Talk:Sustainability/Transformation/Archive 1

Discussion
The following section (slightly different) was formerly in the article but deleted as being too "negative". I like it because it is brief, can be easily added to, and is an attempt to draw together a list of things we and "sustainability" needs to overcome. I think any attempt to correct current behaviour can be regarded as "negative" - this is at the end of the whole article and is fine by me. It has to make an honest assessment and if that is confronting then so be it. Wording can certainly be tweaked to read more easily. Granitethighs (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. Made a couple of very minor additions. If we can keep it concise and direct readers to further info it'll be very effective. Nick carson (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to put as second point "continued unregulated economic growth" what do people think on that one - perhaps it is not specific enough, too iffy. I suppose I mean biophysical resource use regulation ...?


 * Both would do! Nick carson (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is "too negative" in fact, it might be an idea to take it to another level by bringing in the social ecology and deep ecology perspectives. I'm thinking of comments on the main talk page by Quester (now in Archive 15). If we don't bring in these perspectives, I think we will open ourselves to criticism from that sector (perhaps even some ecoterrorism :-) This might be the best place to address this point of view. In sum, I think a critical perspective would be highly appropriate here. Sunray (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although I think the tone of the article must be one of empowerment, somewhere the true gravity of the situation must be confronted and this is probably the place; I think most editing after we have finished will be people wanting to point out the urgency of the situation and the desire to get things moving much quicker - and expressing the view that the article is tame "business as usual" stuff. Perhaps 3 or 4 sentences of well-chosen words expressing clearly the "dark" view of Quester, Bookchin and others that unless there is immediate, major societal change then humanity is firmly on a doomed trajectory. Granitethighs (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds about right. I will pursue it. Sunray (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the tone of the article, and this section in particular, should be empowerment. We should at the very least include sentences/sumamries/paragraphs on the worst case scenario estimates. Nick carson (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe a sentence or two on Deep Ecology and the notion of intrinsic value would fit well after the Bookchin but completely open on this? Perhaps the Bookchin should open the "Barriers" section as a lead into the list? And the small section on social and behavioural change would go well somewhere here.? Granitethighs (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. Sunray (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO this now says well what needs to be said ... great words thank you - and it would go well as the closing section to the article . I am happy for it to go up. Make whatever edits you feel are necessary. The cite error should go when this is incorporated with the live article. Granitethighs (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it makes sense for this to be the last section. However, we need to do something more with the list, IMO. To become featured, it is doubtful that we will be able to get away with anything that isn't cited. The list, as it is now, smacks of a "how to" manual. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Difficult - on the one hand a list like this is rather subjective and all sorts could still be added, but on the other it draws attention to ke ydifficulties in a very succinct way. One possibility is to find citations for each of the items. Another would be to perhaps find an article that includes most of these factors in its content, put this in the side bar, and remove the list altogether. Or ... again ... fit the most pertinent points into the exiasting article where they are appropriate (could be done very briefly). In fact, as space is once again getting tricky I feel, perhaps this latter option is the way to go? Granitethighs (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the list. As I look it over, I think it should not be difficult to source it. We do need a good summary to end with. Sunray (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I'll start sourcing. Granitethighs (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a sentence about lack of education. Should be easy enough to source. Nick carson (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to put deep ecology and social ecology together (but a good idea)- I had not realised but Bookchin described Deep Ecology as "Eco-la-la" so there was clearly no love lost between the two camps. Granitethighs (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It does seem to work, despite the differing perspectives. I like the "challenges and opportunities" heading. How are you coming with the sourcing of the list? Sunray (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I really like the article as uploaded - I should go away more often, if this is the rate of progress in my absence. Great work to all involved and I hope you, too, get to explore the Malborough Sounds/Nelson Lakes or somewhere equally beautiful soon.


 * This section, however, is a really difficult one, and I miss Skip and will try to make some comments from a different perspective; not necessarily my personal view but that of many potential readers.


 * The question "how to make the necessary changes" is one which clearly we don't have the answer to (or we would be making them). I'm not sure the title "challenges and opportunities" captures this; to me it is a little bland (or maybe I've written it into too many corporate documents myself to truly appreciate it).  I think this section is about "making change happen".


 * There is an important ethical debate here about the extent to which sustainability is about changing the behaviour of "them" (corporates, governments, the military) and the behaviour of "us". At both extremes lies a clear falsehood, but the truth lies at a different point in the middle on different issues and in different places and times.


 * In my view this section, in its current form, jumps to one side of this spectrum by placing the emphasis firmly on behavioural change at the individual and cultural level. I would say this under-rates some of the challenges for corporates and governments, and indeed some of the things already achieved with minimal behaviour change by individuals - the cleanup in urban air quality in the 1980's and the phaseout of CFCs are examples.


 * It's hard to cover deep ecology and related ideas without introducing a "hippie" flavour which will put off some readers and reduce the credibility of the rest of the article. In my view, this is an important academic debate which deserves a mention but isn't well backed up by examples of actual change that's happened as a result of all this enlightened thinking.  Actually writing in the style of deep ecologists is something to be avoided.  Certainly I've had it beaten out of me at work - on the grounds that it doesn't help the process of getting change to happen.


 * I also wonder if people living in countries to the left of the Ecological Footprint graph, who already live within nature's limits, might be surprised to learn that they need to change their attitudes as well - or are they not included in this call to action? This sort of writing can backfire; good people might be surprised and insulted to be told that they live in a culture where nature, and the human spirit, are plundered as commodities - they may not; the world has more than one culture.


 * I'm not saying that engaging people at the level of values isn't important. But holding governments, corporations and the military accountable matters too.  There is a very good (though a bit monocultural & marketing focussed for my liking) WWF thinkpiece about this, here. Have you seen it?  I think it does a good job of discussing these issues in real, concrete terms and in a style that works.


 * I'm also unsure about ending this section with a list of negatives, and covers some of the Some of the challenges are already evident from the rest of the article, including under []. There is, of course, a very robust academic case for being negative.  But is it helpful or motivating in the context of this article?  Good things are happening, they're just not happening fast enough or on sufficient scale.  I kind of hoped that the last section of this article (this is the last section??) would list some of these.


 * One place I stayed on holiday is St Arnaud, a town on Lake Rotoiti that's so committed to restoring biodiversity  that we had a little ground-feeding endangered bird (a South Island Robin) hopping into our house, the pest and weed control effort extended right through the town and two days' walk into the surrounding bush, and I didn't see a dog or cat the whole time I was there.  Hope?


 * Sorry my comments come across as critical, and especially so if you were nearly finished with this section and all happy with it - hard to judge when I've been away so long. I love the work you've done and of course am offering to get back involved if it's helpful - though having enough time is always the issue with me.--Travelplanner (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * TP dont ever worry about making suggestions - all this is pertinent. I'm not quite sure where to go from here though. Do you think a kind of summary paragraph is more in order than a list? We can have a go at something along those lines if you like? We did feel we needed to be frank about the current situation but your point about excessive negativity is valid and perhaps the words need adjusting or a greater positive balancing section set up. Certainly, as you point out, it omitted the "change at all scales" side and that we must address. For me the term 'deep ecology' might sound strange but the sentiments expressed are straightforward enough and do not carry a "hippie flavour", perhaps a slight tweak of wording would help? I must say I have a different take on producing change ... although you say "clearly we don't have the answer to ... (or we would be making them)", I'm inclined to think that we do have the answers - but that what is lacking is the collective "will". On th heading, I'd be more than happy with another heading if we can agree on one. So far we have at least: "Barriers to sustainability", "Barriers and opportunities", "Challenges and opportunities", "Difficulties in the Application of Sustainability" and "Making change happen", "The sustainability transition (or transformation)". Anyway - what do others think?
 * On the Ecological Footprint graph ... in the 2007 Living Planet report there was a very similar graph drawn that had a heavy line across the per capita sustainable global hectares (2.2 gha or whatever) and then on the other axis a heavy line that defined an "acceptable" HDI which, on a scale of 1-100 was about 80 I think. What this did was to make a square in the corner of the graph containing countries where the per capita EF was both within "one planet consumption" and also up to an acceptable standard of living. This was the "Sustainability square" that countries must aspire to and was clearly marked - with only one country meeting the criteria at present, that country being Cuba. Would it be possible to put these lines strongly on the graph (and to also indicate the "sustainability square" as I think these features are very illuminating; they show clearly what is required of countries to become sustainable?
 * Yet again - there is time for you to comment on all the material you missed out on - please dont hesitate to say where you think there is room for improvement. (PS Im very envious of your holiday). Granitethighs (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * TP, I tried to adress your main question by including the "Application/Implementation" section in which we could go through and talk about how we can apply these concepts and implement them in the real world. I feel we've done a pretty good job with this, GT did most of the work.
 * This section is really about the Barriers themselves, what they are, and perhaps a bit about why they're there and how we can overcome them. (The actual implementation/application has it's own section)
 * Keep the advanced critique and suggestions coming. Nick carson (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Traveler. Yes we have made good progress. Hummm... that started to happen around the time you left. Coincidence? ;-) I would go further than my colleagues and enlist you to be bold in making changes to what we have done. We have been moving words across the page like a bunch of hacks and are far too close to it I fear. So we need your fresh eyes and strong blue (purple) pen!


 * I think that the note you have sounded, above, would be a great last paragraph (right after the deep ecology bumpf). You are talking about structural change and how we collectively move transnational corporations to do what has to be done. You also sound a very important note about the credibility gap between the "developed" and "developing" worlds. We definitely need to problematise some of our hippie noodlings. Sunray (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what Nick means about the Implementation section, so really my comments come down to an issue of "flavour" and a concern about what note to end on. I have tried to come up with some actual edits to the text below but today isn't an inspired day for me - I'll try to think of something over the weekend, assuming we have that long.


 * There really isn't a lot I'd want to change in the main article now, but it is that time in the editing process when a fresh pair of eyes can be helpful, and small changes are fine. Again, it'll have to wait till the weekend or I'll do more harm than good :-).  Meanwhile do check out the WWF document if you have time. --Travelplanner (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * TP the report above is the bees knees - thanks - we need to quote it. How about we keep "The sustainability transformation" as the heading. I've had another go at the text in the light of your suggestions. Does this counter the negative list or should we remove the list altogether? Granitethighs (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] That is a nice overview of the report, GT (who was first past the post, as always). As I look at it and how it connects with the deep ecol paragraph, I think that it adds a practical element that was missing. I think that the paragraphs fit together well and am wondering whether we should jettison the intervening list. What do you think?

I liked the quote by Churchill. Should we include it in a sidebar?
 * “It is no use saying,
 * ‘We are doing our best’.
 * You have got to succeed in
 * doing what is necessary.”
 * —Winston Churchill

The summary of the WWF report seems like a fine note to end on. Sunray (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have incorporated suggestions. I'm sure we can fit Winston's apt aphorism in there somewhere.Granitethighs (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clean copy below. Blue pencil edits and second thoughts are still welcome, then, when everyone is happy we can flash it up. Sunray (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, me going away again does the trick again. Great work.  A small suggestion, just to prove I read it.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Links
I've been trying to get a handle on the MoS guidelines for links. The general rules are: Link first use; link only once (exception tables and widely separated uses of a term). At issue for us is the use of "Main article" and "See also" links. Should we have both a "Main article" link and a textual link in the same section (as we have done in the "Social ecology and deep ecology" section, below)? Generally, I believe it is preferable to have links in the body text. "Main article" links are normally used for summary style. If I've got this right, it would follow that we should use "Main article" links for sub-articles or articles about aspects of sustainability and, otherwise, mainly use links in the body text. "See also" links are for links not contained in the text, or, in some sections, where it is advisable to direct the reader to a particular article for more info. Comments? Sunray (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sunray - as you have probably guessed I have no idea about links so this is all very useful. I like the idea of "Main" links directing to sub-articles and the See Also for "extra" material - keeps all the detail down and the article more tidy. We probably need to edit a bit more accordingly. I must also check the rules about "Further Reading" as our list seems IMO at present of limited benefit. Granitethighs (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the links along the lines suggested above. If everyone agrees with the current version, lets put it up. Sunray (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that the "Main article: Sociocultural evolution" link doesn't quite fit the guideline, as sociocultural evolution is not a sub-article or topic directly related to sustainability. Nevertheless, I think that the subject does bear on sustainabiliy and the link will perhaps give the reader something to consider. Also, there wasn't a link in the text. Sunray (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a link sentence between the previous "implementation" section and this more sociological conclusion. please remove if you think it is unnecessary. Yes lets put it up. Granitethighs (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. I think linking statements of that kind make for a more readable narrative. Sunray (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put it up. Granitethighs (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sustainability transformation
Although a sustainable future requires the implementation of all the strategies detailed above, at its core sustainability is about cultural, socio-political, psychological and behavioural change at all levels and contexts of society. The urgency of the present situation cannot be doubted. Even so, weight of information and scientific evidence is often insufficient to produce necessary social change, especially if that change entails moving people out of their comfortable behavioral zones.

Social ecology and deep ecology
According to Murray Bookchin, the idea that humans must dominate nature follows from the domination of one over many. Capitalism and market relationships, in Bookchin’s view, have the capacity to reduce the planet to a mere resource to be exploited. Nature is thus treated as a commodity: “The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital.”

Social ecology, established founded by Bookchin, is based on the conviction that nearly all of our present ecological problems originate in deep-seated social problems. Thus ecological problems cannot be understood without understanding society and its irrationalities. Bookchin believed that apart from natural catastrophes, it is economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender conflicts that have produced the most serious ecological dislocations we face today.

Deep ecology establishes principles for the well-being of all life on Earth and the richness and diversity of life forms. This is only compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population and the end of human interference with the nonhuman world. To achieve this, deep ecologists advocate policies for basic economic, technological, and ideological structures that will improve the quality of life rather than the standard of living (i.e., the difference between "great" and "big"). Those who subscribe to these principles are obligated to try to make the necessary change happen.

Post-environmentalism
The World Wide Fund for Nature report Weathercocks and Signposts points to the ineffectiveness of the “small painless step” marketing approach to behavioural change which encourages less consumptive consumerism by turning off appliances, using energy efficient light bulbs, offering financial rewards, appealing to self-interest, social norms, status etc. Small painless steps can bring about small changes, but big changes will also be needed to achieve sustainability. Rather, it appeals to This in turn requires a political strategy that tackles underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on by offering an unequivocal statement of alternative values – an approach referred to as “post-environmentalism”. "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." Pro-environmental behaviour is more easily achieved by encouraging ‘intrinsic’ values (personal growth, community, relationships) than ‘extrinsic values’ (material goods, social status, financial reward). The report ends by offering eight practical steps for change:


 * Establish greater clarity on environmental values
 * Emphasise intrinsic goals in environmental communication
 * Use a broader vocabulary of values in policy debates
 * Find common ground between these values and those of development agencies
 * Help business to think beyond “the business case for sustainable development”
 * Highlight the way marketing manipulates our behaviour
 * Support public figures who promote intrinsic values
 * Identify and promote ways of making public appreciation of nature more relevant