Talk:Sustainability

Subpages

• FA Project; Latest Peer review
• Lead
• Definition
• History
• Description
• Measuring sustainability
• Environmental dimension
  • Application/Implementation Environmental management
  • Application/Implementation/consumption Management of consumption
• Social material
• Economic opportunity
• Talk:Sustainability/Transformation (was Talk:Sustainability/Barriers)
• "leftover" material from copyedit, unlinked references etc

17th to 19th centuries - fossil fuels?

"But it was the Western industrial revolution of the 17th to 19th centuries that tapped into the vast growth potential of the energy in fossil fuels to power sophisticated machinery technology.[28]"

The citation goes to a source about cholera, not fossil fuels. Also, 17th century? Seems at least one century too early for the Industrial Revolution. Scoopczar (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Will fix these.Granitethighs 09:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Business Connotations?

Pyramid Scheme links to this page and references the term in context of business/money. Was this intentional, and this page isn't complete, or is the link wrong in assuming that this page is also about that meaning of "sustainability?" Magicallydajesus (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

GA candidate?

I know that a tremendous amount of work has gone into this article, and that some editors had high hopes for it. Surely it would be worth nominating this article at WP:GAN? It would be great to see this article become a GA. Johnfos (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a great opportunity to sharpen up the references and apply some fine-tuning to the editing. I'll certainly help.Granitethighs 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is still a mess. It's overlong, polemical, and indiscriminate in its approach to the topic of sustainability. I think we need to seriously address those issues before this article is submitted for GA consideration. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with the tag at the top of the article which says: "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably" -- some content needs to be spun off into sub-articles per WP:Summary style, with a summary being left here. The "Environmental dimension" section is also tagged and so needs some work. Some inline tags need attending to in the "Consumption — population, technology, resources" section. Some copyediting is needed and I notice that this piece of random text, "[[File:control over the environment." appears in the History section. Once these changes are made I think the article would be ready for GAN... Johnfos (talk21 September 2010 (UTC)

Johnfos thanks for your suggestion. I see there are 240 watchers to this page ... which indicates to me both its popularity and its "controversiality". Not sure where we go from here but thanks for your positive and encouraging suggestion.Granitethighs 23:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GT. I would think that cutting down the Sustainability measurement section should be a first step, as there is already an article on this which is linked to. Then decide what can be split from the article, leaving just a summary here. GAs do not need to be long, in fact reviewers are pleased to see WP:Summary style being used. Hope this helps. Johnfos (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of editing today and article is shorter now due to trimming and use of summary style, and it is easier to navigate and read due to the amalgamation of many single paragraph sections. Please see edit summaries for full details. I plan to submit the article at GAN tomorrow. Johnfos (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's much cleaner now JF. Thanks for doing all that. My only comment would be to do with the "transition" section that was removed. You were right that this was at least in part a "wrapping up": if Wikipedia does not do that ... then so be it. However, any positive suggestions for ways of achieving sustainability are extremely valuable in an article that has the potential to become very "gloomy". Is there no place for the sentence (or variation of) "There is a wealth of advice available to individuals wishing to reduce their personal impact on the environment through small, cheap and easily achievable steps. But the transition required to reduce global human consumption to within sustainable limits involves much larger changes, at all levels and contexts of society. The United Nations has recognised the central role of education, and have declared a decade of education for sustainable development, 2005–2014, which aims to "challenge us all to adopt new behaviours and practices to secure our future". The Worldwide Fund for Nature proposes a strategy for sustainability that goes beyond education to tackle underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on and strengthen people's connections with the natural world." Much as I like the inclusion of Bookchin I think having him almost at the end is not appropriate (and Deep Ecology is also a bit much for the casual reader - it needs to be in, but not in the last sentence) - the idea that we need some sort of "transformation" to achieve sustainability is very important and should be clearly expressed in some positive way - preferably near the end. I think the above sentence (with added references) catches the right tone.Granitethighs 11:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GT. I've swapped the order of the last two sections so the article ends on a more positive note, and have re-added the text you have suggested... Johnfos (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sustainability/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, I've signed up for this review. I think it's fantastic this is at GAN, it's a subject I'm very interested in. I will read through carefully and make minor copyedits as I go along, and bring other stuff up for discussion here. The review will probably take me up to a week, as I have to balance my wikitime among several projects :) Sasata (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sasata. Glad that you are able to do the review. Feel free to discuss things as you go along, as we have a number of editors who will be watching this page, and who should be able to help :) Johnfos (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the running with this Sasata - haven't we met somewhere before? J, I like what you have done and am not requesting change. I like the way you have saved the culled information. The following thoughts are to possibly tease out issues and better presentation of ideas only.

• The headings ‘environment’, ‘society’ and ‘economics’ reflect the “three pillars” of sustainability. Would it help either the understanding of the reader or editor presentation of these topics if they all had identical subheadings? So, since we have the subheadings “environmental management” and “management of human consumption” under Environmental dimension, why not “economic management” with “management of human consumption” under Economic dimension (or, vice-versa, have different subheadings under Environmental dimension?

• Similarly we have a Main sub-article “Sustainability and environmental management”, for consistency should we also have “Sustainability and economic/social management” sub-articles?

• We can worry about it later but the “Sustainability and environmental management” sub-article is currently rather illogically presented – and clearly a “dumping ground” for extraneous info – the headings don’t relate and the content is not intuitive. Most of it is actually in the current sustainability article so what is its purpose?

• We have removed the “Extinctions” section – but wouldn’t some argue that sustainability and irreversible loss of biodiversity are intimately connected. Do they have a point and should extinction at least get a mention?

• Various sources quote biological invasions as the third greatest impact on biodiversity after climate change and land clearing. Is this relevant to sustainability and if so perhaps some mention could be made of it in the article as the "Biological invasions" section has now been removed?

Granitethighs 11:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sustainability is a huge topic and not everything about it can be included in a single WP article. So some material appears in sub-articles, and recently the sub-article Sustainability and environmental management was created. This was in response to a tag at the top of this article suggesting that the article was "too long" and that WP:Summary style should be used. As this main article expands other sub-articles may be spun off, but for now it is within WP length requirements, and so there is no need for more sub-articles at this stage.

When an article is spun off, and a summary left here, there is inevitably some loss of detailed information in the main article. And the loss of information relating to Extinctions and Biological invasions has been questioned. So I have added links to Extinction and Introduced species in the See also section. This gives these topics a mention in the main article but still helps to keep the "Environmental dimension" section manageable.

As for the "Economic dimension" and "Social dimension" sections they are not too long and are fine as they are. I don't see any advantage in making the sub-headings there follow those used in the "Environmental dimension" section. Johnfos (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. The only remaining query is why most of the sub-article Sustainability and environmental management is the same as the section in the main article? Granitethighs 11:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The summary in the main Sustainability article (reproduced at User:Johnfos/Drafts) is 8,827 bytes long with a total of 16 references, whereas the Sustainability and environmental management sub-article is 20,809 bytes long with 36 references. So the sub-article is a lot (12k) longer than the summary section in the main article, which is the way it should be. And as the new sub-article expands that difference would get greater. Johnfos (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the article and made a number of minor copyedits, feel free to revert anything you don't agree with. I thought the article was very well done—engaging prose, good use of summary style, amply cited. Here's a few thoughts I had: Sasata (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• why include a year in the captions to the images in the definition section? It's not vital information to understand the concepts presented, and readers can check the citation if they want to know when it was published.

Fixed. Johnfos (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• in a few cases a citation was in the middle of a sentence when I thought it would do equally well at the end. For example,

• "But sustainability is also a call to action, a task in progress or “journey”[20] and therefore a political process, so some definitions set out common goals and values." here the placement of the cite indicates (to me) that emphasis is placed on showing the source of the quote word "journey". So is the remainder of the sentence OR, or is the idea also from the same source? If it is, then the cite should be placed at the end.

Fixed Granitethighs 21:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• "...because the number of children under age 15 in developing countries will decrease." How do we know for sure? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "...is predicted to decrease." ?

Fixed. Johnfos (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Long-term estimates of global population suggest a peak at around 2070 of nine to ten billion people, and then a slow decrease to 8.4 billion by 2100." This is interesting, is there any explanation of why this (predicted) decrease will happen?

Readers can look up the cited article - the explanation would probably take up quite a lot of space and there are other large articles on WP about population - and the article does give links to these.Granitethighs 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• In the "Environmental dimension" section, it should be possible to discuss the two major ways of reducing human impact without having to indent paragraphs and dividing into a and b

Fixed. Johnfos (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• "At the local human scale, major sustainability benefits accrue from the pursuit of green cities and sustainable parks and gardens." benefits accrue from just pursuing them? I would have thought benefits would accrue from implementing them.

Fixed. Johnfos (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The ideas of embodied resource use (the total resources needed to produce a product or service), resource intensity (the resources needed for each dollar spent on a good or service), and resource productivity (the amount of good or service produced for a given input of resource) are important tools for understanding the impacts of consumption with simple key resource categories indicating human needs being food, energy, materials and water." This long sentence seems a bit awkward to me.

Fixed Johnfos (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... this percentage is likely to increase if climate change worsens ..." How are we defining "worsens"?

Fixed. Johnfos (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Humans currently use 40–50% of the globally available freshwater" when is currently? Better to use "According to a 1998 estimate" or something similar that gives a date.

Fixed Granitethighs 21:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The World Health Organization has published a Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health which was endorsed" missing something like "... has published (a set of recommendations titled/a report) ..."

Fixed. Johnfos (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• "water-self-sufficient" should reword to avoid the consecutive hyphens

Fixed. Johnfos (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The average human uses 45–85 tonnes of materials each year." Could this be clarified? What exactly does "use" imply here?

Removed this confusing statement. Johnfos (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• "In the second half of the 20th century world population doubled, food production tripled, energy use quadrupled, and overall economic activity quintupled." Compared to what? The first half of the century?

Have removed this confusing sentence which added little. Johnfos (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• "etc." should be used sparingly, and removed if possible. For example, in the sentence:

• "One approach to this dilemma has been the attempt to "internalise" these "externalities" by using market strategies like ecotaxes and incentives, tradeable permits for carbon, water and nitrogen use etc., and the encouragement of payment for ecosystem services."

Here the use of the word "like" before giving the list implies that it's only a reprentative sampling, and the etc. isn't really required. There's some other instances in the article that might be tweaked out. Also, is water and nitrogen use a "market strategy"?

Removed "water and nitrogen use etc." so sentence makes more sense. Johnfos (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Community currencies such as LETS... " should spell out the acronym (at least on first usage)

Fixed. Johnfos (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• there are a few citations to books that don't have the page numbers
• citation formatting not completely consistent: most use templates, but some don't; listing of authors varies sometimes (e.g. compare Hawken, P, Lovins, A.B. & L.H. versus Devall, W. and G. Sessions); et al. should be in italics. It's not a huge deal for GA, but since we're here, we might as well clean them up a bit, no?

Have changed et al. to et al. Johnfos (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for reviewing and for your help, Sasata. I hope enough improvements have been made to bring the article up to GA standard, but agree that more work on the citations would be needed if the article was to proceed to FA. Johnfos (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We're pretty close... there's a few dabs that need to be fixed up, listed here. Sasata (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the dabs - except for the "sustainability governance" thingy - not sure how to do this. At some time (too busy now) I will go systematically through all the references for consistency.Granitethighs 22:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• One more thing, the lead needs a bit of work, it's not really functioning as a summary of the article now as the MOS suggests. For an article this size, I'd expect it to be a full three or four paragraphs. Also, there shouldn't be quotes in the lead, especially those not in the article body. Should Wikipedia be giving such a prominent spotlight to a Californian environmentalist, in an important article that's viewed several thousand times daily? (no offence to Paul Hawken, btw, I just think the quote should be moved, not removed) Sasata (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead now provides a better summary of the article. Johnfos (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I think my job here is done. Thanks Johnfos and Granitethighs for your improvements to this article. Sasata (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article sustainability passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose is well-written, uses summary style; article complies with MOS. Reference formatting consistency sufficient for GA.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Several references were checked, nothing was amiss.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are PD or are appropriately licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

Sustainability template discussion

There is a discussion here concerning the suitability of Template:Sustainability, which watchers of this page may be interested in contributing to. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have noted it here. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is further discussion here about the scope and format of this currently rather messy template, which needs input from editors with some acquaintance with sustainability issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tenbrooks10, 26 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Just trying to help. Footnote 8 has a bad link for 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome. The correct one is:

http://data.unaids.org/Topics/UniversalAccess/worldsummitoutcome_resolution_24oct2005_en.pdf

Tenbrooks10 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 01:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

sustainable

I have looked up sustainability, and the answer there does not give me the information I am looking for. If anyone could give me any information about what SUSTAINABLE means then I would be very grateful. Thankyou for any info. --88.108.91.74 (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tried Wiktionary? --Thrissel (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This article only describes sustainability exclusively from an ecological context. It should be discussed from a life-cycle context for systems engineering - whether it be an ecological system or a technological should make no difference. Contrast with "sustainable energy" for example.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is really quite broad in its coverage, and discusses the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. Johnfos (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There are engineering implications of sustainability that are severely lacking, and the term is derived from the cost of life-cycle (particularly post-development) activities with engineering. This is not outside of sustainable energy, but remains relevant to biological sciences as well.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC) This article is severely lacking in engineering sustainability. Whether ecological or technological, every system has a life-cycle, and it comes at a cost, or a cost-benefit. One can measure benefit in (still undefined) social or environment impact, although impact to business or economics is a lot easier to measure. Case examples are truly lacking in this article no matter what the POV.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Something like Cradle to Cradle Design ? 99.181.140.154 (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Add Planetary management and Planetary boundaries links to article.

Add Planetary management and Planetary boundaries wikilinks to article. 99.19.46.184 (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Have added links to Sustainability and environmental management. Johnfos (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Add cross-reference wikilinks in related articles? Such as in Talk:Climate change mitigation scenarios, Talk:Planetary management, and Talk:Environmental management? See Talk:Sustainability and environmental management? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering your history in adding some clearly incorrect Wikilinks, and many tangentally related links, I would like to see specific reasons for each of those links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Saw this on Talk:Planetary_management#Include_Environmental_management_as_this_article_is_about_global_environmental_management_of_Earth

... Who's history?

This "history": User:Arthur_Rubin#Global_warming_.2F_climate_change ? 99.181.128.247 (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that points to some of your history of adding clearly incorrect Wikilinks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Special:Contributions/108.73.113.9 an addition? If so, should you state "108 Anon." also? 99.181.131.29 (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're all clearly the same person, and most of edits were done by 99. anons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Special:Contributions/99.181.134.91 also? And see User talk:99.181.135.251 (Special:Contributions/99.181.135.251) ... What "Lie"? Who is deceiving who? Obscurantism, Fear, uncertainty and doubt, Denialism ... Are you / have you been deceived? Are you deceiving or attempting to deceive others, or yourself? What is the root(s) and what are the branches?

Are you numb, Figure.09, or is it just more Lying from You ... de:Fragetechnik / zh:六何法 / es:Cinco W / what, What?

Whatever you are, please temper your weaponizing wp attitude ... 99.112.213.150 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, all the same, or pretending to be the same. Excessive, and many clearly inappropriate (including at least 2 absurd in your last post), wikilinks (including retrofitting additional wikilinks on those of other anons), wikilinking the entire edit summary, often saying "per talk" when the talk page has not one word in favor of the edit. I don't think I could fake that mode if I tried. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, help me understand what you are attempting to communicate. 99.56.121.133 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

1. All the IPs make the same edits with the same bizarre edit summaries; you're either all the same or some of you are using the style of the others.
2. Most of the excess Wikilinks in the "See also" section are tangential, at best. Assuming you're the same editor who was trying to add 350.org to each instance of the number "350" in Wikipedia, your mission is to improve connectivity to your favorite pages.
3. Pretending that a word such as "emotions" must be linked, even though the meaning is obvious, or replaced by "affect", even though the meaning is not in the wikipedia article. I can't imagine the purpose
4. Creating fake wikilinks (such as numb and Lying from You, above). Again, I can't imagine the purpose.
5. Creating easter eggs, such as [[scientific consensus on global warming|individual opinions on global warming]]. I think the purpose is again to direct traffic to your preferred articles, but here, it's at the expense of accuracy.
6. Spamming {{for|the current climate change|global warming}} on all articles containing the word "global warming" or "climate change" in the title. I'm not sure what the purpose is, here, either.

All of this is against Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and should be stamped out. As "you" are an IP, the alternatives would be to semiprotect all climate change articles, or block your IP ranges. I don't recommend the first, and I suspect that there are some sensible editors using the IPs in your range, so the second would have the unfortunate effect of blocking rational editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Keeping in mind what Wikipedia is and is not ... for point 3 are you referring to Keynesian economics's Animal spirits (Keynes) and Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism? This Talk page is for Sustainability, not your trunk, using the previous public comment's metaphor. 99.35.12.47 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm explaining why your edits are almost always bad, and so should be considered questionable here. I'd put the edits in question here in category 2, but the fact that you make bad edits in the other categories can be taken into account. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad, is that really the word for which you look? Could you be more cordial, pithy, civil, and helpful please? 99.56.121.12 (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is "harmful to Wikipedia". "Bad" seems adequate for that.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you first started linking 350.org to every instance of the number "350" in Wikipedia. But, after you kept doing it, even after being informed it was inappropriate, you've lost any credibility you may have. I'm still attempting to assume good faith, but your goals in editing are incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. I'm tempted to invoke WP:COMPETENCE; even assuming good faith, allowing you to edit requires more cleanup than your few good edits are worth. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How are wikilinks to related topics within articles "harmful"? 99.112.212.20 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And that's about enough of that. Semi-protected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif

I suggest removal of the image. It's misleading, without the context that it represents an opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The two diagrammatic representations of the interrelationship between economics, society and ecology are both used quite widely in the literature and express different views of their interrelations. They are both described in the "definition" section with citations and "context" and they assist the reader to think about the issues involved. Why would you want to remove either them?Granitethighs 05:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Granitethighs. Just take a look at the image's global file usage and you can see that it's used in many Wikipedias. Surely, we can't all be making the same mistake, can we? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that the image(s) were all added by the same people, but there are certainly cases (in the case of recently deceased individuals of questionable notability) where the same information has been added in multiple Wikipedias by the same people. Furthermore, not all Wikipedias have the same standards.

I'm just commenting on this Wikipedia, and the fact that we (per WP:NOR) need a source which connects the concept with sustainability, as that doesn't appear in the diagram. (Titles do not provide a connection; even in peer-reviewed journals, the title is the author's choice, and does not necessarily reflect an editorial review process.) The "labeled" Venn diagram below, is at least plausibly related, although I corrected a minor error in sourcing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Added {{verification failed}}; that concept is not in the source given. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arthur – I may have missed your point. Are you suggesting the caption is misleading? What about “A representation of the relationship between the three pillars of sustainability suggesting that both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits” Where can I see the above Venn diagram which has not been allowed here? Granitethighs 22:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the caption is misleading (but that's my opinion), and no source for the relationship between the caption or article and the diagram or concept behind the diagram has been provided. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I too am opposed to the removal of this image. I find it interesting, Arthur, that you seem to have a problem with it. Please clarify what your problem really is. To me it is utterly self evident and certainly requires no "source". Anyway, the image is juxtaposed with File:Sustainable development.svg, which maps out every possible alternate view. To me, that is the image that needs sources. For example, there is a region for people who hold a view that there can be an economy which is based on neither a society nor an environment. Now how you could possibly have an economy that has no people as consumers and no environment from which you can produce consumer goods. That diagram seems deeply problematic to me, perhaps a matter for psychiatric attention. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So, what do the theories expressed in the diagrams have to do with "sustainability"? There's evidence in the second (the real Venn diagram), but not in the first with concentric ovals (stylized from circles to allow the tags to be added). If the sentence sourced to Porritt (2006, p. 46) is properly sourced, so would the diagram. I'm saying there's nothing resembling it in Ott (2003), and the way you and I interpret the diagram has nothing to do with any of the concepts defined as "sustainability" in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Arthur I am still not exactly sure what you are asking - I think we are at cross-purposes. You say “What do the theories expressed in the diagrams have to do with "sustainability". How doesn’t the following caption (which I suggested above) indicate the relevance of the subject matter to sustainability? “A representation of the relationship between the three pillars of sustainability suggesting that both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits” And in the text in the article, what is wrong with the Porritt reference and citation - to me it is absolutely direct, transparent and at the core of what sustainability is all about? Am I missing something? The two diagrams also occur in a book called Green Economics (among others), for example, which I can cite if you feel there are no printed sources adequately cited. There seems to be a consensus against removal of the diagram but I have assumed good faith and would like you to be satisfied that your case has at least been addressed.Granitethighs 00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If of interest, further Talk on Talk:Individual and political action on climate change, and some asides on Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down. 108.73.113.97 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the IP making irrelevant comments, again, the statement connecting the diagram with the topic (sustainability) is what needs a reliable source. If the diagrams and the connection to "sustainability" are in Green Economics, that seems adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine - I'll fix it up.Granitethighs 08:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I don't have a copy of the book, I'm willing to believe that that book makes the connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is more specific Talk:Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change#Add_File:Nested_sustainability-v2.gif ... Wikipedia:Adminitis? 99.190.87.1 (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The image is clearly inappropriate in that article, except in the context I sarcastically described earlier on that talk age. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

clearly is an overly strong word, Arthur, please see Talk:Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change#Add_File_:_Nested_sustainability-v2.gif_w.2Fincluded_reference_Ott.2C_K._.282003.29_..._from_Sustainability.. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘. "Clearly" is a bit strong. What should be said is that, clearly, no sources have been provided to support the connection between that image, a caption, and that article. If a reliable source were provided for the connection, it's possible the other image might be usable in that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate is an extremism (Paul Collier) also, per wp's own Scientific opinion on climate change. Also see Sustainable Development: Linking economy, society, environment; per the link OECD Insights: Sustainable Development provides an essential introduction to the complex relationships between the economy, society and the environment. As global inequality and climate change become mainstream concerns, it asks the questions our generation needs to ask in terms everyone can understand. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit of a stretch, and I'm not sure that OECD qualifies as an "expert" for avoiding WP:SPS restrictions. It also supports neither the caption or the diagram, although it may loosely loosely support the connection to "climate change", but not as to either "... action ..." or "public opinion ...". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please work on decreasing your Wikipedia:WEASEL weasel wording (a bit of, I'm not sure, although it may loosely loosely, and many of your other comments (Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin)). That kind of wording decreases effective consensus-building on content editing of wp articles. 99.190.87.216 (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability and Poverty

The sustainability and poverty section is a contribution from a student in Spring 2011 Conservation Biology (Bill Platt) at Louisiana State University. Any feedback on the contribution by the community will be appreciated. BJC 22:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A new editor has asked for feedback on the following which has been inserted in the main article. Could other editors assist in providing feedback please?

Further information: Poverty

A major hurdle to achieve sustainability is the alleviation of poverty. It has been widely acknowledged that poverty is one source of environmental degradation. Such acknowledgment has been made by the Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future and the Millennium Development Goals. According to the Brundtland report, “poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.” Individuals living in poverty then to rely heavily on the ecosystem as a source for basic needs (such as nutrition and medicine) and general well-being. As population growth continues to increase, increasing pressure is being placed on the ecosystem to provide these basic essentials. According to the UN Population Fund, high fertility and poverty have been strongly correlated, and the world’s poorest countries also have the highest fertility and population growth rates.

Thank you, I think this is an excellent addition to the article – well done. And good to have you joining the WP community.

The overall content is IMO fine (which is the main thing) and needs little attention – just minor editing. In the spirit of assisting new editors though I will run through some suggestions especially concerning WP protocols and editing in general as this might help in future.

• Although it is good to be “bold” in editing, where an article is of a fairly high standard like this one which is a GA or when a topic that has the potential to be controversial (see this article has been partially "locked" to editors), it makes editing easier and less stressful if new material is presented first on the “talk” page. This allows for free discussion of any issues before it is placed live in the article itself. If editors disagree with content that goes straight into the main article it can lead to “edit wars” with people reverting changes again and again – best if this can be sorted out on the talk page.

• Brevity. Perhaps the greatest skill of editing is to convey ideas as briefly and clearly as possible, cutting out all unnecessary and extraneous material. Of course, opinions will differ on exactly how this is to be done in any given case but I think we could reduce what you have said just a little. For example, the heading “Poverty” would probably be sufficient for the new material as we can assume the "sustainability" bit. I have reduced a little of the rest of the material too as you will see.

• I have removed “It has been widely acknowledged that poverty is one source of environmental degradation” simply because it is often pointed out that such statements really need back-up evidence and citations. In other words, what is “widely acknowledged” can be a matter of opinion and WP always requires citations to back up assertions. This case is innocuous but it helps to get into good habits.

• One suggestion that you might like to follow up as a minor addition. In the literature it is often suggested that statistically it has been shown that the education of women in regions of poverty leads to smaller families which breaks or at least alleviates the cycle of poverty and environmental deterioration. What do you think? This might be worth mentioning but it would need citation(s).

The following, slightly adjusted content is suggested. We may well, I hope, get suggestions or from other editors.

Poverty

One major hurdle for sustainability is the alleviation of poverty. Both the Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future^[136] and the Millennium Development Goals^[137] draw attention to the link between poverty and environmental degradation. According to the Brundtland report, “poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”^[138] Those living in poverty rely heavily on the ecosystem as a source of basic needs (such as nutrition and medicine) and general well-being.^[139] As the world population increases so does the pressure on the ecosystem to provide essentials. According to the UN Population Fund, high fertility and poverty have been strongly correlated, and the world’s poorest countries also have the highest fertility and population growth rates.^[140]

Hope this is some help.Granitethighs 00:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Granitethighs, thank you for our warm welcome to the WP community. I am especially grateful for your advice on WP protocols, honestly I was not aware of these code of conduct. I was under the impression I would follow the referencing and neutrality guidelines. I'll be sure to adhere to these protocols going forward.

Upon reviewing your edits I would agree with these changes. Secondly, I am aware of the statistics on education of women, smaller families and poverty alleviation. I'll try to gather some sources on this topic.

At this time, would you recommend that the section "Poverty and Sustainability" be taken down from the main page and brought to the "talk" page, or can we incorporate your edits and leave it on the main page? Best regards, Narendra.lsu

Thanks Narendra, I'm glad that was some help. You can indent your comments on the talk page by using the colon(s) (see start of this comment). As your entry on the main page has not roused editors to make changes I would leave it there: it also indicates general approval if there is not an immediate response to changes, so you can see you have made a valuable contribution. It is unusual not to get a few other editors making comments on the talk page so I would wait a couple of days for more feedback before updating to the new agreed version of this section. I hope you continue editing on Wikipedia.Granitethighs 23:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I like this addition to the article and agree with Granitethighs' tweaks. The only further change I would suggest would be to be more specific when referring to "the ecosystem." Ecosystems are usually thought of as the habitat that a number of species interact with e.g., a marsh, a forest. Thus there is not one ecosystem, but many. I suggest we replace "the ecosystem" with "local ecosystems..." Otherwise, great. Sunray (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also see Ecosystem services. 99.181.155.158 (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cultural dimension

Agenda 21 - adding an additional "dimension" needs discussion on this page as it is contentious and will require alterations within the rest of the text. Perhaps you could insert the text you would like in the article on this talk page and allow editors to comment on its introduction to the main article? You might also consider estabishing a user page to aid communication.Granitethighs 22:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible resource: July/August 2011 Environment magazine Editors picks by by Robert Harriss

• "Grand Challenges of Sustainability Science" presentation by William C. Clark to the "Resilience 2011 Conference", held at Arizona State University Tempe, March 11–16, 2011. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/programs/sustsci

• Readings in Sustainability Science and Technology by Robert W. Kates, Editor, Working Paper 213, Center for International Development, Harvard University, December 2010. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/centers/cid/publications/faculty/wp/213.pdf Working Paper No. 213

From http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2011/July-August%202011/editors-picks-full.html 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Very useful - thank you. Great materials for the sustainability student. I have included references to this seminal material in both this article and the one on Sustainability science.Granitethighs 08:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. (",) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

A NPOV template was placed at the top of this page stating. "This page is much too much like green revolution and not objective in terms of classical definitions of sustainment preceeding the 1980's. It needs balance."--96.244.247.130 (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a contructive basis for discussion - the article is the result of long discussion. Please forward cogent arguments. The template has been removed.Granitethighs 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree completely and vehemently. My edits were reverted as well. The world is engineered by man and has been for thousands of years - ecological sciences are not the only topic area for sustainability. We mine the mountains, channel rivers, manufacture and transport products, bioengineer food. At some point, cost-effective practices come into play in order to maximize economic benefit for any engineered product. Sustainable Engineering is a viable topic and within scope of the article topic.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/96.244.247.130, maybe see articles such as Cradle to Cradle Design, portals such as Portal:Sustainable development, and other articles through searching categories such as Category:Sustainable development? 99.181.156.173 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is the article limits the definition of sustainability to the point of hijacking it for political purposes, limiting discussion only to a constrained area and ignoring all others. Sustainable energy is a prime example - the economic and engineering analysis of such manufactured technology tends to be ignored. Sustainability must consider life-cycle, for everything has a beginning and an end. Infinite sustainability is only a fantasy.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 96.244.247.130 - could I ask that you take up a User name if you wish to edit on Wikipedia - it just makes the business of communication much easier and friendly. On your various points:

• Your edits were reverted because they were major edits having a major effect on the presentation of the article. This article has achieved GA status which means that it has been assessed by a review process as being of high standard. The content is the result of lengthy discussion and debate over a long period of time and the achievement of a consensus on its content. That does not mean that it is perfect or that it cannot be improved. However, in these circumstances it is considered polite to make your suggestions for majorchange on this page so that they can be discussed with other people interested in the article.
• I think you are doing the article a disservice by suggesting it has left out large sections of knowledge: it does cover manufacturing, transport, food and energy, the latter two topics receiving whole sections. Clearly engineering has a very important role to play but I do not think it can be treated as a separate item. The lead and other parts of the article suggest that just about all human activity relates to sustainability so isolating individual topics, like sustainable engineering, sustainable transport, sustainable architecture, sustainable cities, sustainable chemistry, sustainable buildings and so on does not help. These are best treated as "sub-articles" to this very general one. I would suggest you start an article called "Sustainable engineering" which could be linked to this one.
• I think your point that the article has been hijacked for political purposes is unfounded, but you might like to expand on how it has done this and what the political agenda might be, and also remind you that it has been produced after long debate and consensus.
• Could I ask that if you wish to discuss you make simple, clear, short points. Statements like "Infinite sustainability is only a fantasy" are not helpful. What exactly is a statement like this expressing other than dissatisfaction? Perhaps others might like to express a view?

Granitethighs 11:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability ethics

I've removed a section with the title "Sustainability ethics" added by Dyname42 (contribs). The writing of the section is unencyclopedic, in that it appears to be advertising for a book. Both of the citations and most, if not all, of the individuals referred to are contributors to Sustainability Ethics: 5 Questions. I could be wrong, but my guess is that Dyname42 is one of the editors or contributors. Thus, this would be a conflict of interest. In any case, it is a major addition to the article and should be discussed here before being added. Sunray (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservation (ethic) related? 99.35.15.215 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Tangential links

Why add planetary boundaries and limits to growth (referring to the book)? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The concepts of planetary boundaries and limits to growth are valuable ideas that are directly related to the notion of carrying capacity. These links allow the reader to follow up for themselves the difficult notion of "carrying capacity" which cannot be explained in detail in this section. I was very reasonably requested to add planetary boundaries to the article which I have done because it improves content. Thanks for discussing this on the talk page but at the moment your deletion is against consensus so I have reverted it. Please do not start an edit war, I have made these adjustments in good faith and your view appears to be in a minority. I would welcome other people's views.Granitethighs 01:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Both times you've added it, it hasn't made sense in context. Perhaps there's a reasonable way to add planetary boundaries, but it's not normally considered related to carrying capacity. The article "limits to growth" refers to the book, not the concept, so is not relevant either to sustainability or carrying capacity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Arthur "carrying capacity" refers to resource and other constraints that can be absorbed by the planet before serious breakdown ensues - in other words it is examining "limits" and "boundaries". The connection is most definitely direct not tangential. As I said before, this article is very much reduced and both these links provide valuable explanatory material for anyone interested in the topic. Yes, "Limits to growth" is a book but this link explores in some detail many of the issues relating to "carrying capacity". I think you have some sort of agenda going here as you are not being reasonable. As IMO you are engaging in tendentious editing and you and I are unlikely to agree I am appealing for other people to comment. If you have support I am willing to defer but in the meantime please leave the article in its "consensus" condition. Granitethighs 06:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagging. The connection is disputed, not sourced, and likely synthesis even if parts are sourced. And the book Limits to Growth is not at all relevant to sustainability or carrying capacity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it, planetary boundaries might fit in the "Principles and concepts" section, or in the "Measurement" section, rather than the "Carrying capacity" section. I have no idea where the concept of limits to growth might fit, but Limits to Growth should not be anywhere near this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Really , Arthur, you do come up with strange arguments. You said above that "The article 'limits to growth' refers to the book, not the concept, so is not relevant either to sustainability or carrying capacity." Now tight distinctions like that can be useful if you are operating within a formal logic system. But here we are using English, a natural language system, which has a lot of inherent flexibility built into it. I am surprised you have not yet noticed that the book The Limits to Growth is about the concept of "limits to growth". The article on the book is largely about what the book is about, namely the concept of limits to growth. You have presumably read the book, since, only a few days ago, you were making another strange argument on the talk page of that article, arguing that the article should include a formula with an error in it, because the book was printed with an error in it. I have replaced your furious flurry of tags with one tag. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I will add references - this is fair comment - but hardly necessary - the statement is not contentious in any way. I've just viewed your personal page, Arthur Rubin, and am very confused as you seem to be an intelligent person. In simple terms, sustainability is about what can or cannot endure (in this instance planetary endurance/sustainability depends on its carrying capacity). Whether something can or cannot endure will depend on that state of the factors that allow it to endure, whether these factors are threatened in any way: for example whether they are running out, being destroyed or whatever. Whether you can win a maths competition or not depends on whether you can sustain a greater capacity for answering mathematical question than your competitor. From your point of view it is extremely important to know what is "limiting" your performance, what your "frontiers are". Can you not see this connection between sustainability, limits and frontiers? If I am wrong, please explain the error rather than just making reverting what I have done. Saying "Limits to Growth should not be anywhere near this article" when this is precisely what the whole article is about in general terms seems perverse to say the least. Where are you coming from?Granitethighs 10:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Add link to Environmental technology?

Add link to Environmental technology? 99.35.12.88 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Great idea - I've added it to the Lead as a link to technology - seems to be a suitable place for it.Granitethighs 02:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

resource

Sustainable Shrinkage: Envisioning a Smaller, Stronger Economy by Ernest Callenbach 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a good general reference. I have added it in the economic section thanks.Granitethighs 07:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sociobiology, Culture, and Letting the Venn Diagram Progress Through Time

The mystery of culture as a component of sustainability might be better understood through recognition of its antithesis, sociobiology .

Sociobiology is the theory that natural selection applies to genes, not to organisms. The natural role of any organism is to reproduce its genes. Thus any behavior of any organism, including man, that is attributable to genes rather than environment is presumed to have been selected for its propensity to aid propagation of the genes.

In a complex organism like a human, propagation of genes is only partly supported by behaviors aiding survival and reproduction of the organism thats carries them. It is also supported by behaviors that aid survival of the group.

The simplest example of the group is the couple. Sexual reproduction is basic and widespread; even some single-cell organisms seek others, adhere and combine their genetic material when conditions for simple reproduction become poor. From the simplest to the most complex organism, genes display enough humility to specify that they shall change partners. Forms as complex as the aphid reproduce asexually when conditions are good. Forms more complex than that do not.

Among humans, practices for choosing and retaining a mate vary tremendously with culture. Appreciating the degree to which culture specifies this behavior might help understanding of the role of culture. Appreciating the prevalence of exceptions, often regarded as sin, might help understanding of the roles of sub-cultures (family traditions) and of genes. Culture does not extinguish un-disciplined reproduction.

History, especially the sort found in the Old Testament, abounds with examples of self-preservation at the expense of the group. It also abounds with examples of the benefits of individual self-sacrifice to the propagation of the group. Humans have long responded to their perception of history by making choices in their environmental, religious, scientific, legal, political, military and economic contexts. Through these choices, humans modify what would otherwise be the deterministic and probabilistic course of natural selection.

For these reasons, the social component of the sustainability Venn diagram might be better understood by adding a vertical dimension that begins at the bottom with the gene pool, progresses through the present social situation, and continues upward toward toward an outcome. We might see the nearly-random recombination of genes that comes from the present right to marry at will as one step of a progression from isolated cultures to one world-wide culture to something else.

In like manner, the economic component might be traced vertically from self-sufficient behavior (subsistence) to the complex structures of corporation, bank and government we now have and on to something else.

Of course, the environmental component passes vertically from a natural, biodiverse state (which paleontology shows has varied greatly over time), to the comforts and miseries of human exploitation, and hence to either extinction or intelligent management by an organized humanity.

Small-scale physical ecological models can help us visualize deterministic part of the process if we bear in mind their limitations. Almost any combination of organisms placed on a gelled medium in a petri dish in the dark progresses through a series of relationships as they consume whatever energy source was provided, and then the community devolves to inactive, spore-like forms or to extinction. On the other hand, a sealed terrarium with a variety of plants and animals in the light can persist much longer. Energy is available through photosynthesis, and the community of organisms somehow solves its problems. This works best with a container with plenty of height. a small amount of non-nutritive, non-degradable soil (sand, perlite and vermiculite), and just the right amount of water. That community can live thirty years or more .

What is the something else? The Venn diagram only depicts; it does not compute. An algorithm that progresses correctly from what we know by geology, paleontology and history to what we have now will be a starting point in predicting the something else. If it is widely known and trusted, it will also help shape the something else.

Sustainability does not mean equilibrium. Even if it could, we humans would find it boring and would accept the risk of upsetting it. In the religious context, Calvinists stated this very simply: the chief end of man is to glorify God. Religious or not, this much is clear: we humans are here to do something.˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhy67ygv (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this make sense to anyone? I don't follow it — starting with "Venn diagram". Do you mean the actual Venn diagram, or the non-Venn diagram? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If this cannot be understood on the talk page then it is not suitable for the article itself.Granitethighs 08:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

See Euler diagram as it seems more directly related. 99.56.122.124 (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither diagram seems related to this subject, although the caption and labels for the Venn diagram report that they are related to the article, the caption and labels are not from a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the status of this discussion? 99.35.15.199 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No coherent arguments have been present in favor of inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin you are not the judge of coherent arguments. Watch your tone. 99.190.85.209 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a point there. I think what Granitethighs and Arthur Rubin are both saying is that the arguments presented above are not clear to them and based on what has been presented, there is no agreement that it should be added to the article. I agree with that, so there is no support for their inclusion. Sunray (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

UNsustainable

Suggesting new word:

"Unsustainable"

Potentially, it could be written as with uppercase UN - standing for United Nations.

Either way:

Unsustainable: That which cannot be sustained.

Examples: Example 1: Single (rural) parent - a 'survivor' who receives no maintenance from any absent parent. Works self-employed from home to look after their children, and isn't paid by clients for the work - E.G. due to a global economic recession. The parent has no money to pay the Council Tax bill - E.G. £460 The Local Authority take the single parent to court to pay the outstanding bill (twice), and the person with no money faces imprisonment for not paying a bill, because they have no money. If imprisoned - E.G. for one month, (given prisoner's cost UK£60,000 each per annum), this equates to approximate costs of UK£5,000 If imprisoned (with dependents under the age of 16), with no close family or friends, the children will be farmed into the 'Social Care' "system". Total costs to the Local Authority/Government = Judicial Fees, Staff Fees, Prison Fees, Social Services Fees, Adminstrative Fees etc. = Well over £5,000 (+ the outstanding £460 unpaid bill)

Environmental costs: All the staff employed in all the above services invariably use their own vehicles, powered by fossil fuels. Their offices were invariably constructed using cement, and often use standard electrical applicances, with electricity powered by a mains grid, primarily powered itself by fossil & nuclear fuels.

There is an old UK saying: "You can't get blood out of a stone". (As such, the Bailiffs will undoubtedly end up taking the single parent's household goods.)

Effectively, given the above scenario, a lot of people are employed - just to try to get 'blood out of stones' - they are all paid salaries, sickness pay, maternity pay, holiday pay, etc - which was potentially why there was a 'Council Tax' bill in the first place.

The Government ends up having to borrow more debt - on top of the debt mountain they already owe, and the Council has their grants cut.

The Council Tax goes up to cover the grant support which was cut - and all the rural/urban business people (and single parents), ALL have increased bills.

The scenario could extend into infinity - but for the fact that is really is "UNsustainable".

In fact, it even contraveines the United Nations (UN) Agenda 21, The Earth Charter, etc. (Which were specifically designed to ensure that people were lifted out of poverty & deprivation - esppecially the role of single heads of household - of which most are known to be women.

The example above is based on a woman's perspective - (in fact, it is my own).

"AnEarthMother"

Reference: This is one example of class material which will be used to teach students about "Environmental Sustainability".

In order to teach Environmental Sustainability, first we need to discover what is 'unsustainable'. This is just one example of what is not sustainable!

The rural economy is blighted by just such 'systems' - which 'milk' small entrepreneurs and business people.

Given the fact that Governments all around the world are all borrowing more money to get out of debt - and floating banks which ran out of money themselves, basically, the whole 'system' needs changing - especially as the latest UN figures show 1.4 world's consumption levels - and research shows that over half the world's food 'produced' - is wasted. (And that's one heck of a cloud of methane adding to the greenhouse gases - and which is 23 times worse than CO2.) E.G. Examples 2 & 3.

Suggestions for 'change' entered into this years contest at http://www.ClimateCoLab.org

Signed 'AnEarthMother' - Founder: http://www.GlobalArkProjects.com (NET4NON) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.169.170 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not create articles about neologisms. See our notability guidelines at WP:NEOLOGISM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Systems based Sustainability

Thanks so much for all the hard work that has gone into this page. I'd like to suggest that there be mention on systems based sustainability in the article. This is, within the field of professional sustainability research and analysis, becoming a solid definition of sustainability. It's also used within the field of Industrial Ecology. This is because most definitions fail as they are not testable, but a systems based one is. It binds many different levels of understanding about sustainability together, including the community/integrated based views, object related hierarchies and it also offers ways to replace the popular but categorically criticized triple P system.

There is a definition of systems based sustainability we have developed which may be of value, which is part of the Symbiosis in Development framework. It's stood up to scrutiny for the last 5 years or so in the field in its primary form, has been simplified and made more accurate over this period, and has been very useful for people to make sustainability actionable, understandable and measurable. The problem being with most definitions, including the Brundtlandt commission (UN Charter definition), is that sustainability is not so much defined by them but the outcome of it described. They are inspiring but their utility is low. The Symbiosis in Development sustainability definition tries to remedy this, and make sustainability clear and unambiguous:

"Sustainability is a state of a complex, dynamic system. In this state a system can continue to flourish without leading to its internal collapse or requiring inputs from outside its defined system boundaries. Applied to our civilization, this state is consistent with an equitable and healthy society, as well as thriving ecosystems and a beautiful planet." - A.N.A. Bosschaert & E.M. Gladek, 2011, v3.0 (http://www.except.nl/consult/symbiosisindesign/index.html)

In essence, the last sentence is not strictly necessary for the definition, because it is already embedded in the result of the meaning of the first sentences. I think this may be of great value to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBosschaert (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all the sentiments expressed here but make the following points. Any definition needs to come from a notable source. I am not sure of the status of 'Except' - is it a private company or what? Secondly, and although highly irritating, it is not possible to provide "the" definition of sustainability. All anyone can do is put a definition into the public domain and seek support. If you are very fortunate you might get consensus. Of course you can define the situation in which you want to use the definition, say "For the purposes of a particular work you are defining it as ... " but that is another matter. I like this definition, although I'm not sure that it adds much, if anything, to the sentiments of other definitions discussed. It certainly does not deal with any issues of value or policy which might upset some people. Of course there will be those who will quibble. For example, does sustainability of necessity apply to complex systems? Does sustainability necessarily apply to closed systems? For the article there is a dilemma. A lot of people (at least hundreds) consider that they have provided a satisfactory definition of sustainability. Do we include them all? Clearly not - so which ones do we include? Does this definition presented here offer something new or significant that warrants its inclusion in the article? My inclination would be "no" but of course it would be good to hear other views.Granitethighs 10:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your statement that it's not possible to provide "the" definition of sustainability. That said, the systems-based definition has hardly, if ever, been refuted because it holds up in virtually all cases. I'll be happy to debate them. It's not a definition that was made for a particular case. In actuality, the ruling definition, that of the Brundtland comission, was developed rather quickly and for the specific goal of the report, and is thereby less universal, and it suffers from lack of actualization. We often jokingly say that definition defines a sport by telling you the desired end score of a match, but without defining what its rules are, or what the playing field even looks like. It's not a definition, it's a description of its results. This is of major importance, because if one does not know, or does not have an accurate description of what one's trying to do, you will always fail to do it. Which is what's happening all over the world.

You ask "Does sustainability necessarily apply to closed systems?". No, it doesn't, but it's the only way to evaluate it as such. In reality, a system is never truly closed, but it's also never truly sustainable. In the long run our sun will explode, our universe will collapse, etc. So in order to make the definition, and thus the practice, workable, sustainability can only be evaluated within a set system boundary.

You mention the definition provided above does not add anything to the sentiments already expressed. I think it does add something unique, and highly valuable, in its first section: the notion that sustainability is a property of a complex system. This is not defined anywhere else. Within the intent of the sustainability field, where we all more or less know what the idea is but find it hard to express it, the notion that sustainability is of necessity a property of a (complex) system is of vital importance. Any object-oriented definition of sustainability (as opposed to system-oriented) never holds up to scrutiny. An object can never be regarded as 'sustainable', or not, because it is dependent on context, time and spatial relations. This causes major problems in real life application, where sub optimizations often lead to worse results than was started with. Often well intended, but still. This is not to debate whether or not the above is 'the' definition, it's to indicate that regarding sustainability as a systems property is a major framework that seems to be missing in the article entirely. I think that should at least be covered in the article. Other major foundations and organizations are slowly shifting to this system-based way of thinking, as it currently provides the only substantial set of methodologies, frameworks and theories to solve some of the complex issues of sustainability.

You ask who Except is. Except is an independent collaborative organization consisting of about 50 sustainability experts from around the world, bringing together many different disciplines. It does not have a profit motive. It was founded in 1999 to develop the foundations of a sustainable society. One of its most important tasks is to develop understanding, methods, tools and educational material pertaining to sustainable development, as well as applying it in a real world context. It started out as using an object-based approach (like everyone else), but developed the systems-thinking approach SiD in the last 10 years as a response to failures of the object-oriented approach. Except is mentioned as an example becau se I know it best, but it's not the only organization working on this. For instance, look at this page of the IISD: http://www.iisd.org/sd/. As you see, they quote the Brundtland definition, and then immediately state that it's imperative that sustainability be regarded in a systems-based context underneath. That's because it is imperative, but the Brundtland commission definition does not carry it within itself, thus they have to amend it by sticking a sentence behind it that rectifies the definition. It doesn't actually improve the definition, though. That's why we have worked for many years to come up with a much better one.

I would suggest to write at least a paragraph pertaining to systems-based definitions and understanding of sustainability. I'll be more than glad to help, but I'm not sure if that's desired. In my professional experience, the page really has a gap in its understanding of how sustainability is viewed in the realm of professional application, and I'd like to help if possible. TomBosschaert

Thanks Tom. As you can imagine, we spent a long time on the “Definition” section of this article. It was not plain sailing. Several of us with scientific backgrounds, myself included, were attracted to systems-type factual definitions pointing out spatial and temporal constraints on complex systems, limits etc. But it soon became evident other people regard sustainability as setting a value agenda, that it is almost akin to a political movement trying to galvanise social behaviour along certain lines. This cannot be totally ignored and, as is often pointed out, WP is not there to provide “truth” only to present well-referenced viewpoints. It strives to include all significant views, giving each due weight, and putting each view in context. It does say in the “Definition” section that: “To add complication 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.” The word “system” appears numerous times in the article, especially as “ecosystem”. As I have said I think the system aspect of sustainability is very important. I’m just not sure that what you initially suggested is the best way of inserting it in the article but there are many other ways - perhaps it would fit in the "measurement" section somehow, more as a matter of principle than definition. Anyway, what do others think?Granitethighs 00:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi GT. I waited for a while to see if there were some more reactions, but it doesn't look that way. I think that the article does not mention system-based sustainability and that this is a large omission. I see the word 'system' mentioned but not in that context. An ecosystem is not analogous or an example of what's referred to when talking about system-based sustainability, it's closer to the network-theory definition of a system in that sense. I think you have a better idea of how and where to put it in the article. I'll be glad to help. TomBosschaert

Minor comment

==Peace, security, social justice==

Social disruptions like war, crime and .... Depletion of natural resources including fresh water[145] increases the likelihood of “resource wars”.[146] This aspect of sustainability has been referred to as environmental security and creates a clear need for global environmental agreements to manage resources such as aquifers and rivers which span political boundaries, and to protect shared global systems including oceans and the atmosphere.[147]

COMMENT - Depletion of natural resources, in the context of water, is a regional issue, and therefore creates a clear need for regional (NOT global) environmental agreements to manage resources such as aquifers and rivers....Global environmental agreements are not applicable or the suitable framework/tools for the management of regional watersheds/ water management.

Point taken. Can you suggest more appropriate wording please - bearing in mind that the thrust of this section is to point out the strong need for environmental agreements between political groups that share environmental services and resources ... especially when there is the potential for conflict.Granitethighs 23:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientific American potential resource ... regarding/related Planetary boundaries in general

Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet? "A five-step global plan could double food production by 2050 while greatly reducing environmental damage" by Jonathan A. Foley SciAm October 12, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe environmental damage wikilink? 99.181.138.228 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Done.Granitethighs 10:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential resource, New Zealand example

The Myth and Reality of Sustainable New Zealand: Mining in a Pristine Land by Gundars Rudzitis and Kenton Bird in November-December 2011 issue of Environment journal. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I will put it on the Sustainability in New Zealand and Mining in New Zealand articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource calling for sustainability

A Sinking Feeling; Why is the president of the tiny Pacific island nation of Nauru so concerned about climate change? by Marcus Stephen, the President of Nauru, November 14 & November 28, 2011 in The New York Times Upfront, excerpts ...

In 2008 and 2009, respectively, people in nearby Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands were forced to flee their homes to escape record tides. The low-lying nations of Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands may vanish entirely within our grandchildren’s lifetimes.” Similar climate stories are playing out on nearly every continent, where a steady onslaught of droughts, floods, and heat waves—which some scientists expect will become even more frequent and intense with climate change—have displaced millions of people and led to widespread food shortages.

... we are simply asking the international community to plan for the biggest environmental and humanitarian challenge of our time. Nauru has begun an intensive program to repair the damage done by mining, and my administration has put environmental sustainability at the center of its policymaking. Making our island whole again will be a long and difficult process, but it is our home and we cannot leave it for another one. I forgive you if you have never heard of Nauru—but you will not forgive yourselves if you ignore our story.

Also see Sea level rise, global warming-related climate change, and Small Island Developing States/AOSIS. 99.181.136.185 (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Add Portal:Society

Add Portal:Society. 99.181.132.138 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested this contribution be discussed ...

As sustainable can describe barely managing within limits, there is an evolutionary path of the industrial application of sustainability known as Cradle to Cradle or the Circular Economy. The Circular Economy is grounded in the study of feedback rich (non-linear) systems, particularly living systems. A major outcome of this is the notion of optimising systems rather than components, or the notion of design for fit. As a generic notion it draws from a number of more specific approaches including, biomimicry, industrial ecology, and The Blue Economy. Most frequently described as a framework for thinking, its supporters claim it is a coherent model that has value as part of a response to the end of the era of cheap oil and materials. A key tenet of the Circular Economy is to move from a sustainable lowest environmental damage approach, based on less bad principles, to positive impacts on the ecosystem, thus presenting industrial growth as a benefit to the planet (and therefore human) ecosystem. Increase in consumer consumption would result in increased technical nutrients and biological nutrients with minimal or zero waste, toxic or not.

from Special:Contributions/Polainm

99.181.156.221 (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This, to my mind, is a rather verbose and convoluted expansion of "circular economy" discussion already in the article and explained more simply in the "Human consumption" section on materials etc. Perhaps if the points were written in a more reader-friendly way it might be easier to understand the issues being addressed. Anyone else?Granitethighs 11:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Add Biophilia hypothesis ?

Add Biophilia hypothesis to Sustainability#Human relationship to nature subsection? 99.181.156.221 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is already long - the connection between biophilia and sustainability needs to be strong - I'm not sure that it is.Granitethighs 11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability and another page's Sustainable

Is this the same or similar to the usage of Sustainable in List of countries by Failed States Index? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this version being or been discussed?

... , and encompasses the concept of union, an interdependent relationship and mutual responsible position with all living and non living things on earth. This philosophical interpretation moves well beyond definitions driven by progress oriented economic perspectives that see humans as providing stewardship, the responsible management of resource use.

99.190.85.111 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds Biosphere, Gaia hypothesis, Earth system science, ... 99.190.85.111 (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

History of the concept

The following is a proposal for addition to the article and was initially placed just above the "History of sustainability" section. I feel it needs discussion by editors before being added to the article. I have several, not so much "objections" as "concerns". I will list these and hope others will provide input. "Sustainability" is a word that is used in many ways and contexts. This article on "Sustainability" does use the word in a special sense and that is made clear in the opening paragraphs. Because so many things can be made "sustainable" I find the assertion that the word was first used in relation to forestry and "sustainable yield" unconvincing. I, personally, would prefer more evidence here. Though I have no firm evidence I also suspect that the idea of sustainability - in ecological systems especially - pre-dated the idea of "sustainable development" so to say the terms were originally synonymous is either in correct or, at least, an oversimplification. I am also a bit concerned about the rather gratuitous introduction of the terms "strong" and "weak' sustainability here - it could easily confuse the reader and it is not obviously appropriate here. Also the use of the term sustainability in terms of something "lasting" surely must go back before ancient Greece. I just feel all this needs tightening up before it is added. It also uses up rather a lot of space in terms of the article balance - anyway, what do others think? See proposed addition below.Granitethighs 22:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The concept of sustainability was originally synonymous with that of sustainable development and is often still used in that way. Both terms derive from the older forestry term "sustained yield", which in turn is a translation of the German term "nachhaltiger Ertrag" dating from 1713. According to different sources, the concept of sustainability in the sense of a balance between resource consumption and reproduction was however applied to forestry already in the 12th to 16th century.

‘Sustainability’ is a semantic modification, extension and transfer of the term ‘sustained yield’. This had been the doctrine and, indeed, the ‘holy grail’ of foresters all over the world for more or less two centuries. The essence of ‘sustained yield forestry’ was described for example by William A. Duerr, a leading American expert on forestry: “To fulfill our obligations to our descendents and to stabilize our communities, each generation should sustain its resources at a high level and hand them along undiminished. The sustained yield of timber is an aspect of man’s most fundamental need: to sustain life itself.” A fine anticipation of the Brundtland-formula.

Not just the concept of sustainable development, but also but also its current interpretations have its roots in forest management. Strong sustainability stipulates living solely off the interest of natural capital, whereas adherents of weak sustainability are content to keep constant the sum of natural and human capital.

The history of the concept of sustainability is however much older. Already in 400 BCE, Aristotle referred to a similar Greek concept in talking about household economics. This Greek household concept differed from modern ones in that the household had to be self-sustaining at least to a certain extent and could not just be consumption oriented.

The first use of the term "sustainable" in the modern sense was by the Club of Rome in March 1972 in its epoch-making report on the ‘Limits to

Growth", written by a group of scientists led by Dennis and Donella

Meadows of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Describing the desirable "state of global equilibrium", the authors used the word "sustainable": "We are searching for a model output that represents a world system that is: 1. sustainable without sudden and uncontrolled collapse; and 2. capable of satisfying the basic material requirements of all of its people."