Talk:Sustainability/Definition/Archive 3

=Arriving at a version for the main page=

Continuing discussion re modified diagram (see Archive 2)
I've added another version. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks fine and we can fine tune it if necessary later. My only minor quibble now is the conceptual distinction/connection between the "ecological" part of the 3 rings and the outer "environment", "Earth" "life". I wonder if it would be better to just refer to the outer ring as the biosphere if only because it is simpler and perhaps more intuitive in the sense that the "3-ring thing" must occur within the limits of the biosphere. Otherwise there might be some confusion as to how ecology/Earth/environment/life are different from one-another and ecology and if so why are we drawing attention to them as different from ecology? Anyway - I'm not good at these things so suggest the others have a go at it. TP has a feel for this sort of thing and Nick too. I'm the only one that has not contributed to the pics. One final comment and that is we have "social", "economic" and "ecological" which do not quite match one-another (shouldn't it be "economical" and/or sociological"?). Either way we have changed the wording from the SD template and maybe that gives us the opportunity to be straight down the line and bite the bullet with "Society", "Economy", "Ecology"? I've probably said enough now - great to see those ticks going up. Granitethighs (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I like it, it does need some tweaking though, lighter colouring, wording, etc, but we can do that at a later stage. Nick carson (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you GT about the switch to the one-word description "biosphere" for the outer ring. Your point about ecology is well taken, but I don't like "economical," (thrift). or "sociological" (the study of people in groups). Perhaps it is because the field is so new that we still use imprecise terms such as "environment" and then are forced to use the overly precise term "ecology," which, however, seems to be taking on a broader meaning in usage. In any case, I agree with Nick that we can tweak it later. Sunray (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All fine by me. How would people feel about using it instead of the "blue planet" at the top of the article?Granitethighs (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mixed feelings right now, but would like to consider that when we look at the final draft of the article. Sunray (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just had a last read & it seems to have lost a lot that I didn't see go. The three circles diagram is strongly associated with Sustainable Development (we dont make this point) but there is the point that there is a source of contention over definition because there are many people (in the literature) who feel that sustainable development cannot be defined effectively because it is an oxymoron. Also there is the connection with the Brundtland definition in the lead which helps make this point - and th efact that we need to distinguish or discuss potential differences between S and SD. All this and its references seems to have gone - was that intended? Also, partly because of the difficulty of definition people (in the literature) feel the word has no real meaning but is bandied about to sound good (a feel-good buzz word). That too and all its references has gone. Again i didn't see it go. Was it intended? The points are surely relevant aren't they? Anyway - if it was agreed, then so be it, but I can't see these phrases in archives or past work on this page - seems to have disappeared altogether. Did we lose a version in the transition? Granitethighs (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They are relevant, not sure how they disappeared, we should re-include them. Nick carson (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional paragraphs
The version above [now archived] is the January 14 version. Earlier drafts were archived on January 15. The paragraphs that GT is referring to may be the first two paragraphs from the January 11 version.

Are [the first two paragraphs from the Jan 11 version] what you were referring to GT? Sunray (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the one. I suppose I am simply asking editors two questions.
 * Is it worth pointing out that the term "sustainable development" has been the source of considerable debate concerning definition?
 * Is it worth pointing out that many people feel that sustainability is just a kind of marketing gimmick or feel-good concept that, when push comes to shove, doesn't really mean much?
 * If not then fine. If the answer is yes then are the words above doing their job well enough? Oh, and a third point ...
 * We have actually given a definition (the Brundtland definition) in the lead already. Do we need a link sentence of some kind that connects that definition with the discussion in the Definition section? Granitethighs (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think when you wrote the new paragraphs leading into the definitions, you assumed that they were add ons, while I thought they were replacements. Then, I guess you didn't notice that they were gone when I archived.


 * I too was looking at the linking problem. It presents an opportunity to link to the lead. However, I don't think that we referred to Brundtland in the lead, so we will need to make that explicit. I will move these two paragraphs back into the draft version now. Sunray (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition
Although the definition of sustainable development (above) given by the United Nations Brundtland Commission, is frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination." This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition. As an appeal for action it is also open to many interpretations as to how it can be achieved. 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 term "sustainability" is defined in many ways according to the context in which it is applied. As all human activity entails sustainability the word may be used to refer to any aspect of human behaviour. The fundamental integrated dimensions of sustainability are often taken to be: ecological, social and economic, known as the "three pillars" These are depicted as three overlapping circles, to show that these are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing.

While this model was intended to increase the standing of ecological concerns, it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world. As Herman Daly famously asked "what use is a sawmill without a forest?" For this reason a fourth and outer "environment" circle is sometimes added that encloses the other three.

Definitions of sustainability may include statements of both fact and value, and may also be a call to certain kinds of action. Consequently, for some people sustainability is a desirable state of affairs (a "destination"), for others it is a process and way of living (a "journey"). Because of these diverse factors sustainability is sometimes perceived as a general concept like liberty or justice, which is accepted as being of critical importance to humanity and life in general. It can also be viewed as a "dialogue of values" that defies consensual definition. As a call to action, sustainability" is open to various political perspectives on ways to achieve particular sustainability goals.

The Earth Charter sets out to establish values and direction in this way: ''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''.

A simpler definition is given by the IUCN, UNEP and WWF: "Sustainabilty is: improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems."

Sustainability can also be presented as a call to action, as: "... a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in the very long term."

Comments
Here's the latest clean version (above) with the two paragraphs restored. We have agreed to tweak the diagram later (switching "Environment" to "Biosphere," removing "Earth" and "Life" and tweaking size and colours). The only thing I can think of remaining before we upload it is to modify the opening line and tie it into the lead. Sunray (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, some of the references need fleshing out as well, but we can work on that when it is in the article. Other sections will need the same treatment. Sunray (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well thanks Sunray for all your help here - it looks good to me, we've covered a fair bit of ground now. I am learning how to look at historical versions etc. so will eventually be able to help with uploading etc.; that job has fallen to you. I think we have the "link" sentence now and I'd be happy to see this uploaded. Granitethighs (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also added a reference to Brundtland in the body text of the lead (as opposed to only in the footnote), so this will pick up from there. I will upload it now. Sunray (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the opening line does need to be tied into the intro. Other than that, it's looking fine. Nick carson (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)