Talk:Sustainability/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Proposed restructuring to reduce the prominence of the three dimensions somewhat

I liked the current structure a lot but I don't want to give the impression that I am guarding the status quo at all costs. Therefore, I have just implemented an idea for restructuring the article that might perhaps help to reach a compromise with those who have said that the 3 dimensions is getting too much attention. Therefore, I have just changed the structure so that everything about the 3 dimensions is now in just one section, rather than spread over several sections. This section now has this sub-structure:

2 Dimensions of sustainability
2.1 Development of three dimensions
2.2 Relationship between the three dimensions
2.3 Environmental sustainability
2.4 Economic sustainability
2.5 Social sustainability
2.6 Proposed additional dimensions

I've also moved two sections to the section on "measurement" to beef that one up. And I have moved one section to the section on "overcoming barriers". Some of the discussions on this talk page have been around the relative importance of the environmental dimension over other dimensions. People have even argued that environmental is the only one that really matters. I think here we need to stay close to the literature. A discussion of this aspect is in the sub-section on "Relationship between the three dimensions". If important content and references is missing from that section, please suggest. EMsmile (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Content from the publication "World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"

Coming back to the suggestions of Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה: the section about scientists opinion returned. He's referring to this change of mine where I moved this textblock to human impact on the environment: There are many publications from the scientific community to warn everyone about growing threats to sustainability, in particular threats to "environmental sustainability", including climate change. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity in 1992 begins with: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course". About 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including most Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, signed this warning letter. The letter mentions severe damage to the atmosphere, oceans, ecosystems, soil productivity, and more. It said that if humanity wants to prevent the damage, steps need to be taken: better use of resources, abandonment of fossil fuels, stabilization of human population, elimination of poverty and more. More warning letters were signed in 2017 and 2019 by thousands of scientists from over 150 countries which called again to reduce overconsumption (including eating less meat), reducing fossil fuels use and other resources and so forth.

I've now taken a closer look at that publication from 2017 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. I've taken several statements from there now and have cited the publication in 3 places, as can be seen in my change here. I took content and added it in the sections on "environmental sustainability", "overcoming barriers" and "Policies for reaching environmental sustainability". I think that is sufficient now. By the way, the publication - even though it was signed by nearly 15,000 scientists has not been cited widely - currently only 591 citations (see here).

The publication prompted me to introduce the term "sustainability transitions" which I think is very important. It helps us to understand that sustainability is a goal or direction; we can transition towards it. We can probably never "be sustainable" but only strive towards it. EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Revisiting the discussion about the first sentence

Keeping in mind our previous discussion about the first sentence of the lead here, I'd like to rekindle that. I felt the current first sentence was quite OK but let's see if it can become better. Let me first list some previous proposals:

• Currently it reads Sustainability is a societal goal with three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension. This concept can be used to guide decisions at the global, national and at the individual consumer level. A related concept is that of sustainable development. Both terms are often used synonymously..
• A previous version was (it was criticised as being too hard to understand): "Sustainability is a normative concept that stresses intergenerational equity and is commonly considered to have three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension.".
• The October 21 version was: Sustainability is the capacity to endure in a relatively ongoing way across various domains of life. In the 21st century, it refers generally to the capacity for Earth's biosphere and human civilization to co-exist. Sustainability has also been described as "meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs" (Brundtland, 1987). For many, sustainability is defined through the interconnected domains of environment, economy and society. Sustainable development, for example, is often discussed through the domains of culture, technology economics and politics.
• The August 2021 version was (note lack of references / somewhat arbitrary references): Sustainability is the capacity to endure in a relatively ongoing way across various domains of life. In the 21st century, it refers generally to the capacity for Earth's biosphere and human civilization to co-exist. It is also defined as the process of people maintaining change in a homeostasis-balanced environment, in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations. For many in the field, sustainability is defined through the following interconnected domains or pillars: environmental, economic and social. Sub-domains of sustainable development have been considered also: cultural, technological and political.
• And the July 2020 version (someone could do a research paper out of analysing all these different versions! Note also this has few refs): Sustainability is the ability to exist constantly. In the 21st century, it refers generally to the capacity for the biosphere and human civilization to coexist. It is also defined as the process of people maintaining change in a homeostasis balanced environment, in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations. For many in the field, sustainability is defined through the following interconnected domains or pillars: environment, economic and social, which according to Fritjof Capra is based on the principles of Systems Thinking. Sub-domains of sustainable development have been considered also: cultural, technological and political.

The following are not examples for the first sentence of the lead but definitions from various sources:

• "the quality of being able to continue over a period of time" (Cambridge Dictionary) (suggested by User:TK26)
• The current definition of sustainability in the Oxford Dictionary is “The property of being environmentally sustainable; the degree to which a process or enterprise is able to be maintained or continued while avoiding the long-term depletion of natural resources“ - The definition from the Oxford dictionary clearly only relates to environmental sustainability.
• Encyclopedia Britannica: "the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice." Personally, I don't think that definition is helpful at all because it just replaces one term (sustainability) with another ill-defined term (viability).EMsmile (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

One thing we should be clear on: our first sentence of the lead does not need to equal a dictionary definition. As per MOS:FIRST: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere.EMsmile (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So my new proposal for the first few sentences of the lead (would be good to still add suitable refs, even though refs are not compulsory for the lead if they are included in the main text): Sustainability is a societal goal with the broad idea of being able to safely continue or co-exist on Earth over a long time. Specific definitions of sustainability are difficult and therefore vary in the literature and over time. Sustainability is commonly described along the lines of three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension. This concept can be used to guide decisions at the global, national and at the individual consumer level (e.g. sustainable living). In everyday usage in the media and society, sustainability is often focused on the environmental aspects only. A related concept is that of sustainable development. Both terms are often used synonymously.

This version of the first sentence is certainly much better than the current, as it gives to the ordinary reader the ability to understand what is sustainability.

I think after "on earth" it is better to add "refering generaly to human society, economy and the environment" because otherwice it can be about the ability of coexist on earth of stones, postal marks, bicycles and clouds. Who are in danger?

From 2020 pupils in Italia for example are learning sustainability. Wikipedia should give information understandable even to a sixth grader at least in the first sentence.

Instead of "In everyday usage in the media and society, sustainability is often focused on the environmental aspects only" I will add "Today scientists largely agree that without environmental sustainability economic and social sustainability is also not possible". As source we can use this and this

The article now has considerably improved from what it was. If a definition that explain the issue in understandable way will be added, the section about scientists opinion returned and the dependence of the economy and society on environment will be mentioned also in the sections about dimensions I will said that the biggest obstacles are removed. I have more wishes but they are much less important.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence is grammatically incorrect. Continue what? I like the direction (more concrete meaning), but this needs some better prose (I think a GOCE request would be good when you're satisfied with the article). I've removed "consumer" from the main text, as highlighting only that aspect of an individual's role in sustainability doesn't feel neutral. I'm not sure that sentence is needed at all. Femke (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad my proposal met with some approval. I've now changed the first paragraph to be like this, with a very heavy focus on the environmental aspects: Sustainability is a societal goal that broadly aims for humans to safely co-exist on planet Earth over a long time. Specific definitions of sustainability are difficult to agree on and therefore vary in the literature and over time. Sustainability is commonly described along the lines of three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension. This concept can be used to guide decisions at the global, national and at the individual level (e.g. sustainable living). In everyday usage in the media and society, sustainability is often focused mostly on the environmental aspects so that "sustainability" becomes the same as "environmental sustainability". Therefore, for many people, especially those from the environmental movement, sustainability is closely linked with environmental issues. This "environmental sustainability" has its theoretical basis in the "planetary boundaries" model. People are concerned about human impacts on the environment. The most dominant environmental issues since about the year 2000 have been climate change, loss of biodiversity and environmental pollution and land degradation (such as deforestation and general degradation of ecosystems).

Furthermore, I have added more information in the main text about this issue that in every day usage, sustainability often has the narrower meaning "environmental sustainability". However, it would be good to have some reliable refs for this kind of statement: "In everyday usage in the media and society, sustainability is often focused mostly on the environmental aspects so that "sustainability" becomes the same as "environmental sustainability"." As I had no ref for this at my fingertips (a ref that says exactly that), I have added two examples instead which is almost like WP:OR but I hope it's OK: This can for example be seen in the publications by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Another example is this Oxford Dictionary of English definition of sustainability: "The property of being environmentally sustainable; the degree to which a process or enterprise is able to be maintained or continued while avoiding the long-term depletion of natural resources“.. I don't have access to a printed Oxford dictionary but this opinion piece was quite well written, I felt: https://www.oxfordcollegeofprocurementandsupply.com/how-sustainable-is-sustainability/.

@Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה I disagree with: "Today scientists largely agree that without environmental sustainability economic and social sustainability is also not possible". This is not a suitable sentence for the lead and the ref that you provided (UNEP story) does not substantiate that statement. The discussion about the relative importance of environmental versus economic is already in the section about "weak and strong sustainability". The link to the World Economic Forum that you provided was broken. Does it state exactly "Today scientists largely agree that without environmental sustainability economic and social sustainability is also not possible"?

Also I didn't include this: "I think after "on earth" it is better to add "refering generaly to human society, economy and the environment" because otherwice it can be about the ability of coexist on earth of stones, postal marks, bicycles and clouds. Who are in danger?" as I found it very wordy and unclear. Planet Earth is pretty clear, isn't it? EMsmile (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the latest improvments. The definition in the first line is now excellent.

I do not think that media and so on are busy only with environmental sustainability and not talk about econmic and social. They talk about Sustainability simply as the ability of humanity to exist what include all the 3. They talk very much about the economic, social costs, of not being sustainable, they simply say that when the environment collapse - economy and society also.

Therfore I propose instead of

"In everyday usage in the media and society, sustainability is often focused mostly on the environmental aspects so that "sustainability" becomes the same as "environmental sustainability".

write:

" Today scientists largely agree that economic and social sustainability strongly depend on environmental sustainability."

This is the link to the World Economic Forum report that proves it like the report of UNEP that I put in my previouse message ( I hope now it is not broken):

https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Nature_Economy_Report_2020.pdf

I think that the details about environmental harm in the lead setion

"The most dominant environmental issues since about the year 2000 have been climate change, loss of biodiversity and environmental pollution and land degradation (such as deforestation and general degradation of ecosystems)."

"This "environmental sustainability" has its theoretical basis in the "planetary boundaries" model."

Are even to much emphasis for lead section. I do not think they are needed here. They should be in the main body of the text. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Glad you like the first sentence now, that's great. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article. So that content that is in the lead (which you highlighted) is ALSO in the main body for that reason. I think the lead is fairly OK now, but could still be improved. I wouldn't shorten it though, it should rather be a bit longer (4 full paragraphs, about 500-600 words in total). EMsmile (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither the UNEP publication nor the WEF publication says this exactly "" Today scientists largely agree that economic and social sustainability strongly depend on environmental sustainability." The WEF publication does say "Our research shows that $44 trillion of economic value generation – more than half of the world’s total GDP – is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services and is therefore exposed to nature loss." but the rest is your own interpretation and WP:OR which is not allowed. Furthermore, please be aware that wording such as "scientists agree that" is considered weasel words and not recommended at all (MOS:WEASEL). EMsmile (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now added that content from the WEF publication that you wanted to see included as follows (it's still a little bit close to WP:OR but hopefully OK like this): The economic dimension relies on the environmental dimension in many aspects: A publication by the World Economic Forum in 2020 stated that: "Our research shows that $44 trillion of economic value generation – more than half of the world’s total GDP – is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services and is therefore exposed to nature loss.". EMsmile (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Stockholm +50 report

Thank you for the improvments. In my opinion it is necessary that the report Stockholm+50 also will get some representation especially about the main recommendation.

Stockholm+50 is a summary of what we have learned on the issue from 1972 and in the first time give a place to the Young Researchers (intergeneration justice). It was partly writed and reviewed by many organizations from the Global South (planetary justice). One of the main aims of the edith-a-thone was such justice in research.

See pages 4-5 in the senior version:

https://www.stockholm50.report/unlocking-a-better-future.pdf

And pages 4-5 in the junior report:

https://www.stockholm50.report/charting-a-youth-vision-for-a-just-and-sustainable-future.pdf

Other things that not critical for me but still worth mentioning:

I do not understand why the information about the 3 lettres and Stockholm+50 can not be concentrated in a special section about scientists opinion. In the page "climate change" there is a section "scientific consensus and society",so why not make it here?

I understand that you maybe worry that we will open the door to more addings untill it wil turn to some bullet list. It was not the idea as those 4 items are different from others - such reports appear 1 time in several years.

For example there are IPCC reports. I do not add them here as they refer to 1 specific environmental issue.

There are UNEP reports like "making peace with nature". I do not add them here as they referr to 2-3 planetary boundaries.

There are studies referring to sustainability written by 1-2 authors. I mostly do not add them here , as they ae in myopinion less important that reports written by big scientific organisations.

But the 3 lettres of scientists and Stockholm+50 represent relatively broad consensus and deal with sustainability in general. Why are we not sustainable? What we should do for being sustainable? What are the most important points?

The assumption "we will never be sustainable" is similar to the assumption "humanity is doomed". In my opinion sustainability is a situation when humans can coexist on earth for a very long time, it is a certain state.

From the 5 millions years of human existance on earth humans were sustainable untill the 1970s (even though they cause a lot of damage). Only then the ecological footprint of humanity exeeded the carrying capacity of the bioshpere. I think it can be reversed. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the Stockholm +50 report. I am against mentioning the report in the format of "A report was published in xx by xx and it called to action on xx and it wants you to know that xxx". But I am not against using it as a source for specific statements. Looking at the key messages of the report, most of those are already included in the Wikipedia article and it would be repetitive to include them again. We could use the report as an additional citation for some of the existing content on environmental issues and how things are getting worse. But I've had a better idea: it makes some interesting statements about "sustainability transitions". I would like to pull some of them out and add them. I'll work on that tomorrow. I think here the report can add some real value to the Wikipedia article. - The two warning letters for scientists are now already mentioned, I don't think we need an additional separate section for that. Remember we're writing an encyclopedia here, not a call for action website. EMsmile (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Sustainability transition

I've now added a new section on "Sustainability transition" and added content from the Stockholm +50 report. The term "sustainability transition" is quite big in the literature. However, I am not yet fully satisfied with my work in that section: I used quite of lot of quotes rather than my own words as I found it hard to summarise the published statements in my own words. This needs further improvements. - The SEI report is now mentioned 4 times. I think this is giving it quite a bit of limelight and should be sufficient. (The UNEP report "making peace with nature" is also included twice already). EMsmile (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

References

New structure

I've continued the work to try and address concerns raised on the talk page, mainly by User:אלכסנדר סעודה. E.g. more information on how to get to more sustainability. More information on how environmental and economic dimensions relate to each other. I've also added content about the barriers and sustainability transition to the lead. I hope we are getting close to reaching consensus. The new structure looks like this:

• 1Definitions
  • 1.1Current usage
  • 1.2Historical usage of the term
  • 1.3Comparison with sustainable development
• 2Dimensions of sustainability
  • 2.1Development of three dimensions
  • 2.2Environmental sustainability
  • 2.3Economic sustainability
  • 2.4Social sustainability
  • 2.5Proposed additional dimensions
• 3Interactions between dimensions
  • 3.1Relationship between environmental and economic dimension
  • 3.2Trade-offs between dimensions
• 4Measurement
  • 4.1Measuring environmental sustainability
  • 4.2Measuring economic sustainability
• 5Types of sustainability barriers
• 6Sustainability transition
• 7Options for overcoming barriers
  • 7.1Policies for reaching environmental sustainability
  • 7.2Decoupling economic growth from environmental deterioration
  • 7.3Government action and local governance
  • 7.4Action principles
  • 7.5More effective governance for global issues
• 8Responses by non-government stakeholders
  • 8.1Businesses
  • 8.2Religious communities
  • 8.3Individuals
• 9Critique
  • 9.1Impossible to reach
  • 9.2Vague and unclear
  • 9.3Greenwashing

EMsmile (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Section on spirituality?

Should there be a section on spirituality and its relation to sustainability?

Is Spirituality the Essence of Sustainability January 2014 In book: The Truth Is Out There (pp.169 - 181) Chapter: 12 Publisher: Black Swan Press Editors: Julie Lunn and Stephanie Bizjak Uralunlucayakli (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find much about that source, but it looks like a collection of papers from Curzon University's 2012 gra

graduate research conference. I'd suggest that it's not a great source to base a sect we'd want work by established scholars. on on, Girth Summit _(blether) 07:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

There is already [section] about Religious communities. There is a link further to a page Religion and environmentalism. As in the section it is better to use only the most important links because it should be no more then several lines, I think maybe it will be better in the special page. --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove most or all of the three part model

Right now this 3-part model of sustainability structures the article. I think it should go. My first guess of what should replace it is structuring this article around the Sustainable Development Goals. I know the SDGs are discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia, but for every source discussing the 3-part model, there are 1,000 sources using the SDGs to discuss sustainability. For now - I just want to make the case to reduce the 3 part model.

• 
• 
• 

I see these illustrations prominently in the article, but I do not think this is a popular concept of "sustainability". These may be historically influential, or these may be a philosophical perspective, but I do think the sources establish that they are commonly discussed when people write and talk about sustainability. I say mention them briefly and move on, until and unless someone shows reason why they should stay.

Reasons why this model should go:

1. A 2019 review says that these pillars get repeated in literature, but "nowhere have we found a theoretically rigorous description of the three pillars." These never were well developed concepts. Wikipedia is currently not citing sources which present the three pillar model well.
2. Social sustainability is supposed to be one of the pillars, but in a recent article version, this one of the three has much poorer sourcing than either environmental or economic sustainability. If there are supposed to be three pillars but one is much less developed, something is off about the model. The difference is not because of lack of wiki development - that third pillar really is less in the source material.
3. The SDGs are much more discussed as a model of sustainability. I expect the reason why they are not being used to model this article is because they are discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia. Still, I think they are the contemporary global framework for defining and discussing sustainability. I do not think we are going to find a more discussed, more agreed-upon model for discussing sustainability than the SDGs.

Bluerasberry (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There are three inter-related Wikipedia articles on this topic: sustainability, sustainable development (a rather poor article at present) and Sustainable Development Goals (an OK article). Last year, User seemountain had proposed to merge sustainability and sustainable development into one. At the time it was decided to keep them separate. See talk page discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_development#How_to_remove_overlap_with_sustainability?. Do you want to revisit that discussion? The two concepts have overlap but in practice are used slightly differently, I think. The SDGs are time bound to 2030, they are a construct of the UN and I don't think they serve as a framework for sustainability. It's the other way around: sustainability is the overarching concept; from there we have derived sustainable development and the SDGs have defined a set of targets and indicators around that. EMsmile (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, the 2019 review that you mentioned is already prominently used in the Wikipedia article.

This link is not working: "but in a recent article version"

Please show me evidence of this: "there are 1,000 sources using the SDGs to discuss sustainability"? Which of those do you regard as reliable sources and worth citing here? The SDGs are based on the sustainability concept, not the other way around.

What would it mean in practical terms to "structure this article around the Sustainable Development Goals"? Do you have any reliable sources at hand that do that? What would the new table of content be like? EMsmile (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I honestly think the 3-dimension content is absolutely crucial to this article. Connected to it is the issue of trade-offs between the 3 dimensions which is also central to understanding why achieving sustainability (even just conceptually, let alone in practice) is difficult. The trade-offs are also key to understanding the difficulties around achieving the SDGs. I quote from the sustainability article to illustrate this: There are trade-offs to be made between objectives of environmental policies (such as nature conservation) and those focused on economic development (such as poverty reduction). There are also trade-offs between short-term profit and long-term viability. For example the question might arise: "Is it more sustainable to invest in protecting the rainforest or to alleviate the hunger of people in need?".. And I quote from the Wikipedia SDG article: The trade-offs among the 17 SDGs are a difficult barrier to sustainability and might even prevent their realization. For example these are three difficult trade-offs to consider: "How can ending hunger be reconciled with environmental sustainability? (SDG targets 2.3 and 15.2) How can economic growth be reconciled with environmental sustainability? (SDG targets 9.2 and 9.4) How can income inequality be reconciled with economic growth? (SDG targets 10.1 and 8.1)." If you take out the 3 dimensions you would give readers the illusion that sustainability is a very simple thing. It's not. EMsmile (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

If you wanted to move all the content about the 3 dimensions to a sub-article called Dimensions of sustainability (or similar) it would mean moving these sections: 2 Development of three dimensions of sustainability, 3 Environmental sustainability, 4 Economic sustainability, 5 Social sustainability, 6 Proposed additional dimensions. Not much of substance would remain then. All that just in the interest of over-simplifying the concept of sustainability? Not talk about trade-offs? I think it would be wrong. EMsmile (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Have been monitoring the exchange on the talk page between editors EMsmile Bluerasberry and אלכסנדר סעודה .

Would like to say YES to this definition from McGill and U Alberta:

"Sustainability means meeting our own needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In addition to natural resources, we also need social and economic resources." This according to https://www.mcgill.ca/sustainability/files/sustainability/what-is-sustainability.pdf This also echoes the work of the Brundtland Commission.

The scientific explanation involves the interaction of societal, economic and environmental aspects. The wedding cake model https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2016-06-14-the-sdgs-wedding-cake.html provides a good perspective on how the economic layer is a subset of the societal layer and these are a subset to the much broader and all encompassing environmental foundation. These are not equal entities or "pillars" as many economists explained it 20-30 years ago. So that is where the article could need some updating.

Removing the 3 dimensional explanation and replacing it just with the SDGs themselves as recommended by editor Bluerasberry would fall short as a scientific explanation. The SDGs 2030 Agenda is a "shopping list" of sustainability targets and a communications tool to help achieve equitable sustainability - but the platform doesn't define sustainability in a scientific way. And besides, in 7-8 years when we hit 2030 the SDGs will be a thing of the past just like the MDGs which terminated in 2015. So how will this Wikipedia article look then?

But do look at what is being written about the failing SDG Agenda. Frank Bierman, a sustainability guru writes "All talk no action" - https://theconversation.com/un-sustainable-development-goals-failing-to-have-meaningful-impact-our-research-warns-185269 . And see what is being written these days even by the UN - the SDGs Agenda has already been "replaced" by the new "Our Common Agenda" that has no 2030 deadline. https://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/ But again the scientific definition is not there.

The purpose of this article in Wikipedia is to explain what is meant by sustainability. The elements of societal, economic and environmental aspects are the vital backbone to the concept of sustainability in the published literature. The article does justice to the topic in its present state. ASRASR (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added a section now about possible definitions, perhaps this helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Possible_definitions . However, for that definition from McGill and U Alberta can we find a better reference than a 4-page flyer without a date (here)? Also most likely they are not the original authors of this statement anyhow (bolding added by me): "Sustainability means meeting our own needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In addition to natural resources, we also need social and economic resources. Sustainability is not just environmentalism. Embedded in most definitions of sustainability we also find concerns for social equity and economic development." (the first sentence is just the Brundtland Report definition but using "sustainability" instead of "sustainable development"; the sentences after that actually echo was I've been saying about the importance of 3 dimensions; and it stresses the fact that there are several definitions of sustainability). EMsmile (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I will try to explain my point of view how much clearly: EMsmile Bluerasberry ASRASR

About definition:

• Wikipedia like any encyclopedia is designed to provide clear, correct and objective information. This helps people to make the right desicions and survive. For this people spend time and force on it.
• The page sustainability is the most important page in the environmental domain as it explains the existential threat to the existence of humanity his causes and the solutions.
• Hundreds of millions of people are learning "Sustainability" in different modes or want to know about it.
• We must provide information that will be clear not only to a professor but also to a sixth grader.
• The page has to contain: A. Explanation what is sustainability. B. Explanation of the threats to it. C. Explanation of solutions. D. Explanation of positions of different groupes(governments busines etc.) - what they are doing.
• The definition must explain what is sustainability: the ability of humanity and biosphere to exist constantly. I think that the existing sources tell it enough clearly and Wikipedia encourage to use our words.
• If, still, you think we need to cite exactly in the words of the sources, I prefere the definition from Britannica:

"the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice. In general, sustainability is understood as a form of intergenerational ethics in which the environmental and economic actions taken by present persons do not diminish the opportunities of future persons to enjoy similar levels of wealth, utility, or welfare."

• it is relatively clear.
• But still after we must explain that this refers to the ability of humanity to survive.

About dimensions:

• For dozens of years people argued what is more important: environmental economic or societal sustainability, untill it became clear that it is the same thing.
• When environment collapse the economy and society collapse also.
• This is mainly recognized today and even the World Economic Forum writed in his page many time that half of GDP is connected to nature.
• Climate change , Covid-19 are the main cause of economic losses today.
• Therfore there is no sence to write about the 3 dimensions of sustanability a lot.
• it should be mentioned as it is still presented in the scientific world and because economy and society are unsustainable because they harm environment.

Deleting content puted by me:

• I worked on this page for about 3 years.
• Now most of my work is destroyed. The deleted content include:
• All the 3 "Warnings to humanity" from scientists signed by thousands of scientist=information what is the position of scientists about sustanability.
• The latest report to UN Stockholm+50 specifically designed to "to stimulate an informed debate on why change towards a sustainable future is not happening at pace with the challenges humans and the planet face, and guide leaders to actions they can take now, informed by relevant science." = information what is the position of scientists about sustanability.
• All the information about the position of scientific community as a whole (section about position of scientific community).
• Information about the concept of Overdevelopment of leopold cohr explaining what is the problem with the concept of development.
• Information about the planetary boundaries (short colorfull template exactly what needed to explain it to people without PhD).
• Information about sustainability and wellbeing designed to make people understand why stopping overconsumption can improve well being.
• Information about I = PAT formule explaining the 3 main path to sustainability the discussion about them the fact that already now almost all use al the approaches.
• Almost all the structure of definition - problem - solution as a whole.

Instead the main focus has been put on the 3 dimensions concept which is only confuse people in my opinion. I think it do not reach the main objective of Wikipedia and has a relation to the fact that when I writed my part of the article it has 70,000 pageviews by month and now only 45,000. I think it should be repaired. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

My responses: The article is already structured similarly to your "A. Explanation what is sustainability. B. Explanation of the threats to it. C. Explanation of solutions. D. Explanation of positions of different groupes": Sections 1-6 explain what sustainability is (your Section A). Section 9 talks about type of barriers (your Section B). I think barrier is the more suitable term, not threat. A threat applies to the health of an ecosystems (for example) but not to a normative concept. It's like saying "threats to ethics"; ethics is not threatened but there can be barriers to living ethically. Section 10 talks about options for overcoming barriers (your Section C). The last section on "responses" is similar to your Section D but shorter as I don't think that it would have to be overly detailed.

To try and compromise I've just restructured the bottom third of the article by making it more clear: what are the types of barriers and what are options to overcome them.

You talk about I = PAT formula and planetary boundaries. These concepts are indeed important. They are briefly explained in the article and put into context. For more details on those, the reader is directed to the relevant sub-articles (earlier this year I also worked on improving planetary boundaries). Perhaps you overlooked them? Just use control+F and you can find them in the article.

The definition of Encyclopedia Britannica is now included as one of several possible definitions of sustainability (it is not up to us to decide which one is "best"; we are meant to summarise the literature).

Show me publications to substantiate your claim that "For dozens of years people argued what is more important: environmental economic or societal sustainability, untill it became clear that it is the same thing." if you are referring to the concept of strong and weak sustainability, note that there is another article about that here: Weak and strong sustainability.

The literature is full of publications that explain sustainability by using 3 (or even more) dimensions. Show me the literature (not websites and blog posts) that would substantiate your claim of "Instead the main focus has been put on the 3 dimensions concept which is only confuse people in my opinion.". Perhaps it's just your gut feeling or do you have literature available that would back this up? If so, we can show both sides: those scholars who explain the importance of 3 dimensions for sustainability and those scholars who explain sustainability without using 3 dimensions. But as per WP:DUE we would need to get the balance of the viewpoints right. EMsmile (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think that now the article is looking better after the improvements you made here. I saw that the number of page views stop falling sharply maybe this is one of the causes.
• As I understand Sustainability is the ability to exist constantly or for a very long time (long terme viability as define it Britannica) it of course can be threatened and sadly this is the case now.
• The I=PAT formmula is presented here almost as it should be. It refers not only to government practice but also to action by NGOs, scientists studies. I think it should be in the beginning of the section about solutions.
• The concept of planetary boundaries is represented here but I think the template that I take from the page about them can add much especialy to people not familiar with the issue. It explain also what boundaries are crossed and which not.
• I think we should take at least the less disputed definition and I think this of Britanica (I think we can define it as long terme viability referring generally to humanity and biosphere it is said enough clear in the source) convenient because it not include neither the dimensions nor definitions from sustainable development.
• The dependance of economy and society on environment is shown in the scheme of "concentric circles model of sustainability" I think now it is more popular than others because the latest Report to UN on the issue Stockholm+50 use it. When environment collapse the other 2 also.
• The concept of the 3 dimensions is very unclear and disputed as it shown for example in the publication of Ben Puris. Yes I think it should be presented in the section about definition: we should explain it explain the criticism and explain why in fact our economy and society is unsustainable because it hurt environment (concentric circles).
• As about the space dedicated to solutions: I know that there is different point of views about them and I think those who have representation in the scientific world should be present. But I think some key points that I mentioned above should be present (overdevelopment, well being and sustainability) of course if someone have proofs that there is better solution it can write it. Als I think we should give some basic guide about solutions: make some list from about 15 most popular like reforestation, energy efficiency. It will help people that did not heard about it before to understand.

Response to ASRASR "The purpose of this article in Wikipedia is to explain what is meant by sustainability" The page climate change contain not only the definition of climate change but also the causes effects mitigation and adaptation. Therfore the page about sustainability should also contain not only definition. Also it should act as an umbrella page to main pages in the environmental and other domains. For example in the pages climate change, biodiversity, planetary boundaries, GDP, economy in the lead section should be mentioned the link to sustainability. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The definition is indeed crucial, and the article should reflect the different views. There are basically two schools: the three (or more) dimensions view and what we may call the environmental view. The former is dominant in the literature, the latter stays closest to the meaning of sustainability in dictionaries, and also in the Brundtland Report. It also stays closer to the historical use of the term, as explained in the article. I agree with you the the three dimensions view suffers from a lack of clarity, which becomes evident once you try to describe the social dimension. However, since it reflects the way sustainability is treated in much of the relevant literature, it must also be included in the article. Moreover, when you conceptualize the three dimensions as nested, as is done in the diagram where the outer circle is the environment and the inner one the economy, the relationship between the dimensions is clarified, and, to me at least, the two views can be reconciled. Environment is basic, society has to function within it, and the economy is one part of society.

The definition in the Britannica is more in agreement with the environmental view, but it is rather verbose. I would prefer a simpler definition, such as "the quality of being able to continue over a period of time" (Cambridge Dictionary). The Brundtland definition is based on this view. TK26 (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi TK26, thanks for these inputs. I think you summarised it very nicely when you said: "There are basically two schools: the three (or more) dimensions view and what we may call the environmental view. The former is dominant in the literature, the latter stays closest to the meaning of sustainability in dictionaries, and also in the Brundtland Report." I'd be happy to add something along those lines to the Wikipedia article's lead but I think we do need a good reference for that (it cannot be our own original research or deductions (see WP:OR). We could perhaps write something along those lines in the first paragraph of the lead but we're on thin ice unless we feel we have enough content and references in the main text of the article to justify these statements in the lead. Which publications would come to mind for you? EMsmile (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The marriage between these two "schools" is depicted in the "wedding cake model". Which I have just added to the article with a published open access reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Development_of_three_dimensions. Accompanied by Felix Mendelssohn if you wish. Regards ASRASR (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

New sub-heading on Relationship of three dimensions to each other

I've just added a new sub-heading on "Relationship of three dimensions to each other". This was prompted by the comment of User:ASRASR above who wrote: The marriage between these two "schools" is depicted in the "wedding cake model". Which I have just added to the article with a published open access reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Development_of_three_dimensions. However, I don't like this new text block that much. While it feels right intuitively, it is poorly sourced. There is no ref for the sentence on the nested circles diagram. And the ref provided for the wedding cake schematic is also not great as it actually says something different in the source: "The SDG ‘Wedding cake’ shows the biosphere as the foundation of economies and societies and as the basis of all SDGs". It's similar but not quite the same. I looked through some of the refs that we've already used in this article but I think the academic literature is shying away from making simplified statements about which dimension is "more important" than the other. The whole idea is that they all belong together and all need to be considered in some way, shape or form. Perhaps this kind of content is only available on NGO type websites? I am not sure. Note the other thing is that we later have a section on "interactions between the dimensions". Perhaps this section should be moved to there. Here is the text block as it currently stands:

Relationship of three dimensions to each other

The nested circles diagram of the three dimensions of sustainability implies a situation where society is embedded in the environment, and economic conditions are embedded in society. It therefore stresses a hierarchy. A similar depiction of the three dimensions or systems is the "SDG wedding cake" model where the economy is a smaller subset of the societal system that in turn is a smaller subset of the environmental/biosphere system which all life depends on. EMsmile (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Overall I think it would be more important to improve the sections on barriers and transformations now, rather than get hung up about the status of the environmental dimension over the other two. EMsmile (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Content from SEI Youth report "Charting a youth vision for a just and sustainable future"

I think the page is now enough good for going to review etc. The youth version of the report make recommendations about international cooperation "Living as one global family" 'Diplomacy on service of all" that are not presented on the page now. I think it should be mentioned at least one time. If you are tired I can add it by itself in 1 line. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the SEI Youth report "Charting a youth vision for a just and sustainable future". I've taken one statement from it and included it as follows: "Young people are using a combination of activism, litigation and on-the-ground efforts to "advancing sustainability", particularly in the area of climate action." I've put "advancing sustainability" into quotation marks as it's not 100% clear in this statement what this means exactly. But it could also be done without quotation marks, I guess. - And I've mentioned the Youth report in the sentence about greenwashing (even though the report only mentions greenwashing once). - But I can't see how text such as "Living as one global family" and "Diplomacy on service of all" should be included in an encyclopedic article about sustainability. EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It can be present as " "Living as one global family and 'Diplomacy on service of all" is neccesary for the transition to a sustainable world (The latest war in Ukraine that exacerbated the food crisis causedby climate change is a good example). Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I'm unconvinced on this. Firstly, the report doesn't say that ("is necessary for the transition to a sustainable world"). Secondly, so far they're just buzz words/jargon; what does "living as one global family" and "Diplomacy on service of all" really mean? Is it any different to the text that is already there in the section on "sustainability transition"? EMsmile (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It means international cooperation and peace. It not presented in the page (except in a very vague way in "human solidarity"). It is neccesary that it whould be mentioned. The whole report is writed for explain how to reach a sustainable world. It is mentioned in the Title of the report and in the foreword.

https://www.sei.org/publications/charting-a-youth-vision/

Those are not buzzwords, It is explained well. See pages 24, 28-29

https://www.sei.org/publications/charting-a-youth-vision/ Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a sentence could be included in the section on social sustainability but I disagree with this statement which I feel is only jargon: "Living as one global family and 'Diplomacy on service of all" is necessary for the transition to a sustainable world". It needs to stick close to the source but still be encyclopedic. "Diplomacy on service of all" is as vague as it gets! EMsmile (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now cited the Youth report 3 times in the Wikipedia article. I can’t find any more ways of citing it, and I don’t think it’s necessary. It’s an interesting report but it doesn’t help us much in describing what sustainability is. For example it does not specifically mention “social sustainability” once even though I think that is what they are referring to in some places. I don’t think it needs to be cited more often than this. If you disagree, please don’t post here a long text but write 1-2 very specific sentences that are encyclopedic (not WP:OR), including the page number that you want to cite.EMsmile (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)