it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world. According to English environmentalist and author Jonathon Porritt, "The economy is, in the first instance, a subsystem of human society ... which is itself, in the second instance, a subsystem of the totality of life on Earth (the biosphere). And no subsystem can expand beyond the capacity of the total system of which it is a part". For this reason a second diagram shows economy as a component of society, both bounded by, and dependent upon, the environment. As the American World Bank ecological economist Herman Daly famously asked, "what use is a sawmill without a forest?" The concept of living within environmental constraints yields a definition of sustainable development: "improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems".

The Earth Charter goes beyond defining what sustainability is, and seeks to establish the values and direction needed to achieve it: "We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations."

Definition
The word S sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere (tenere, meaning " to hold; sus, up - " (tenere) "up" (sus-), thus “the ability to be held up.” In the modern context of this article T the word is being used to indicate describe the collective effort to reduce depletion of natural resources, and to maintain the life-supporting capacity of natural systems.

The most widely used definition of sustainability, coined in 1987 in the report Our Common Future to describe sustainable development, is “meeting the needs of the present without limiting the ability of future generations to meet their ?own needs”. However this definition is not universally accepted and a range of other definitions are in use.

The word sustainability takes on different meanings depending on whether it is being used in a scientific, philosophical or political context. It can used in the sense of a “journey”, where the direction is clear but the end point is not, or a “destination”. The word can be applied on any scale from small local issues to the global balance of production and consumption, and on any time scale from a statement of past fact to a future aspiration. This difficult mix has been described as a "dialogue of values that defies consensual definition".

Sustainability is sometimes perceived, on the one hand, used as a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance, or, on the other, as an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice".

The dimensions of sustainability are often taken to be: environmental, social and economic, known as the "three pillars". These can be depicted as three overlapping ellipses, to show that they are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing. While this model initially improved the standing of environmental concerns, it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world.

Concepts of sustainability continue to change as people seek to better understand the interactions between human wellbeing and the natural environment.

Discussion
My impression of the "Definition" section is that it acts as a hurdle in the article. The writing is actually fine, it's the conceptual level that's hugely challenging. I like to picture a student looking for help with a school project as the "target reader" (not at all to imply that we should dumb the material down, but we need to be very structured so that expert material isn't put in places where novices have to struggle through it). My imagined student gives up on sustainability as a topic partway through the definition section. Before I can start improving it, I need some help defining what would be an improvement. I think the aim is to: --Travelplanner (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Make the section shorter
 * Make the section less conceptually challenging and move some of the more challenging material to the Sustainability measurement page (since defining something is a necessary prerequisite to measuring it).


 * I like your goals for this, TP, particularly the notion of making it less conceptually challenging. I think you have made a good stab at it. It is not shorter though (actually about 100 words longer by word count). The readability level also needs some work (passive sentences tend to skew that). But what you have done is given us something better that can be fine tuned. Thanks for getting us going in a new direction. Sunray (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say I do not like the new rewrite TP. I do think the goal is good. Though, I would suggest mainly focusing on the first paragraph. The whole section does seem to be very clear and understandable to my imaginary student. I don't suggest it is perfect either. There are some tweaks needed. We should probably start off a little smaller. AdenR (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I do think it is good. I was just in a hurry.AdenR (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally I like it. There are a few minor problems with readability but it is a vast improvement over the existing version. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done again TP - definitely an improvement. When I've got time I'll help with minor tweaks (others have ideas here too) and IMO it'll be there. Of course it is hard to let go of some bits - I like the Earth Charter but we can use that elsewhere or in another related article. It does not mention the bulls-eye diagram which I would like to have in if possible. We have lost the point that there is tension between "sustainability" and "sustainable development". I'd leave out the "so sustainability is ..." in the etymology section - it is implicit anyway, and IMO  by spelling it out we are  creating a few unwanted questions.  Granitethighs   21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK version 2 is now released - have incorporated specific suggestions (AdenR if you could say more clearly what "tweaks" you had in mind or better still implement them....).

Sunray I was sort of hoping you'd mention readability, I thought of you when I changed "Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value" to "The word sustainability takes on different meanings depending on whether it is being used in a scientific, philosophical or political context." My version has more sylables but GT's version can only be understood (by me at least) by rotating my brain 3x inside my head. Readability scores aren't everything!

Will be offline for the long weekend (Monday is Labour Day in NZ) back Tuesday.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made some direct edits. I agree the idea of sustainability expressing a fact, intent or value is difficult. I think it is very important but it needs explaining and that takes a lot of words - that is why it was left as a brief and obviously enigmatic statement. The point it is making is illustrated below:


 * A sustainable system is one that can endure. (fact)
 * A sustainable global society is founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. (value)
 * Sustainability is meeting the needs of the present without limiting the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (intent)


 * The point being made is that these definitions are all legitimate but very different animals - hence all the heated debate about what sustainability is. I think the "political, scientific etc." reads better but is no more clear conceptually - so I'd be inclined to leave them both out. I also think the business of definition is so thwart with difficulty that we cannot give our own - this is effectively original research - and no matter what we came up with it would be contentious. We can only suggest the thrust of what we are on about. What I am saying is the sentence "In the modern context of this article Tthe word is being used to indicatedescribe the collective effort to reduce depletion of natural resources, and to maintain the life-supporting capacity of natural systems" is uncited and original research. I like it but that is beside the point ... the point being that at present there simply is no universally agreed definition and it is not our place to provide one (and the "fact, value intent" business is just one illustration of why there is disagreement). IMO, as an encyclopaedia, the nearest we have to a non-original-research definition of sustainability/sustainable development is the Brundtland definition.

Granitethighs  11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. Readability and understandability are not always interchangeable concepts, which, I think, is the point that TP is making. But we must all remember that the average reader is reading far below the university graduate level. I like this discussion. I agree with most of what has been said above, (though wasn't clear which version AdenR was referring to in some of his comments). Let's do what editors do and tune it up. Suggest we all use different colours for our edits. Sunray (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * GT, I agree with you about the fact, value, intent distinctions. I think we should find some way to bring that back into the article. Sunray (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just took a closer look at version 2 and am totally confused. Half of the previous version is gone. Did you really mean to remove that TP. IMO the current version is certainly conceptually simpler, but some of the "brilliant prose" (let's not forget FA criterion 1a) is gone. I especially miss the Daly quote, which was charming and easily understandable. I'm not sure what to make of this new version. GT, do you have some further thoughts or should we wait for TP to return? Sunray (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why I suggested working on the first paragraph for now. I do agree with the second and third paragraph revision, but lets just focus on the beginning paragraph. I think takes on different meanings depending on whether it is being used in a scientific, philosophical or political context. should stay. It is relevant to the definition. AdenR (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Version 3
IMO when dealing with both conceptually difficult and controversial matter there are no short cuts to readability etc. This is real sweat editing at the coal face and it might take time ... so we need to be patient (time-wise and with one-another). I have tried again. We can cut and paste and fine tune as you like. Here it is. I've incorporated bits of all versions and rejigged. IMO this is perhaps the most important section - to an outside editor unfamiliar with the topic it might seem unduly long - but a lot turns on what we (people in general, not the editors of the article) think sustainability is all about and this situation needs to be spelled out clearly in the article - even if we dont provide a solution! Granitethighs  23:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The word sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere (tenere, to hold; sus, up). Dictionaries provide more than ten meanings for sustain, the main ones being to “maintain", "support", or "endure”. However, since the 1980s sustainability it >we have come to use the     word has been used more in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth and this has resulted in the most widely quoted definition of sustainability and sustainable development, that of  the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” to which is generally added with the observation It is usually noted that this will requires the reconciliation of environmental, social and economic demands - the "three pillars" of sustainability. This view has been expressed as an illustration using three overlapping ellipses indicating that the three pillars of sustainability are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing.

The UN definition is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. What sustainability is, what its goals should be, and how these goals are to be achieved is all open to interpretation. For many environmentalists the idea of sustainable development is an oxymoron as development seems to entail environmental degradation. Ecological economist Herman Daly has asked, "what use is a sawmill without a forest?" From this perspective, the economy is a subsystem of human society, which is itself a subsystem of the biosphere, and a gain in one sector is a loss from another. This can be illustrated as three concentric circles.

A universally-accepted definition of sustainability is elusive because we want it to it is expected to must achieve many things. On the one hand it needs to be factual and scientific, a clear statement of a specific “destination”. The simple definition "sustainability is improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems", though vague, conveys the idea of sustainability having quantifiable limits. But sustainability is also a call to action, a task in progress or “journey” and therefore a political process, so some definitions we need a declaration of it must set out common goals and values. The Earth Charter speaks of “a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.”

To add complication The situation is further complicated because 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. It can also refer to a future aspiration or intention : "sustainable agriculture" is not necessarily a current situation but a goal for the future, a prediction. For Because of all these reasons sustainability is perceived, at one extreme, as nothing more than a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance but, at the other, as an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice". It has also been described as a "dialogue of values that defies consensual definition".

Comments
This seems to be going in a good direction. Compared to the version in the article, Version 3 is a) shorter, b) conceptually clearer, and c) more readable (i.e., gets a higher score in readability). I think that with a few more tweaks, we will be there. Sunray (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sunray - but all's quiet on the Western Front - not sure if that is a good or bad sign. Please be frank everyone and say what you think, how else can we make progress? Also Sunray, please tweak away - I suppose in general any reduction of words without loss of "content" is a plus. I will work at the next section (ecological dimension) as soon as I have time. Granitethighs   06:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey much improved GT we now have all the original content but I think in a more compact and readable presentation.
 * The bit of the text that refers to the two diagrams needs a bit of work, have shuffled things around so they are explained in turn, I hope this is OK (seems a big change to make without starting Version 4, but I only intended to make a small change and I sort of kept going)
 * The Brundtland definition - OMG if we could only have a rational conversation about this that would be great - is often shortened to "meeting the needs of the present without limiting..." and yes GT as you have given reliable sources to back up your statement that it is the most commonly used definition of sustainability as well as of sustainable development. My question is, is it the full quote (starting "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs...) or the shortened quote (meeting the needs...) that is most commonly used?  My own impression is that the quote is shortened more often than not, especially when applied to sustainability as distinct from sustainable development, but you've done the research on it.  The shortened quote would fit better in the first paragraph if it were verifiably true that this form is the "most commonly used definition of sustainability".  --Travelplanner (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks TP - that reads better. The short answer to your question is I dont know - but we could give the shorter definition prefaced by "often expressed as" and the main sense of the sentence would be the same ... although I think it would need an authoritative citation if the wording is to be different from the original Brundtland wording. Granitethighs   09:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can not make up your own version of a definition to a word by chopping an original quote that was not connected to the word itself as to definition. You are the source of often expressed as so it is blatant original research and against policy. skip sievert (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not making up anything, I am asking a verifiable question.
 * Also, when I put up a draft on a talk page for comment it is unreasonable to misquote it and to imply that anything else I do is unreliable on the basis that my draft is flawed - it's a draft. Have removed your personal comment from the main page for that reason.--Travelplanner (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats a slippery path. skip sievert (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the Brundtland definition from the Lead, to avoid the repetition in this Definition section. I have also added the MEA as a second source of scientific evidence for humans living unsustainably (sorry Skip but IMO this is the best reference - it is a refereed synthesis by a huge number of world-renowned scientists, not a statement of UN policy or position). Neither of these edits seem controversial to me but yell if you think they are. Now, can we assume if there is no more comment/editing soon, that Version 3 has been accepted ... and put it up? The word count has gone up - can we excise anything without too much loss?  Granitethighs   05:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it as is. The word count is down almost 100 words (20%) from the version in the article. I'm ready for it to go up. Sunray (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bad idea. The M.E.A. is already over reffed/sourced in the article. This is neutral and not connected to any specific groups...here. Need I remind you and others of the absurd use of the mea previously throughout the article also which has been whittled down, but still exists as a pov conflict in the article? We know your book is sourced to the U.N. G.T. and other editors here also endorse that pov. - Not good. skip sievert (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of the MEA has been referred to the reliable source notice board and also commented in the last peer review. It is a reliable source. As this has all been discussed at length before, these comments by Skip may be ignored per talk page agreement (see Groundrules). Sunray (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup it's ready to go up. Good work guys, --Travelplanner (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's looking pretty good. I might make a few tweaks but havn't the time. A few tweaks and it'd be great, looking quite good thus far though! Nick carson (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your not listening. No one argues it is a reliable source. It is being used wrong. Ground rules for ignoring? Funny. Making up your own framing language for a definition of a word to another word and using a political pov direction then for context? Not good. skip sievert (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)