Talk:Sustainability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Sustainability has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 21, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
July 29, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
October 8, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Subpages[edit]

Why so many See Also links?[edit]

I don't understand this list of topics under "See also". I think the subheading of "topics" should be removed there and the list be culled to a bare minimum. Important topics should be linked to in the main text and then they don't need to appear under "See also".

Wikipedia article Sustainability - Sub-heading 'Ecosocialist approach' page 10 of 19 pages[edit]

In this Wikipedia article 'Sustainability; there is a sub-heading - 'Ecosocialist approach' on page 10 of 19 pages where the article states: “A steady-state capitalist economy is impossible” (with reference number 188).

At one time abolition of slavery was ‘impossible’, as was invention of the light bulb, human flight and space travel. Stating something is impossible is a blanket statement steering maybe 99% of readers away from the notion, one of whom may otherwise be an Einstein of economics and find a solution.

No one really knows if a steady state economy is possible or not, until it is tried.

At any rate I went straight to the reference source ‘Magdoff & Foster 2011, p. 56’. On page 56 and what we actually find is Magdoff and Foster posing the question (paraphrasing) why capitalists would go down the path of a steady state economy ? rather than a blank it is impossible statement. And in fact just before this question – on page 56 - Magdoff and Foster cite a reference (reference number 38 chapter 3) in their book "What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism" ISBN978-1-58367-241-9; citing an article by Philip Lawn, a senior lecturer in environmental and ecological economics at Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia, titled “Is Steady-State Capitalism Viable ? A Review of the Issues and an Answer in the Affirmative”, The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219 (2001): 1-25. I looked this up and found a 2015 reference to the same article.

I attempted to edit this statement from “A steady-state capitalist economy is impossible” to "To inveterate capitalists a steady-state capitalist economy is impossible” which is less final while still holding its original intent, but it has reverted to its original statement.

I am not egotistic about my edit. Just wanted to share the reasoning behind it so that you can make your own judgement on it. Michael de Mol 4th January 2016

Paragraph from an old version[edit]

I added the following paragraph some time ago, but it was deleted. I will put this note here as a note that it could be included with citations from reliable sources to backup the information.

However, many examples can be thought of where gains in one sector can cause gains in another sector, which is supported by the three overlapping ellipses Venn Diagram. As stated previously, each sector are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing or mutually destructive. For example, installing a solar system will lead to reduced environmental impacts compared to using energy derived from fossil fuels, reduce negative societal impacts resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g. the increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters causing deaths and injuries of humans, and destruction of the natural and built environment), and have positive economic impacts where the solar system is at or below grid parity. Thus, it is apparent that gains in one sector are not necessarily a loss in another, although may be the case in some situations. For example, chopping down a tree is an environmental loss but the timber from that tree may be used for social and economic benefits, e.g. the production of paper and furniture, which profit the producers when sold and have indirect economic benefits in terms of improved productivity. Note however, that if all environmental, cultural, political and economic aspects are 'appropriately' monetized (which can be highly subjective, e.g. how do you determine the monetary value of a thing such as a tree and it's relative value to other things?) then economic outcomes should accurately mirror cultural, political and environmental outcomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jray310 (talkcontribs) 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Sustainability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)