Talk:Sustainability/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Formatting

I would definitely prefer if those Main article headings were removed. What is really essential will be linked from the text, and other stuff can be put in See also. I will look things over if there is anything that jumps out at me. V.B. (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The onle other thing I see: I would prefer if the sustainability template at the bottom load in a collapsed state. It would unclutter the article. V.B. (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We could perhaps put some of the links into the collapsed template. I dont know either the conventions or how collapsing is done. Have a look at today's Featured Article on the main page. It uses "Main article" headings all the way through. Sems to be a matter of taste - I'll go with Consensus. Sunray should be able to clue us up on all this. Do you know the authors of the "Sustainability Principles" book? Granitethighs (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has done some random alterations and deletions in the article. What do we do in these circumstances? Granitethighs (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Links to main articles are a good idea. Usually there is one, sometimes two or more per major section. One is usually the norm; certainly not lists of links. V.B. is right about including links in the article. That is best practice. Usually only the first use of a term is linked.

I've reverted the changes made by the anon editor. They seemed pretty random, did not result in improvements and had no edit summaries. We should probably put up a note that a major re-write is in progress to minimize this type of drive-by revisions. Sunray (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I kinda liked the changes made by anon. But we can consider them later. I collapsed the template.

Yeah, I liked the anon's changes too—at least, what I could understand of the intent (which was difficult without edit summaries). However, some of them changed the caption for images. The grammar was pretty bad. I do think we need to deal with some of the issues he seemed to be tackling, so, as you say, we can come back to them. Sunray (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I did check out the article on Kaziranga National Park. I learned something new: the Main article link is indeed useful, but in a very specific circumstance: when there is an article already in existence that directly enlarges the subsection in question. For example, the subsection on Fauna is linked to a larger and more detailed article on the fauna of this national park. Another example is the article on Buckingham Palace. The subsection on The Garden and the Mews has a Main link to an article specifically dealing with the Buckingham Palace garden. In Sustainability, this is not the case, and there is often redundancy: for example, Main link points to acid rain and climate change when in fact that subsection already has those articles embedded in the text.

If I read you right, you are describing summary style. Have I got that right? Sunray (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The book is Principles of Sustainability, by Simon Dresner, 2002. The paperback is coming next month, but the hardback should be easy to get thru the library. I took a peek via Amazon, and it looks like most of the book is a very detailed history of the concept. It appears that it was actually the World Council of Churches that originated the term. V.B. (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

V.B. in red:

I have on my desk a book by William R Blackburn (I actually have about 4 meters of books on the general philosophy of sustainability) awesome, you'll be acting as our reference librarian as well as co-editor! :-)published in 2008 called “The Sustainability Handbook”, it is one of the books I put in the References section of the article. Chapter 1 is titled “Addressing the confusion about sustainability: the typical executive view”. Chapter 2 is called “Determining scope: an operational definition of sustainability”. Chapter 2 is interesting because it gives a range of definitions of “sustainability” from the general literature including: The UK Government, the World Conservation Union, United Nations Environmental Program, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, the Forum for the Future, the UN Secretary General, International Institute for Sustainable Development (business based). The book, to my mind, is too business based – but it is one among many attempts to come to grips with this slippery topic. It points out that in the general literature there are two key frequently repeated themes. The first is the definition given by the Brundtland Report (which we have in the lead), the second is the necessity for integration of environmental, social and economic forces in setting a way forward, sometimes called Elkington’s TBL (Triple Bottom Line) which we are just about to deal with. this is a real problem for me; as the article on SD points out (and I'd like to point out that that article is woefully inadequate...) this is an SD construct, including the diagram, and creates the impression that somehow economics and the human social sphere are somehow not within/dependent on, the living world Before we get going I would like to make the point that has already been raised, and that is … as an encyclopaedia Wikipedia must express a NPOV (neutral point of view). Put simply, what we should be doing is to present sustainability as it currently stands, NOT sustainability as we would like it to be. We have flexibility because of the controversial aspect of definition but sustainability, as an encyclopaedia article, can no more be “hijacked” by the environment than it can be “hijacked” by sustainable development (and I would call myself an environmentalist). well, this is part of the whole controversy, and maybe the best we can do on some subsections is to sum up the controversy and present a pro/con response to it, in order to remain fair

I found this on the web and think it is not bad: Sustainability is many things to many people. It can simultaneously be an idea, an ideology, a manufacturing method, a way of life and a crusade. Unfortunately for many businesses and marketers, sustainability is little more than a hollow buzz word. this is surprisingly good So what is sustainability?

Sustainability Defined

In order to understand what sustainability is all about it first needs a definition. Sustainability has been defined hundreds of times but the most commonly accepted definition of sustainablilty was created in 1987 at the Brundtland Commission otherwise known as the World Commission on Environment and Development.

This definition states "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations to meet their own needs".let's always keep in mind that Brundtland presented a definition of SD, not sustainability itself; from this an oft-used definition was derived, but is not the only one

I have three points:

• The article must adhere to NPOV (which is Wikipedia procedure)

• The article cannot contain original research

• In the lead we talk about sustainability as a “call to action”. I think this is the nearest we can get to global consensus on what sustainability is all about, and the meat of the article should be what that action entails and why it is necessary (this is what I clumsily referred to as an “international program” in the “rewrite”) – perhaps we can philosophise on this suggestion for a few pages in this discussion talk section if you like. a good point, let me think this thru

… and three suggestions:

• I approach the article with the view that we want to be as objective and informative as possible for the reader, and give them access to Wikipedia as an information resource. Each of the topics in the article as they currently stand is huge and there are generally more extended articles about them. It makes good sense to direct the reader to the more extended discussions, perhaps one or occasionally two but we need to rationalize the “See also” section and discuss what should be in the sustainability “template” at the bottom.yes

• I am not sure that a trawl through the etymology of “sustainability” will be productive completely agree– it is derived from the Middle English and has clearly undergone all sorts of transformation. For all its inadequacies I think the statement “the meaning of a word is its use” has a lot going for it. Perhaps better to tackle the current sustainable development bias in the article directly if that is where you are coming from. However, if you think it will be productive – good luck.

• Could we agree to a procedure for moving on as quickly as possible? Sunray - you have been though this whole process many times before. What do you suggest?

Granitethighs (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I like where you are going with this. The "many things to many people" quote you have given is a good way to introduce broader discussion and definition. I agree that etymology is not appropriate. I agree with your suggestions. As to method. A good outline can work well. We could start with the topic headings currently in the article and modify them. Also, take a look at the "To do" list I've begun at the top of the page. What needs adding/changing?

You mention NPOV. What do you think of a political section in which we discuss, not only sustainable development and the issues of mainstream society, but also, some of the views that do not place humans at the centre of the universe, such as deep ecology, social ecology, and perhaps even new tribalism? sounds great, but can we keep it smallish? :-)Sunray (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a couple of additions to "To do" list - thanks for putting that at the top of the page. I think that a political section like the one you suggest would be great. I'm sure there is a huge head of steam sitting under "safe sustainability" and this would be a release valve. My only concern would be that it should not take up more than its fair share of space in the context of the article. I like the idea of ecocentrism as an alternative to anthropocentrism. But, once I get going on that you'll have to hold me down. It would need careful wording so as not to become a ranters corner - we can point people to the areas you mention.

To get us on the move again perhaps you and VB could suggest ways of adjusting the Definition section and list any changes/amendments/deletions etc to the current list of headings? will do

Granitethighs (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"... Ranters' corner." Yes, indeed. We may want to do a sub-article on it. As you suggest, that might be fun. I should have some time over the weekend to dive into the definition section. BTW I toned down the heading of this section. No need to shout (anymore). Sunray (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

V.B. (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, after a good two-weeks of watching Olympics, I'm back to do some more editing on this article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible outlines

My first sketch:

• History
• Definition
• Sustainable development?
• Organizing principles
• Obstacles to sustainability
• Action-guiding principles
• Measuring sustainability
• Global consensus
• Transition to sustainability

Notes: 1) after further reflection, I suggest putting History first; as I began to jot down notes on the Definition section, I needed to speak about Brundtland, and I think a newby would be clueless at this point if the Definition section came first. Once they have an overview from History, they will be in a better position to understand further discussion; 2) the organizing principles described, the three pillars (turning into 5 pillars as we speak), give undue weight to the SD POV, and are further critiqued by Hassan. She suggests another way of organizing, and it seems to me that NPOV requires that we mention the main ways of organizing but privilege none; 4) Action-guiding principles ought to go over things like waste = food, biomimetics and other guides for people who want practical advice; 5) Transition ought to focus not only on general ideas and suggestions, but also on notable practices.

I would like to see us write with close attention to honesty; not that we aren’t, but there is way too much fluff, BS, political correctness and denial in the writings on sustainability and I hope we can do better.

The otherwise excellent extended section under Environmental pillar suffers from a focus that I would call “the dire situation of the natural world” (i.e. a focus on unsustainability) and would perhaps be more properly integrated into the separate articles on each topic, whether air or cultivated land et al.

Regarding NPOV, what we have at present gives undue weight to POVs that I would classify as SD, bureaucratic (or political), and managerial. Can we enlarge the fold to include others?

Re template, it’s missing systems thinking. Otherwise, feel free to do what you will with it, right now it’s too much for me to think about. V.B. (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thought this was in the reading list: Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes by Robert B. Gibson, Selma Hassan, Susan Holtz, and James Tansey (Paperback - Dec 2005) V.B. (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how this template will deal with sustainability as it applies in specific sectors (energy, waste, agriculture, and transport which is currently missing) and if not, where this content goes? Keeping the article brief and high level is a good aim, but if it's all as abstract as your headings look to be, then perhaps it may get boring? --Travelplanner (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking all that would go into the Transition. (?) V.B. (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a variation on the outline V.B. put forward above, taking some of the comments into account, adding some of my own reactions.

• History
• Definition, organizing principles
• Obstacles to sustainability
• Sustainable development?
• Action, achievements (by sector)
  • Agriculture
  • Building
  • Energy
  • Transport
  • Waste
• Measuring sustainability
• Global consensus
• Transition to sustainability

Please add, subtract, or modify at will. Sunray (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! V.B. (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy and rants (subjective and personal section)

As far as I am concerned, there is only one pillar – the living world, and our dilemma is how to live within it while not continuing to wreak grievous damage on it, or even destroying our chances of survival. As Hassan points out, the three pillars framework is really conflictual, not cooperational. Every time someone speaks for sustaining some part of the natural world, the two other pillars rise in uproar and prevent anything truly effective being done, and so the status quo is perpetuated.

The other problem with the pillars approach, to my mind, is that it scatters itself over everything: sustainability is supposed to do everything from curing hunger, saving civilization and getting the crabgrass out of the lawn. Nuts. We need to refocus and deal with the real issue. Which is? Ongoing human thriving. Whatever it takes. V.B. (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Using the social or economic pillars as a reason to block progress on the ecological pillar certainly is a common rationalization for not taking action. This does seem to be one of the great impediments to progress towards sustainability. I say "seem" because if there is a will to genuinely use triple bottom line accounting, the results are usually very different. Take for example life cycle analysis, which is increasingly used in green building. By using various screens (GHG emissions embodied energy, etc.) one does get a very good picture of the ecological component. If one takes the short-term view economically, it often seems that the most sustainable is more expensive. However, change the time variable to "sustainable for seven generations," and the picture changes dramatically. We should not confuse rationalization with rationale. BTW, don't you think Granitethighs was being somewhat ironic when he talked about a "ranters corner?" We cannot actually permit this, since it would be unencyclopedic. Sunray (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that triple bottom line is, as critics say, "a rhetorical device with little substance." I don't think one can create sustainability by fiddling with bits of subsets of the economic framework if it all remains within the larger embrace of an economic system that is completely unsustainable. -- Lifecycle assessment makes sense, and I think can be used to make improvements, esp. in the sense of creating closed industrial processes. Still... I have a horrible sense that small gains toward sustainability, say in building greener houses, is just not enough by far to get us there. That we are fooling ourselves. -- Nah! Perish the thought! The rants are for here only! :-) V.B. (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since GT requested a philosophy section, I thought I'd add rants too... where people can clarify where they're coming from "from the heart" so to speak. V.B. (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that the triple bottom line can be a rhetorical device. Corporations and governments who employ the term have so far been incapable of actually becoming more sustainable. Green wash is more like it. This is not surprising. Has not change in human history always come from the margins rather than the centre? In the lead we listed three levels of human organization dedicated to sustainability. Of the three, the most change is happening at the smaller, more grass roots, end of the spectrum. While governments and corporations obfuscate, entities like ecovillages get on with it. Take a look at Earthaven. They are off the grid, using natural building, have a strong community and are part of a vibrant local economy. However, they started from scratch (14 years ago). They do not have the baggage of established organizations. Here's another take on social, economic, and ecological strategies. Clearly these folks believe that to be sustainable, you need to have the three in balance. Looking at their strategies, it is evident that from their perspective, you need the social to build a conservation ethic. You need the economic to build a local economy. Sunray (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I spent 3 weeks at Earthhaven a couple of years ago. It is (was) half an ecovillage and half a pioneer village where the eco part is given short shrift as people scramble to survive. The place was kinda trashed in places, and while in the beginning people used horses for careful logging, now they just go in with a chain saw and mow down a hillside or field without regard for runoff (or even state law). I really liked being there, felt wonderful kinship with the people, and would have stayed if it were not for their stringent anti-cat policy (and the place was overrun with mice!). I have since come to distrust politically-correct paper principles, and look far more at practices, which are hard to evaluate if one does not go there... Communities mag is not likely to write about the shadow side; they try to stay upbeat. Dancing Rabbit is said to walk the walk more than Earthhaven. -- We people (H. sapiens) have lived sustainable lives for 97% (or more, for some tribes) of our existence on Earth. It did not take pretty speeches or "building an economy", it simply meant an existence that reflected relatively small impact of human bands, and a mode of being where everything was part of planetary cycles. V.B. (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)