Talk:Sustainability/History/Archive 2

Introduction
Hoping not to give offence, but the "history" section doesn't work for me. Most of the section reads as a history of recent academic study of sustainability with a strong economic bias. The actual historical trends in sustainability/unsustainability aren't mentioned. Rachel Carson and the Club of Rome look like a leftover from a previous edit (they are at the centre of the story), prominent ecologists in the history of sustainability (Aldo Leopold) aren't there, and Agenda 21 doesn't get mentioned. The last sentence in the History section contracts the whole "development" argument to a couple of sentences so it becomes meangingless, also it has no references or links (Bina Agarwal?). There's nothing on urban sustainability (say Jaime Lerner, or Peter Newman). And it's too long, so jumping in and adding stuff is not the answer. I think a collective editing job is needed with an agenda as GT is proposing, I'm happy to participate but not confident to go making major changes to the page itself without discussion. --Travelplanner (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your views about the current state of the section. I think perhaps a starting point would be to organise the existing information as per the proposed outline here, with subsections determined as to best fit a timeline of sustainability history. Nick carson (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

'''Here is a current copy of the History section of the article. Please transfer real time edits to article for general review, or make proposals here. If an improvement to the article can be made please update the article and this information here accordingly''' skip sievert (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Has this procedure been agreed by consensus? My preference would be to work collectively here until consensus and then to put up the the final agreed version. But thanks for putting it up Skip. Granitethighs (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Outline for re-write
Thinking about the comments above and looking at ways the history of sustainability is approached, I came across this outline of some of the key events:

1972
 * "The Limits to Growth" Report
 * Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment UN

1979
 * Berne Convention on Habitat Protection (Council of Europe)
 * Geneva Convention on Air Pollution

1980
 * World Conservation Strategy (IUCN)
 * Global 2000 Report (USA)

1983
 * Helsinki Protocol on Air Quality (UN)
 * World Commission on Environment and Development (UN)

1987
 * Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer (UN)
 * Our Common Future (Brundtland Commission on behalf of the UN)

1990
 * Green Paper on the Urban Environment (EC)

1992
 * Rio Summit Agreements (UN)
 * Our Common Inheritance (UK)

1994
 * European Environment Agency Established (EU)

1997
 * Kyoto Conference on Global Warming

Some other milestones: Developments in ecology such as the concepts of biosphere, ecosystem, and ecological succession which were building blocks that enabled thinking about natural cycles and limits. The technological advances of World War II led to the development of pesticides and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, which made the so-called "Green Revolution" possible, for the first time pushing the human race beyond natural limits. In the 1960s, Rachel Carson and Paul Erlich sounded warnings about the perils of pesticides and overpopulation, respectively. The first pictures of the earth from space sent back by Apollo 8 (1968) and Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis in the early 1970s enabled humans to conceive of the Earth as a single organism. Ecological economics contributed to the evolution of theories of sustainability and aspects of its measurement. First thoughts. Sunray (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

environmentalism, environmental economics, ecological economics, ecology movement, list of environmental agreements, sustainable development, industrial revolution, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
 * We have a lot of material in this history section. There is a danger we can wander off down any number of environmental tracks and get caught up in detail. One task is to direct people to Wikipedia resources that can relieve this huge history section of its load of information. Here are some contenders please add more where it will help us redirect:


 * Another task is to focus the material we have accumulated by concentrating our thinking on sustainability itself. I like the idea of history as “its his-story, not my story”, its all a minefield. And the temptation is to make it a rambling polemic rather than an encyclopaedia account. But here is a thought for breaking up the information into historically significant periods The content need not be long. Sunray’s, Nick’s, TPs and Skip’s ideas would fit easily into a framework something like the following. Could I suggest people add and subtract from headings and content in the following - the intention being that this is a way to winnow out what we all think are key ideas? If these bones are established together then adding the flesh should be a lot easier.


 * Preindustrial societies and sustainable living. (living in harmony with nature using local resources, ideas for sustainable living)


 * Implications of the industrial revolution for human sustainability. (Malthus, Schumacher, Daly, JS Mill, other first (economic) writings on sustainability).


 * Advent of ecology and ecological concepts in the early twentieth century, (natural cycles, populations and resource limits, ecosystem, biosphere, interconnectedness of everything)


 * Post WW2 rapid escalation of population, industry and technology and its threat to human sustainability (industrial agriculture, chemicals, plastics, pollution)


 * The environmental movement of the 60s-70s and its influential ideas on sustainability. (Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, Limits to Growth, Gaia, simple living, ?antimaterialism and anti-consumption, pollution, population, more sophisticated economic analysis)


 * International sustainable development movement of the 80s (global program of integrating developed and undeveloped worlds; combined social, economic, environmental methodology; economisation of ideas – natural capital, natural assets; humanity becomes collectively unsustainable in the mid 1980s; human wellbeing as a measure of success; measuring sustainability; CBD and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)

Granitethighs (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I came across this problem too, there are alot of countries around the world who have within their various government sectors enacted policies or signed agreements and all sorts of things int he 2nd half of the 20th century and increasingly thus far in the 21st century. Hence, it wouldn't be wise of us to try and include all such information here nor would it be to determine which ones in particular were the most significant as it is the sum of all these actions that has brought us to where we are today, not a select 5 or 10 or 15 of them. There are alot of problems like this within this history section. I think we should put the content here into this talk page and begin to build on it. Nick carson (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated Information
I've reorganised and sythesised the various proposals of the history section and updated the version here. I've ordered the subsections so that the section follows a rough timeline which can be expanded and contracted as consensus sees fit in our goal to explain the evolution of human understanding of the concept of sustainability.

I recomend that a dedicated History of Sustainability article be created at some stage to provide extended summaries and act as a hub linking information pertaining to the histories of related disciplines; ecology, environmentalism, etc.

Something also of note and which I may recomend in the future... This is not a history of economics nor is it a history of ecology or environmentalism, rather, all these things have contributed to our understanding of sustainability over the years. Sustainable economics is not separate from regular Economics. Economics will need to inevitably be sustainable, just as with anything else (ecology, etc) and so sustainable economics is just the progression of regular economics, but it's still economics. Hope that makes sense. These current divisions (building/sustianable building, economics/sustainable economics) will decrease slowly until they merge with regular building and regular economics. Understand this and try to think ahead of our noses and inclusively.

One final thing to keep in mind as we all work to complete this section; Sustianability doesn't have a history in the strictest sense (which is a long and complicated explaination), it's a concept that has existed as long as there has been life interacting and relying on eachother, until we as human beings gave it a name and began understanding it. It is related directly to everything concerning the interactions of life on Earth. As such, this history section is a brief walkthrough of human understanding and developments in understanding this concept.

I'm not good with spelling and citations and wikifying and all the bits n' pieces so this is where those who are good at the type of stuff fire up and work together to complete it to our level of understanding as of today! Nick carson (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick I think the timeline idea is good and also directing people to extended information elsewhere. I also agree about the economics and environmental points you make - yes it does make sense. I understand what you mean about sustainability being around a long time but I think it is dangerous to make a concept pre-date humans - minor point. Looks good. I assume you have put the above up as a scratchpad for collective work. I have hopped into it - I hope you dont mind. Let me know if you want to know why I have done what I've done or if this method is unacceptable. It seems the best way to work towards consensus. The wikying etc. is minor stuff later. Thanks for getting things to this level. A couple of things though: as an encyclopaedic account we can't present information as though it were a talk - any statements making assertions must be back-upable with a reference. I'm bad at this so I sympathise. Also, biologists (I'm one) are taught to be careful of attributing purpose to things as though they had consciousness. That perhaps sounds over the top but nature is no more striving to find a balance than a raindrop is striving to reach the Earth. Nature might indeed find a balance but it is not its "purpose" to find a balance. It is only the words I am yaking on about the sentiments and points are fine.   Granitethighs (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Life interacted and relied and sustained long before modern humans evolved, so we should at least refer to such facts. Someone could perhaps go through a find wikipedia articles such as the History of Ecology article to direct people to. Go right ahead! Nick carson (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, I'm being pedantic again. What I mean is that concepts are human things - they cannot pre-date humans. Sorry to be a pain - just ignore me on these things I'll try to adjust language to keep everyone happy. Yes we need some early stuff. Granitethighs (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, nah I totally agree :] I've incorporated your proposals into the subsections, I reckon maybe start adding your citations. If you've got any queries as to how I incorporated them I reckon we should discuss them in the "discussion" sections I've created in each subsection. It's so much easier now that we've got a basic framework to work off. Nick carson (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested image
Here's an image which I strongly associate with the history of sustainability--Travelplanner (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC):




 * I agree, I think we're going to discuss what images to use and where to use them when we view the article overall towards the end. Nick carson (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, yes, I like it - and I know a good spot. But, as Nick says, lets hang on a tick. Granitethighs (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Does length matter?
I have put all my entries (joined up) below - not to persuade you to accept them but to indicate the length of my suggestions alone, and I have combined two of the suggested subsections. This is just a small part of the whole article. Granitethighs (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The capacity of any system to endure and grow depends, first and foremost, on the energy that is available to support its activity. Simple biological systems like bacterial colonies will multiply and grow until the energy (food) supply and/or critical nutrients become depleted, or until waste products inhibit growth. In early human history the energy and resource demands of small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers would have been very small although, even at this time, their use of fire and desire for specific foods may have influenced the existence and composition of living systems. Later, the success of settled agrarian communities would have depended largely on the skill with which they managed their land and trade: societies outgrowing their local food supply or depleting critical resources would have to move on or collapse. Among civilisations thought to have brought about their own demise by poor management of energy and resources include the Mayans, Mesopotamians and Easter Islanders.

The Western industrial revolution of the 17th to 19th centuries tapped into the vast energy potential of fossil fuels. Coal was used to power ever more efficient engines and later used to generate electricity. Modern medicine protected large populations from disease. The conditions were now present for a human population explosion and unprecedented industrial growth that has continued to this day. From 1650 to 1850 the global population doubled from about 0.5 to 1 billion people.

Through this period concern about the environmental and social impacts of industry were expressed by some Enlightenment political economists and more generally through the Romantic movement of the 1800s. Factors controlling populations and their expansion were discussed in a famous essay by Thomas Malthus (see Malthusian catastrophe), while John Stuart Mill hypothesized that the "stationary state" of an economy might be desirable, anticipating later insights of modern ecological economists. In the late 19th century, Eugenius Warming, heralded the scientific discipline of ecology as the scientific study of the distribution and abundance of life and the interactions between organisms and their natural environment; concepts that would later assist the interpretation of human interaction with and impact on the physical and natural environment.

By the early to mid twentieth century ecology had become an accepted mainstream scientific discipline bringing with it many ideas that are now fundamental to sustainability including: the interconnectedness of all things with (eco)systems all linked to form a single living planetary system, the biosphere; the importance of natural cycles (of water, nutrients and other chemicals, materials, waste); the passage of energy through trophic levels of living systems.

Following the deprivations of the great depression and World War II the West entered a period of escalating growth. A gathering environmental movement pointed out that there were environmental costs associated with the many material benefits that were now being enjoyed. Innovations in technology were transforming society, they included: new plastics; the energy of nuclear power and fossil fuels, especially oil, for ever more efficient transport systems; modern industrial agriculture was born through the Green Revolution; and a host of new electronic devices were introduced including colour television and computers. There were concerns about pollution (Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring looked coldly at the ecological effects of a booming synthetic chemicals industry), the renewal of a population growth spiral, and the clever marketing of consumption beyond reasonable need. In 1975 the book Limits to Growth analyzed the implications of all these developments for the future of humanity.

It was now clear that environmental problems had become a matter of global concern. While the developed world was considering the problems of unchecked development the developing countries, faced with continued poverty and deprivation, regarded development as essential - to provide the necessities of food, clean water and shelter. In 1980 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature had published its influential World Conservation Strategy[note 1] followed in 1982 by its World Charter for Nature[11] which drew attention to the decline of the world’s ecosystems. Faced with the differing priorities of the developed and developing world the United Nation’s World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) worked for two years to try and resolve the apparent conflict between the environment and development. The Commission concluded that development was acceptable but it must now be different: it must be sustainable development that was directed to meeting the needs of the poor in a way that no longer caused environmental problems but helped to solve them.

At a more grass roots level there has been a slow and steady adoption of the principles of sustainable living by increasing public awareness and adoption of recycling, dematerialization, decarbonisation, renewable energies, and the use of soft technology. Granitethighs (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point, I wouldn't worry too much about length (within reason). I can edit this down to whatever fraction of its current size we need. In the first paragraph you talk about civilizations that were not sustainable. We should also mention ones that were/are. One can see agrarian regions in China where the people have been farming continuously in the same place for hundreds of years. There are still a few hunter-gatherer and shifting cultivator societies that have not yet been wiped out and who live sustainably. Western civilization has tended to deprecate their practices and call such people "primitive" yet, we "invent" systems of sustainable agriculture, analog forestry and permaculture that mimic many of these ancient ways. I would like to present this perspective as well. Sunray (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point and good point - I'll add something to that effect. Granitethighs (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is likely that we have two separate entities emerging here. One is the history section for this article and another might become ahg "History of sustainability" article. Is it not time to pull things together? Perhaps because I've been less involved, I'm not clear on what is intended for the article at this point. Would someone be willing to pull together a consolidated version?


 * Also, there seems to be a great deal of what would be judged to a reviewer as original research. Would each of you be able to find references for what you have written? We will have to re-write or jettison unsourced text. Sunray (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can provide citations for the assorted assertions and statements in the green text, but it is a tedious and time-consuming business typing in all the references. Could we decide broadly what the text will be first then add the references later? Granitethighs (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have incorporated most of GT's proposals and changes into my own, so I think we're making good headway into the "History" section of the sustainability article, but I think we should in similarity with Sunray's comments create a "History of Sustainability" article in which we can incorporate GT's more detailed information (would you be willing to tackle such a project GT? I'm willing to help). But as for this "History" section, I think we just need to keep working at it, we're doing well thus far, keep it summarised, concise and clear, then we can be more detailed in the dedicated "History of Sustainability" article. Nick carson (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It reads like a blog and once again it is over done in U.N. material. This is a problem in the article and is getting worse. It is chatty and full of baggage. It is better to stick with bare facts and links to information and try to present it a little creatively.


 * What happened to Vandana Shiva?, not to mention the other interesting information? As far as a good directory to the subject dealing in facts of the time line..??. this rewrite does not look good. I suggest the information in the article presently is better. Also the suggested picture by T.P. floated is really not appropriate to the section of history. Maybe it could go into another section. Co2 is also better explained by a link like this along with the picture. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/ which is already in the article. A picture of Malthus would be appropriate. skip sievert (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't find this comment at all helpful. Would you be able to be more constructive in your criticism, Skip? Sunray (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Try reading it again Skip. The UN gets 1 small sentence ... probably underdone if anything. We all need to be able to give and receive criticism (suggestions) but it helps if you are contributing at the same time. Where is the succinct contribution on environmental economics that this article needs from you please? Thanks for the useful suggestion about Malthus - we can discuss that when pics come up in the to do list. Granitethighs (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Question for Nick re editing
Nick: You have done great work on pulling together a first draft of the "History" section. Here are a couple of observations: 1) It is very long. It now clocks in at 10,700 bytes (six pages). This is more than twice the length (by my rough calculations) that we should have if we don't want to drastically exceed the guidelines for article size. 2) I think it is ready for editing. However, I wanted to check with you before I rip into it. It will be a fairly drastic edit and you may be somewhat unhappy if I cut up your baby. What are your views? Sunray (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please advise if the text I have included below is the consolidated version you intended. If not, just substitute the version that you want to go forward. Sunray (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The text below is the consolidated version of my initial rewrite and GT's additions, alterations, etc (with the exception of the last subsection, into which we must incorporate GT's suggestions). In regards to your initial comments and questions... 1) It is indeed very long, I suggest we use our current content here as a basis for a dedicated "History of Sustainability" article, then we can summarise it's key points here, providing a like to the main article. Which brings me to... 2) I reckon it'd be best if we, GT, me or yourself did an overall edit of the section to summarise the content and reduce its size. Nick carson (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I will begin by focussing on what should go into this article. Sunray (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More Comments
My personal view is that the history section could be a lot better – especially big picture-wise. I would like to make a number of suggestions. This is essentially my feedback on the current edited section and to reduce editing agony I will try and make it my final offering for the history section (except to assist final word editing maybe). Take from my suggestions what you like.

Sunray's comments in blue Nick's comments in red


 * Focus – I think we need to concentrate on the broad themes of sustainability and movements in history as much as possible, and less on fine detail. Among the broad themes would be: energy (food and industry), population and growth, resource use and its limits.  Accordingly, specific suggestions:


 * Aristotle and Theophrastus to go to separate article – history is littered with big names that can be added to the story, we need to be very selective.
 * Agreed.
 * How should we talk about the first humans discussing these concepts?
 * I think we've got most of the themes. Do they link from section to section? As to the first humans, I think we go with anthropological evidence. What we have there now still needs citations.


 * I think the Australian aboriginals were classic nomadic hunter-gatherers but not without impact. Flannery has attributed the demise of Australia’s entire megafauna to aboriginal killing for food and the effects of fire-stick farming, though effectively providing a sustainable food supply, are believed to have had a big impact on the landscape in terms of its form and species composition. In other words I thing the Australian aboriginals are “covered” in the first sentence – the subsequent sentence is contentious and adds little. We could, however, mention the shifting agriculture (as practiced in New Guinea for example) that seems to have minimal impact long-term.
 * Yes, I too had the highland shifting cultivators of New Guinea and South America in mind. There are also good examples of sustainable agrarian communities in China. The ways of life of all of these peoples are currently under considerable stress and change.
 * I agree with all that.


 * The sentences leading up to the paragraph on the industrial revolution add little.
 * I've been wondering what the best place to start would be. I like Nick's first paragraph to set the stage and the collapse of civilizations is a good cautionary theme to introduce at the beginning. I agree that examples in between that and the industrial revolution are problematic.
 * I agree with Sunray, if we then used brief references to the development of agriculture and basic resource use up until the industrial revolution, we'll be right


 * There is unnecessary repetition of the word “resources” in the opening para.
 * Still needs copyediting.


 * I do not think the formation of the US Wilderness Society ranks mention or the Sand County almanac and even the trophic cascade and its quote. Though I hugely support the sentiments I think all of this could be expressed in briefer, more direct, yet still appealing general terms.
 * Check.
 * Even though I wrote it, I tend to agree with you GT. I kept coming across it in my research and included it because it was one of, if not the first, example of the widescale protection of the natural environment to sustain its existence


 * Though a great admirer of Aldo Leopold I am not sure that he fits into the core sustainability hall of fame (more the environment generally).
 * So perhaps we skip anyone in between the industrial revolution (which introduces the problematic for modern civilization) and the rise of ecology.
 * We can skip it as long as we at least make reference to the impact made by the industrial revolution


 * Rachel Carson was a huge influence on environmentalists and therefore needs a mention but in terms of sustainability I think she fades into insignificance beside the Club of Rome (35 million copies) and Paul Ehrlich who were really into the business of quantifying and solving. There are still critical papers on sustainability based on the work of the latter two being produced including a detailed defence of the Club of Rome’s forecasts.
 * We've addressed Carson. I think we need to strengthen commentary on overpopulation.


 * Again there is repetition in the Late 20th century section. Peak oil deserves a mention but it is IMO overweighted here and it gets mentions in other sections too.
 * Check.
 * I think peak oil should be mentioned as its a good and current example of the overuse of global resources, not just local or regional, could perhaps be more concise


 * We talk at considerable length about the late 20th century developments (wind farms, hybrid cars etc.) but ignore the huge societal change that occurred after WW2, why? I had a sentence “Following the deprivations of the great depression and World War II the West entered a period of escalating growth. A gathering environmental movement pointed out that there were environmental costs associated with the many material benefits that were now being enjoyed. Innovations in technology were transforming society, they included: new plastics; the energy of nuclear power and fossil fuels, especially oil, for ever more efficient transport systems; modern industrial agriculture was born through the Green Revolution; and a host of new electronic devices were introduced including colour television and computers”. Consumption was booming at this time, the car essentially produced modern suburbia, and its ills. Why was the mention of modern marketing ignored (creating artificial needs)? And why was all this omitted?
 * I certainly didn't think we weren't going to include that and had also mentioned it above.
 * I don't know how I overlooked that, I'm a huge proponent of car-free movement, total brain failure
 * Has this been addressed adequately?.
 * Not sure, but we should refer to it as; "the development of transit-oriented development".


 * Above all, why have we ignored the proliferation of synthetic chemicals, the incredible expansion of global trade and global productivity; the effects of industrial agriculture and the Green Revolution; and the global population and its implications. There are core ideas for the future without a mention – ideas that are becoming mainstream rather than just buzz-words e.g. the adoption of the principles of sustainable living by increasing public awareness of lifestyles i.e. applying recycling, dematerialization, decarbonisation, carbon neutral, renewable energies, green design, soft technology; reducing resource intensity etc.
 * I had always assumed that we would be covering this. I was just editing Nick's version at the moment. You had mentioned stitching the two versions together, which I agree with.
 * Done.


 * How can we not mention in a sentence or two the UNs program for Sustainable Development and the global situation that gave rise to its activities? This could also be linked to Agarwal and Shiva’s work which comes out of the blue currently. But it is difficult assessing one author against another - where to begin and end? What about Daly, Schumacher, Bookchin, Suzuki and a host of others?
 * The UN program is essential. As to who to include, it's a pretty tough call. The ones you've mentioned, plus Gore are essential, IMO.
 * I keeping with our summary goal, we could perhaps just explain that many people have written about particular things and go into further detail in the dedicated history of sustainability article?
 * Schumacher and Daly made the cut. I think we need to bring in Bookchin somewhere in the article


 * The New Industrial Revolution is also called the Sustainability Transformation (or Transition), the First Generation Sustainability Transformation and no doubt many other things, I’ve run out of time.
 * We need to be cautious here or we will get into OR..
 * I agree with both of you, we should mention "an emerging global social, political, technological, etc, trend" but only briefly as it's still happening (or beginning?) just one sentence would be enough. That's why I've stated before something like: "the progression of society/etc to include/satisfy the concept of sustainability..." just to touch on it and explain that there are progressions occuring or beginning to occur


 * We forget that environmental problems became truly and very obviously “global” with climate change (of course they were global before, but this marks a clear shift in emphasis). This is an important historical point that I mentioned but it was omitted, there are others.
 * Again, nothing has been omitted, as far as I'm concerned.


 * There is a lot more but not enough space and time; most of this was in my stuff but not incorporated (?sour grapes).

Granitethighs (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In sum, my idea was to edit both of your versions. I started with Nick's, but didn't mean to imply that we wouldn't include GT's material. Sunray (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm jumping the gun. I thought Nick had combined both versions. Either way we are making good headway. Granitethighs (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good :] Yeah GT, we're going to create a separate History of Sustainability article which means that we're summarising the information in the "History" section of the sustainability article. Sunray's gone through the first few sections. When we're ready we can retrieve our previous information and begin writing the history of sustainability article. Nick carson (talk) 05:05, 17

December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sunray, that's good, really tightening it all up now thanks. If we could just adjust for the above suggestions we will be almost there. Nick, after we've done this article we'll get straight on to the history. You said earlier that this article is the "hub" for a lot of environmental material. I reckon that's right - so once we've done here we'll need to strengthen its major connecting and supporting articles - history being an important one of these; we've got a good lot of research material already ;-) Granitethighs (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we need to deal with your points. I'm a bit slow on this at the moment. I've done some editing of the mid 20th century, but need to add more. I'm thinking that we should develop the theme of fossil fuels as the basis for transportation systems, the development of plastics and the green revolution. Then Hubbert Peak sets the stage for the early 21st century crunch. I should have more time in the next few days. Sunray (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your fusion and editing is working really well thanks.Granitethighs (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to mention Hubbert also in the context of being a member here http://www.namebase.org/sources/TL.html Club of Rome. That way you can also in a context add a link to their information site, which I do not have handy to post here.  http://www.namebase.org/xhoy/M-King-Hubbert.html skip sievert (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks, Skip. Sunray (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. His membership of Club of Rome might be useful in incorporating such information into the summarised sections. GT, totally agree with you, and we do indeed have alot of information on the history so far which should make the dedicated article easier. Keep working at it Sunray :] Nick carson (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Some confusion
Not quite sure where on this page the clean version is, and hence what I should comment on (or if I should hold comments to later?) My only comment so far is that the decade of education for sustainable development doesn't make the "history" list for me, if you rate the relevance of an initiative by whether someone working in a related field in a far-flung corner of the earth has noticed it.--Travel Planner (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the "Consolidated version," above. Sunray (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * TP the Consolidated Version is currently being edited by Sunray who is fusing all the text, suggestions and comments from Nick & myself. When this is done we can add references and put it at the top of the page ready for a ?last (?brief) round of comments.


 * Sunray, I wonder if it is worth commenting in the article that the history section combines two elements 1) an account of the evolution of thinking about and contributions to the study of sustainability 2) a brief account of actual historical events that have a bearing on global human sustainability.Granite Thighs (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I reckon that'd be a good idea, even just one sentence as you've just said, to set the context of the history section, it'll make the section a lot easier to understand as you read through it if you'd never read through it before. We could then expand on this in the main history of sustainability article. Nick carson (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Sunray (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming I have put my edits in the right place, I have:
 * Added India to China as an example of a sustainable agrarian society, which gives symmetry to the reference to Bina Agarwal and Vandana Shiva at the end - have reversed the sense of their contribution to recognise that their role is bringing the wisdom of Indian women into the academic sustainability debate, not spreading the word on sustainability from the West to India!
 * Put sanitation ahead of medicine as pivotal in securing better human survival rates
 * Put Rachel Carson into the story of the "Green Revolution" rather than "Environmental books of the 60's and 70's"
 * Generalised the comment on United Nations, which has done many things not just launched the decade of education for sustainable development (where are you Skip?)
 * Proposed what is really an alternative ending to the story, which I quite like, and which I suggest will be easier to find references for.
 * Things I'm still unhappy about (but not sure how to fix):
 * Hotelling's rent - a lot of words on this, and "so what"? I think the point is, even priced via Hotelling's principles, an exploited nonrenewable resource pretty much runs out, which is fine for the shareholders who made money out of it and can go and invest that money elsewhere, but creates a pretty big mess for the people who used to depend on that resource (ever been to Nauru?)
 * If you don't give Hotelling more than his due, then "early 20th century" looks pretty light, and could be merged with "mid 20th century"
 * Agree with GT that there are too many words on peak oil, just not sure how to address this
 * The "Hall of Fame" issue described above - so many names listed, so many great names still missing. My own view is, we are telling a story, if someone's name is part of the story, it goes in, if not I don't care who they are but including them is a distraction. --Travel Planner (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rapidly advancing technologies mean it is now technically possible to achieve a transition of economies/ pointless commentary with no bearing to reality of subject except by some vague allusion?... to what?, energy generation, water and waste management, and food production towards sustainable practices./ Not true in the present configuration of population and the resource base... original research.... Whether humanity has the political will or economic flexibility to do so in time remains an open question./ Wikipedia is not a blog for original conclusions. What is meant by political will? or economic flexibility?. Why must an ominous tone be struck? Saying that political will is involved may destroy neutral phrasing.


 * Incorporating science measurement and knowledge is more accurate as to recourse. Political will is represented by people such as Bush or Obama. Why support either. Both are clones for corporate fascism... and that is all they are. --- Different area- The Wilderness Society deserves a place in the story here. skip sievert (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Was that you Skip? (unsigned post)??. At issue is the statement "Whether humanity has the political will or economic flexibility to do so in time remains an open question" My references for the statement are:
 * Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Finding #4:
 * "The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios that the Millenium Assessment considered, but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices that are not currently under way."


 * Or the concluding paragraph of the Stern Review executive summary:
 * "There are ways to reduce the risks of climate change. With the right incentives, the private sector will respond and can deliver solutions. [...] Above all, reducing the risks of climate change requires collective action. It requires co-operation between countries, through international frameworks that support the achievement of shared goals. It requires a partnership between the public and private sector, working with civil society and with individuals. It is still possible to avoid the worst impacts of climate change; but it requires strong and urgent collective action. Delay would be costly and dangerous."


 * So it's certainly not an original conclusion. Perhaps the wording should be brought closer to that of the references (I went for brevity).  But what, exactly, is your view on why this is not an appropriate conclusion and what are your references?--Travelplanner (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I agree about the Wilderness Society - I was taught that Leopold was the founding thinker of environmental ethics, which deserves a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelplanner (talk • contribs) 20:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually this person has more to do with it Benton MacKaye but a link to Wilderness society ultimately goes to him and Leopold as founders and a few others. As far as over using the ::Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Finding #4: or injecting that when ever a non specific back up is needed...?.. not a good idea. The article is already overweighted with material like that... and not every one appreciates related U.N. links... as they are seen as biased toward a certain political approach or approaches. Also how is it that people are writing things here and then looking for sources? This tells me that people are going only to information they think they know to back up their own thoughts. Is that a good way to write an article? Making something and then roaming around for sources? skip sievert (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)