Talk:Sustainability/Definition/Archive 1

Previous working

In the broadest sense, sustainability is defined as the ability to sustain a certain process or state at a certain rate or level. The term carries a variety of definitions depending on the context in which it is applied, the most common contexts being; ecological, social, economic and holistic. To be sustainable, regardless of context, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally, thus in the broad definition of Sustainability, greatest importance is placed on the ecological context as all other contexts are dependent on the sustainable use of the Earth's resources

Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from its complexity, in that it can be seen to encompass all human activity. Although science forms the basis of sustainability concepts, it is sometimes also perceived as a general concept like liberty or justice, which is accepted as being of critical importance to humanity and life in general, and can also be viewed as a "dialogue of values" that defies consensual definition. Like many other terms, "sustainability" is also open to various political interpretations.

(Discussion)

I would like to suggest the following here. I think the nearest we can get to definitions of sustainability have now been given in the lead - from general to particular, not much point in repeating ourselves. The business of definition is an area of controversy within the literature (and ourselves) so I think the way to deal with this is to be up front about it. The following I believe covers this situation reasonably well. However, I do think there is some sort of general consensus about what sustainability means and I think that is captured in the broad-brush dotted points here. We will be getting down to more direct stuff relevant to the individual later. I believe most of us have accepted them as useful. They give people something to latch on to. Having said that, Skip has pointed out that he thinks it is all useless UN jargon so we cannot take that as a given. I also acknowledge that at this point we might be wanting to take a slightly different approach or direction from the one I am proposing, but if that is the case please offer a convincing alternative rather than an expression of dissatisfaction. For example we might use the list elsewhere but concentrate more specifically on "environmental sustainability" themes.

Although the definition of sustainable development given by the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations (see above) is frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part because human impact on the environment occurs all the time, in all situations, and at all levels of human organisation; it therefore encompasses all human activity. As a consequence some people regard sustainability as an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice" while others regard it as a hollow contemporary buzz word. It has also been treated as a "dialogue of values"[24] that defies consensual definition.[25] Because it is often treated as a call to action the implementation of sustainability is also open to political interpretation.

As a global movement directed at human sustainability the following key elements have been targeted:

• providing future generations with the same environmental potential as presently exists (address intergenerational equity)
• managing economic growth to be less resource intensive and less polluting (decouple economic growth from environmental deterioration)
• integrating sectoral and environmental policies (integrate sectors)
• maintaining and enhancing the adaptive capacity of the environmental system (ensure environmental adaptability)
• avoiding irreversible long-term environmental damage to ecosystems and human health (prevent irreversible damage)
• avoiding unfair or high environmental costs on vulnerable populations (ensure distributional equity)
• assuming responsibility for environmental effects that occur outside the area of jurisdiction (accept global responsibility)
• involving people and communities in understanding the problems and developing new solutions (grassroots democracy)

I agree with skip only in that the UN definition is a bit outdated and substandard. I think I've suggested once before that this dot point list would be better suited to the description section (which we might be coming to soon). I've finally uploaded the synthesis of all previous versions and proposals below, have a look and let me know if you feel any of what you've proposed above could be included there. Nick carson (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Social

When applied in the social context, sustainability is expressed as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Social sustainability is also seen as being an umbrella term encompassing various other social systems and concepts such as social justice, environmentalism, community ownership, etc. It is applied to various socially sustainable practices and concepts such as; ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, sustainable building, etc. This definition relies on the sustainable use of the Earth's resources, to sustain the human population and its social systems.

I think at this point we are again heading into deep water. Problem is I wonder if we can come up with "universally" acceptable definitions on the social and economic fronts. Also i am confused as to whether sustainability is more about the integration of these disciplines rather than making each, individually, sustainable if you see what I mean. Also we are heading fairly strongly into "sustainable development" country here and I think we should avoid poaching their thunder. I need a little time to think through this. I do like your incorporation of "social" sustainability on a more local level here. Granitethighs (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Economic

When applied in an economic context, it is defined as the qualification and viable continuity of interaction, inter and intra entreprise, and is used as a synonym for supporting business practices, processes and systems enabling the long term development and growth of an activity. Economic sustainability remains a contentious, debated issue as many believe that current economic systems are inherently unsustainable and thus progressions incorporating elements of social sustainability must take their place. Economic sustainability relies on the sustainable use of the Earth's resources, without which, economic, financial and business matters could not exist.

Ecological

When applied in the ecological context, sustainability is defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. This definition is most often applied to the way human beings use and manage the Earth's resources, and is most often applied to the various sustainable resource management disciplines such as; Tree farms, sustainable agriculture, aquaculture, renewable sources of energy such as the wind, sun, etc. Ecological sustainability encompasses the most important definition of sustainability, as without the Earth's resources, humanity and all of its social and economic systems could not exist.

Holistic

The holistic context focusses on how all of the above mentioned definitions interrelate as part of the greater planetary or global system, and tries to achieve a balance between them. This definition is sometimes a point of contention as some representatives of each definition feel that more or less importance should be placed on certain definitions than others. The unavoidable constant in this case is that all sub-definitions rely on the sustained management and use of the Earth's resources, thus Ecological Sustainability is regarded as the most important, holding priority above other definitions. It is exemplified in the field of systems ecology, a cross-disciplinary field influenced by general systems theory. Holistic Sustainability encompasses every aspect of how human beings interact with life and resources on Earth. As such, it is seen as the highest priority definition, with the ultimate goal of achieving sustainability for all life and their systems on Earth.

A different approach

I have a different take on this so I’d better explain. Firstly I suggest not repeating sentences that are in the lead in the definition. Also I’m not keen on the split social/economic/environmental quite yet. Defining economic and holistic sustainability seems to me to occupy quite a lot of words for limited gain. This distinction was made in the 1980s by the UN – which is fine but I think this needs to be stated clearly and unambiguously at some stage– but later on when we’ve settled in a bit. Again I think we need to lead in to “human global sustainability (or sustainable development)” but this is only one take on a multifaceted concept so the early stuff needs to be more general. The literature is chock-full of discussion on how to define sustainability and I see it as a matter of fact that the only definition that has been taken up to any extent is the one given by the UN Brundtland Commission and stated at the end of my suggested lead. However, the contention and bickering over definition is real and needs some coverage. There is gathering clarity about where we are going with “human global sustainability” and I think it will be helpful for readers to have something firm to grasp on here so I have given them a list of things to think about (it has a good reference). Yes, this is only one aspect of “sustainability” but, lets face it, it will be the one most are interested in and the list is strong if adhered to. This list was deleted by someone in an earlier version - I like it because it is thought-provoking over important issues even though we might think it lacks teeth.

I can add references to all the statements which need citations.

So:

Although the definition of sustainable development (see above) given by the Brundtland Commission, is frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from the fact that it may be seen to encompass all human activity so it has become an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice". It has also been treated as a "dialogue of values"[24] that defies consensual definition.[25] Because it is often treated as a call to action it is also open to political interpretation.

As a global movement directed at human sustainability the following key elements have been targeted:

• providing future generations with the same environmental potential as presently exists (address intergenerational equity)
• managing economic growth to be less resource intensive and less polluting (decouple economic growth from environmental deterioration)
• integrating sectoral and environmental policies (integrate sectors)
• maintaining and enhancing the adaptive capacity of the environmental system (ensure environmental adaptability)
• avoiding irreversible long-term environmental damage to ecosystems and human health (prevent irreversible damage)
• avoiding unfair or high environmental costs on vulnerable populations (ensure distributional equity)
• assuming responsibility for environmental effects that occur outside the area of jurisdiction (accept global responsibility)
• Involving people and communities in understanding the problems and developing new solutions (grassroots democracy)

I totally agree, how do we best incorporate it into the proposed definition section? Also, if we achieve consensus on changes and corrections, should we add it to the proposed section above? I think it's a good idea so we always have the most updated/rewriten version available at the top of it's section page such as this. Nick carson (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick - you are very patient with my pickiness ;-) ... what you may not agree to is that I am suggesting that this replace the text at the top of the page altogether. If you or others are not in agreement perhaps a compromise could be reached? Granitethighs (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I do disagree on that. I do though reckon that your dot point list of key elements is well written and is best suited to the "Description" section, either in the "Overview" or "Key Elements/Concepts" subsections, if not; then in the "Definition" section (not in any of its subsections, just under definition). Hope thats not too confusing :] Nick carson (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That's all fine by me.Granitethighs (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I am agreeing with Nick that the dot point list above needs to come after the "definition" section, in a later section. It's very condensed and takes awhile to digest, though well worth the effort. The version at the top of this page is more readable.

Meanwhile, one thing missing from the bullet point list is:

• Involving people and communities in understanding the problems and developing new solutions (grassroots democracy)--Travelplanner (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - the human side of things, very important - I've added it to the list. Granitethighs (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We're probably all aware of this but I'll just reiterate anyway; don't forget that we're going to go through the application of sustainability in later sections, so the dot point list is just a summary of the key areas in which sustainability is defined, it would even be good under the "Key Concepts" subsection or somewhere else in the description section :] Nick carson (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the value of the information above and suggest it not be used

This seems way to long and drawn out for that section. This is over killing U.N. information again... which is viewed by myself as problematic by over weighting sources and connectors there by one editor... this skews things. All that info. is available to people if they follow information and does not have to elongate the article even more.

This kind of stuff should not be focused on because of bias and blatant political aspects... avoiding unfair or high environmental costs on vulnerable populations (ensure distributional equity) What does all that mean.?.. it is a socio political rant, which may be the job of the U.N. but this is way to political and not of value except as political rhetoric. (My opinion) this area is mostly filler then... Please do not add it. skip sievert (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Skip

In reply to Skip I think a few points need to be made.

1. I think it will help if the article makes a distinction between “human sustainability on this planet” and a whole host of other kinds of sustainability – even though all are connected (e.g. sustainable wetland) – I hope we have achieved this in the lead and definition and it will be emphasised in the “history” section.

2. Rightly or wrongly, probably what people reading Wikipedia are most interested in is the human sustainability story.

3. The lead organisation for “human sustainability on this planet” I think it is fair to say is the UN and from this source came the agenda for the integration of economics, society and environment – but the UN tends to lead in general principles only – there is a lot of grass-roots sustainability to be addressed

4. There is an article in Wikipedia on “sustainable development” that tells the UN story.

5. We can regard the UN as a toothless organisation with a political agenda that is disastrously “business as usual” but dressed up with high sounding intentions … or it can be viewed as doing some good.

I must say that, regardless of our own views on the UN, its influence is large – just scan all the discussion about sustainability on the web if you do not believe me.

I feel we need to position our article to acknowledge “sustainable development” but take a more wide-ranging approach. I think there are many biological issues we need to cover, and on the human front there are so many grass-roots community issues that can be explored (and are explored in the current article but perhaps need rejigging). I assume that Skip refers to the list of principles when he refers to blogging – to my mind these present a good framework of broad ideas in relation to “human sustainability on this planet” after we have presented quite a lot of “generality”. Needless to say I’m happy to go with consensus on this one and – I’ll try to say as little as possible now until the next topic comes up. Granitethighs (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Holistic Sustainability or Cultural Sustainability

I wasn't aware of such a thing as holistic sustainability - in NZ environmental and local government law and practice we have environmental, economic, social and cultural sustainability. I am tempted to say (unkindly) that including holistic sustainability runs the risk of highlighting the tree-hugging-sandal-wearing culture, inappropriately, as being the leaders in sustainability thinking and practice. More to the point, some of what's under this heading is actually a summary/conclusion across the four headings (albeit a slightly repetitive one in its current form).

May I suggest the following, to replace the content under holistic

Cultural

The cultural perspective recognises that cultural diversity is as essential to society as biodiversity is to nature, and that humanity is made up of many cultures, some of which have developed sophisticated systems for living within nature's limits. This perspective contends that resource use has accelerated in proportion to the rise of a western, consumer culture and that many potential solutions to the problems of sustainability lie within the knowledge and wisdom of other cultures. (I can add lots of references to this later if it stays).

All of the above mentioned definitions interrelate. Societies, economies and cultures all rely on natural systems and hence on sustainable use of the Earth's resources. Thus Ecological Sustainability is fundamental, holding priority above other definitions.

Cheers --Travelplanner (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See my reply to your discussion on this topic in the main talk page. Holistic Sustainability isn't any representation of tree-hugging-sandle-wearing subculture. Culture is a subject of human society, therefore discussions regarding cultural sustainability can be dealt with under society. But I do think your right in regards to the holistic section. Perhaps it's better we just have "Ecological", "Social", "Economic" and "Other Contexts" (under which we can summarise any other contexts in which sustainability is defined. Nick carson (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture anyone?

• 
  The three interlocking perspectives of sustainability

My son made this for us if we want to use it...--Travelplanner (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's really good. I like it - I remember there was quite an extended discussion about diagrams which i must look up in an early archive. We had an editor called VB who discussed fors and againsts for different diagrams and also cited web sites that did the same. Until someone convinces me to the contrary I'm with this one - would make a talking point as a different approach to the sustainable development one that is now all over WP. Granitethighs (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a big discussion regarding the diagram to the right

over here

, it's great but it depicts economic and social spheres as equal to ecological when in reality, the two rely totally on the ecologic sphere or else they wouldn't exist. This diagram you've posted here could be used in tandem with the other one because yours depicts the reliance of each system. I think we should use both in the definition section and it'll work great :] Nick carson (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

With a nod to TP's son's graphic abilities, I'm not convinced that it portrays what we need for the article. I really like the Venn diagram as a conceptual way to convey the interrelationships of the three pillars. The three dimensions equate to the triple bottom line and are well established in sustainability circles. I suggest that we retain the diagram that had been in the article and was discussed on the talk page (with the three intersecting circles), but modify it in two ways: 1) change the "environment" pillar to "ecology," and encompass the whole thing within a larger circle called "Environment."

As rationale, I would point out, that although Elkington, who coined the phrase "triple bottom line" used the terms economic, environmental, and social, others (e.g., Brown, Dillard and Marshall, 2006) have since seen environment as the overarching issue: "The interesting issue here is that the social (and economic) issues are subordinate to the environmental agenda.[13]

By using both ecology and environment, but having the three pillars (economic, ecological and social) encompassed by the environment, we capture the whole nut of sustainability in a simple graphical form, IMO. Let me know your thoughts. If agreed, does anyone have the ability to take the existing diagram and modify it? Sunray (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

TP I liked your diagram ... then I liked Nicks idea of juxtaposing both diagrams ... now I like Sunray's idea of combining all the ideas. Sunray, if we use the words "economy", "society" and "ecology" would that be OK, then all enclosed within "environment"? I think this would be a good contribution to the diagrammatic representation of the idea of sustainability. It would also distinguish this article's perception and emphasis from the Sustainable Development perception and emphasis. What do others think? TP could your son modify his diagram accordingly? Are there any issues re this being original research? Granitethighs (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

GT's thoughts mirror my own. Let's make the changes (or add it to the to do list) and include it in the "Scope and Definition" section. Original research in such an instance can go up the creek. Nick carson (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

New Version

New version as of December 10, 04:32 UTC. Sorry GT, I was yet to add the synthesised version here. I'll have a look at your proposals for the old version now. Nick carson (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope and Definition

- establish the various contexts in which sustainability is applied, starting from the most general and moving to the more particular

In the broadest sense, sustainability is defined as the ability to maintain a certain process or state at a certain rate or level. The term carries a variety of definitions depending on the context in which it is applied, the most common contexts being; ecological, social and economic. To be sustainable, regardless of context, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally, thus in the broad definition of Sustainability, greatest importance is placed on the ecological context as all other contexts are dependent on the sustainable use of the Earth's resources. Sometimes a holistic approach is used to deal with all the various systems as a whole.

Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from its complexity, in that it can be seen to encompass all human activity. Although science forms the basis of sustainability concepts, it is sometimes also perceived as a general concept like liberty or justice, which is accepted as being of critical importance to humanity and life in general, and can also be viewed as a "dialogue of values" that defies consensual definition. Like many other terms, "sustainability" is also open to various political interpretations.

The unavoidable constant in all cases is that all sub-definitions and contexts rely on the sustained management and use of the Earth's resources, thus Ecological Sustainability is regarded as the most important, holding priority above other definitions. It is explored in the field of systems ecology, a cross-disciplinary field influenced by general systems theory.

Other Contexts

When applied in the social context, sustainability is expressed as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Social sustainability is also seen as being an umbrella term encompassing various other social systems and concepts such as social justice, environmentalism, community ownership, etc. It is applied to various socially sustainable practices and concepts such as; ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, sustainable building, etc. This definition relies on the sustainable use of the Earth's resources, to sustain the human population and its social systems.

When applied in an economic context, it is defined as the qualification and viable continuity of interaction, inter and intra entreprise, and is used as a synonym for supporting business practices, processes and systems enabling the long term development and growth of an activity. Economic sustainability remains a contentious, debated issue as many believe that current economic systems are inherently unsustainable and thus progressions incorporating elements of social sustainability must take their place. Economic sustainability relies on the sustainable use of the Earth's resources, without which, economic, financial and business matters could not exist.

When applied in the ecological context, sustainability is defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. This definition is most often applied to the way human beings use and manage the Earth's resources, and is most often applied to the various sustainable resource management disciplines such as; Tree farms, sustainable agriculture, aquaculture, renewable sources of energy such as the wind, sun, etc. Ecological sustainability encompasses the most important definition of sustainability, as without the Earth's resources, humanity and all of its social and economic systems could not exist.

A holistic approach to sustainability is also often applied, this encompasses every aspect of how human beings interact with life and resources on Earth. Holistic sustainability can be seen as being a reiteration of the broadest definition of sustainability, regardless; the ultimate goal of both, achieving sustainability for all life and their systems on Earth, is the same.

Regroup

I’m getting confused about where we are now at with several versions now available on this page. Am I right in thinking we have abandoned both “cultural sustainability” and “holistic sustainability” and that the Brundtland definition of sustainable development is considered a bit dated? I am still a bit concerned about separating out economic and social sustainability as I think the thrust of the sust devt agenda was to, as it were, head towards sustainability by trying to get them to work together, to integrate, not to become independently sustainable. And I would be a bit nervous about offering definitions of economic and social sustainability as we would need to be sure they were n.p.o.v. and not original research. What to do? To get the ball rolling could I suggest we mention that there is general agreement that sustainability requires the integration of the e, e & s spheres (or words to that effect)? But at this stage I think there is something we need to watch that has cropped up before – that we avoid travelling along exactly the same lines as the sust devt article. TP and GT have suggested that we diverge by taking a stronger look at environmental aspects in this article. This definition section might be a good place to establish this theme based on the fact that a lot of people see the environment as the primary source of concern in the whole sustainability debate. If people agree with this then I could try and craft some words to this effect? Granitethighs (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The "New Version" section above is the most up to date, I synthesised all the previous versions. I think we need to be careful not to let fear of similarities between closely related articles dictate the subject matter. Sustainability is sustainability, Sustainable Development is development that is sustainable. Nick carson (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick, we probably need input from others at this stage as I dont think the "New Version" will do - it needs more editing; but also I think we are a bit at cross purposes here. My thoughts are are in the "Different Approach" section and also just above but, in summary: remove repetition of ideas at start; avoid definitions of social and economic sustainability and point out that sustainability involves cooperation across social, economic and environmental sectors; establish that we will be looking mostly at overall impact of humans on biophysical resources. A good way to do this would be to use the diagram that Sunray and TP have suggested. WP guidelines urge that controversies are confronted and I think we have difficulty over definition - by that I mean in the literature - we individually might feel its all crystal clear. I thought I had covered this reasonably well and some of my effort is in there now but in being re-edited it is, IMO, losing what it originally had to say. Also, as Stingray has pointed out (it always helps to be reminded because I am a prime candidate here), we cannot present the article as a kind of lecture or "talk", what Skip calls a blog. For example I am familiar with holistic ideas but I do not have literature referring specifically to holistic sustainability - there need to be citations for any new ideas or assertions and statements need to, as it were, come from points of reference other than ourselves. Also there was a phrase at one time about the Brundtland definition not being universally accepted (it seems to have been removed). This might seem like an unnecessary sentence but it expresses real concern by a lot of people, it opens up the possibbility of other interpretations, and "allows" this article to take a different slant from that of Sustainable Development. Finally - if we have the simple label "Definition" I think we need to give some guidance to people. In the absence of a universally agreed definition (other than the Brundtland one) this is difficult. Perhaps, following our diagram we can find in the literature a definition that expresses the content of the diagram? Perhaps we need another editor to work on this section a bit? On your comment "I think we need to be careful not to let fear of similarities between closely related articles dictate the subject matter. Sustainability is sustainability, Sustainable Development is development that is sustainable. " I'm not sure what to say - we've been going over the complexities of definition - I wish it were that simple. The idea of integrating economic, social and environmental things came out of the Brundtland Commission on Sustainable Development as did the most popular definition of sustainability. I am just pointing out what Skip has been mentioning - that if we are not careful then we will find ourselves unintentionally repeating sustainable development stuff. Granitethighs (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what GT is saying. In sum, I don't think we should repeat what we have already said in the lead and I too thought that we had agreed not to talk about economic sustainability, social sustainability and holistic sustainability. The version in red needs some refocussing in my view. I don't think that we should say that "the UN definition is a bit outdated and substandard" unless we have a very authoritative source that says so. The Brundtland definition is by far the most widely used definition. I like the way GT addressed that in his version. Whatever approach we take, we need sources. I would suggest that when we write we write based on sources. To get to FA every statement other than "the sky is blue" type statements will need to be sourced. Sorry to keep harping on this, but it does seem to me that we are getting into significant WP:NOR problems. Sunray (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Earth Charter inclusion in Definition

Are you aware of the Earth Charter - it is worthwhile looking it up on the web. It has a well-respected and honourable background. It just struck me that we could possibly use this in the definition section as a kind of alternative to the Brundtland definition. It is not quite right but not a bad effort nevertheless - what do you think (see below). In discussions about finding a good definition there is often talk about a "dialogue of values" - this might be offered as an example? It is both meaty and inoffensive and has a lot of what we rant on about.

The Earth Charter
We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

I definitely think it should be in the article somewhere. Sunray (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking quite a bit about the various definitions of sustainability, there are so many out there, some compiled by large organisations and associations such as the UN and the Earth Charter, others are in all sorts of dictionaries and web dictionaries, others are individual's takes on it's definition, but GT's sourced a definition from Wikitionary (as discussed on the "Lead" subsection talkpage) which is the best I've seen, all-encompassing, concise, very well written, for lack of a better word "perfect", can we incorporate this into the section? Nick carson (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved discussion

To keep the top "clean" I have moved the discussion to here. Granitethighs (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC) I will add the missing references - this is just a suggestion and still a work in progress - give me a few hours to tweak etc. but I think its improving - no? Granitethighs (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph might not be very exciting but I think that, at last, it captures a fair bit of the reason why definition is such a sticking point.Granitethighs (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely improving. A few quick comments: 1) We need to quote Brundtland in order to be able to discuss it. I think that this is entirely appropriate, since it is so widely used. 2) We cannot cite Wiktionary. This is just a general rule that we cannot cite from any WikiMedia product (unless it is the subject of the article). That doesn't stop us from using the Wikitionary definition in our lead sentence (uncited). 3) I'm worried about over-defining sustainability. I thought that the purpose of this section was to set out the scope of the article will and how we will apply a definition. Other than these "quibbles," very nice work! Sunray (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

S, thanks. The Definition section follows directly from the Brundtland definition which is given at the end of the Lead - I thought it provided a flow on of ideas while separating this article's approach (definition(s)) from that of the Sustainable Development article. I take your point about over-defining and I'm happy to go with whatever you think is satisfactory. My thinking was that we need to confront the real difficulty of definition, but explanations seem a bit weak without actual examples. I will think more about scope, thanks. Granitethighs (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit of suggested new content, also I think this may be a good spot for the image to go, if/when my son finishes making it.--Travelplanner (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TP. Yes, this would be a good spot for the diagram to help people think about the issues of definition.

TP: Can your son come close to the original diagram? The light colours worked well. Also, he could import the existing diagram and simply change "Environment" to "Ecology," for the three pillars and add a background circle for "Environment." Would he be willing to do that? Sunray (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What actual definitions, if any?

I am not sure about what to do in terms of quoted definitions in this section - it just seems strange to have a definition section without 1 definition or more. What does the team think? I can think of several options (maybe in combination): 1)No definition 2)Sample definitions demonstrating emphasis on fact, value and call to action 3) definition which emphasises the combined social, environmental, economic streams 4) definitions giving separate individual definitions for the 3 former streams (Daly has done this, and Nick's original proposal did this) 5) One thing I wondered is whether, if the article is to emphasise the primacy of environment over other factors, whether a good definition of "environmental sustainability" could set the scene for the rest of the article? What do people think? Granitethighs (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

But if you count the Bruntland definition in the lead as the "factual" one, then do you not already have a "value" definition (the Earth Charter) and a "call to action" at the end? I think it works. Nick's environmental/ economic/ social text is still on this talk page if we want to use it here, but I tried to summarise the unique points into the caption for the (still nonexistent) picture, and maybe we can improve on the links for people who want to explore this aspect further? Also, the current outline of the "Description" section includes social sustainability and economic sustainability, so structuring the "Definition" section in the same way will get repetitive.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TP that it is looking good as is. If we do want to include a working definition of sustainability for the article, I agree with GT that a definition of "environmental sustainability" would probably work best. It needs to be sourced, though (and not from wiktionary). Sunray (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures anyone?

My slack son has finally delivered....

• A CHOICE OF DIAGRAMS TO SHOW SUSTAINABILITY
• 
  as requested above
• 
  bit more artistic perhaps? intended to mean the same thing
• 
  this is the "strong sustainability" version
• 
  The original from the article

Now about the small matter of citations. There are any number of citations for the view that the "three pillars" diagram is inadequate to show the dependence of economies and societies on the natural environment. Most of these citations go to the "concentric circles" version, but not all. Taking on board Skip's comments about using web-accessible citations where possible, and looking for a paper that specifically leaves ecological processes in the mix while saying the whole lot is bound by the constraints of the natural environment, I've chosen this one. The citation is in the text beside the picture. I don't see how it is original research to take a published idea and draw a picture of it (eh Sunray)??

BTW, I'm signing out for awhile, see main talk page --Travelplanner (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The original diagram of the three pillars is simple and gets the point across and should be used. Environment... and Ecology are the same things in the diagram... so that is not an issue. The beauty of the diagram already in use is its simplicity and accuracy as to the issues. I also removed the Brundtland Commission from the first sentence... this is in the article already... and hitting people over and over with this information is not doing any one (readers) a favor... if any thing it would imply a serious pov problem with editing the article. This has been a consistent problem here and in other sections. The article is not called Sustainability and the U.N. ... so any featured article status longing here is pretty much torpedoed if consistent non neutral pov editing is tried to tie every thing together. This page looks like one big awful mess to me. Get rid of what ever versions here and put up one version.

Scheme of sustainable development: at the confluence of three constituent parts.

I am thinking now that a Sustainability Definition section may not be needed. Is there a real need for one? It does not seem to provide any useful info the article does not carry. Put this image into the History of sustainability on the sandbox and current article. It has a nice link in it also which shows up in the Ref/citations to Pdf info.skip sievert (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Every logical mind immediately looks for a definition (a clear statement) of a writer's understanding of the meaning of terms. Without this the possibility of misunderstanding is hugely increased. In the case of "sustainability", without a discussion of definition the casual reader may arrive at the article with all sorts of preconceptions, assume that the content is totally inappropriate and either say so or start editing to express their own "take" on what it is all about. The possibility for confusion is greatly increased with "sustainability" because of the difficulty people have had in applying a definition. I think we need to draw people's attention to this difficulty with some literature so that they can check it the difficulties for themselves. In other words I think that without some discussion of definition this article will become what Skip might call "a blog full of pov".

It might be difficult to get a consensus on the diagram but I think the one with the Earth as background to the three rings is great - that's where my vote goes. And TPs reference seems fine doesn't it? Granitethighs (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the picture above... the one with the earth in the background is unusable and hard to look at and figure out what it even is. The mainstream one that has been used in numerous other articles gets the idea across which is trying to be gotten across and is currently in the History section also. Also sir... friendly reminder, from my p.o.v.- please do not personalize the editing in regard to what you think I might say. I would not say what you said I might say above. That is going way to far in this situation. This is just a reminder to discuss the article and not the people editing the article but edits made. Ok? Thanks. Also as to your commentary above about people and confusion and sustainability... I disagree. This is not rocket science. It is not a hard thing to understand and it is not a hard thing to define... which already is done in the lead pretty much. So ... I wonder that this section is extraneous to presenting good information and therefore not needed? It is redundant... and what is the point of telling people something is hard to understand... when it is not hard to understand? skip sievert (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry Skip no more references to you in this way - no offence was intended. On the definition matter I am simply reporting what is written throughout the literature of sustainability - namely, that (apart from the UN definition) among people working on sustainability there is little consensus on definition. To me this is a fact - and one that is worth passing on to the reader who, like you, might think the whole matter is simple. Incidentally Skip, at present you have all the benefits of being able to contribute to group discussion without the constraint of abiding by consensus decisions. Doesn't that strike you as rather unfair? Granitethighs (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a new year. Let try and not provoke one another skip sievert (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, we dont have to agree of course, but we'll try to be more tolerant of one-another in 2009. Granitethighs (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I particularly do not like the picture above with the money in the background. Money if used as a measurement is the nail in the coffin of sustainability. This is not used in Ecological economics or at least not to the present degree. Money always has to multiply itself and never has the best interests of society at hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth,_Virtual_Wealth_and_Debt ... - skip sievert (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The diagram is simply a "stylised" representation of ideas. You may have a point but surely for most people economy = money = notes and cash. I am not sure I follow your point - could you explain more. What would you suggest as an alternative? Granitethighs (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As said earlier I question that this section is needed. Also the mainstream chart is in the history section currently. It would seem that the lead covers the definition. Therefore it appears that this section of the article could be dropped as redundant to other information. It has also been noted earlier that environment=ecology in the earlier well known chart. skip sievert (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This section is definitely needed, though it need not be long. It needs to make clear that there are disputes as to the definition of sustainability (to the point of having respected publications state that the word has no meaning at all) and also at least two very important sub-definitions ("soft" and "hard" sustainability - the concepts are in the current draft but probably these words should be also). This is all stuff an encyclopedia reader needs to know.

Based on feedback, I suggest I go back to my son to make a very small amendment to the "standard three circles" image (ecological, social, economic in place of environment social economic, which anyway is not grammar) for its place in the History page. Then we can re-create this exact same image within a circle labeled "environment" to fit in this section, alongside the text about the need to constrain all activity (of whatever type) within the Earth's limits. This is what my son was trying to get at with the "earth image" background, but it seems some people get that and some read the image quite differently (making it not so good for an encyclopedia). I'll leave the more artistic versions on Wikimedia in case anyone wants to use them for something else.

Does that sound right?--Travelplanner (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No. As mentioned a couple of times the picture in the History section is good as is... also, as mentioned, environment = ecology... so complicating the the meaning does just that. Complicates it. This is not complicated... and there is no real contention about what sustainability is. Any geo scientist could inform to that... like these people... so clouding things up for people by claiming that the subject is difficult or hard to grasp is pointless... It is well studied and well known... these people are not guessing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_ecology ... these people are not guessing http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/

This section looks like U.N. repetition also... which is pointless because it will not make the cut... it is already elsewhere... How is it that this information is repeated over and over? The lead by definition defines the subject. skip sievert (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It does sound right to me, but evidently it won't to everyone. To pick up what Skip is saying, I would suggest that we use the diagram you are describing along with the original diagram. This will allow us to discuss weak and strong sustainability and the degree to which artificial capital is substitutable for natural capital. The paper you suggested, TP, will do for a source (though its English not strong, it gets the main points across). Hopefully we can describe the main points simply.

Good work by your son. Thank him for us. Sunray (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tweaks

I have made a few additions to the "clean" copy at the top of the page. It lengthens it a little but I think draws out better some of the points concerning problems of definition. I also think it is very important that we do have a section on definition (it has been suggested that we leave it out) as it becomes an inevitable preoccupation of anyone writing and thinking about the subject. To my mind the section now says enough - we have done all that could reasonably be expected (not to say that it can't be tweaked, reduced a bit etc.). I would be happy for this to go into real time like the others - what do others think? On the pic - TP I am happy with the "globe" - its perhaps a bit dark and strong but I think it portrays what most editors think is the main point. However, if you want to go ahead with an amendment to the 3-circles image that is also fine by me. What do others think? Granitethighs (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should swap the order of the first two paragraphs (not sure how to mark this up without turning the whole thing purple). Otherwise good subject to sorting out the pictures as per comments above (any more comments anyone??)--Travelplanner (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi TP - yes, I've got a comment. The weather must be pretty bad at the moment - shouldn't you be bronzing yourself in a kayak in that fabulous New Zealand fjord? Anyway, nice to know you are well, and still interested in us, helps a lot with the decision-making. Like your idea - might need a little tweak to make the ideas flow though - we can do that alright. Granitethighs (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I flipped the two paragraphs. It may need a connective bit as GT suggests. I've commented on your suggested resolution of the pictures above, TP - agree with your proposal. So that is about all remains to be done, it seems. Good collaborative work by all. Sunray (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability vs Sustainable Development

I know I'm going to open a can of worms here but it's been annoying me for a long time; now that we've completed the history section and decided to focus in on the definition section I think it's probably the best time to address my concerns... I've read through the article on Sustainable Development a few times both recently and late last year and while it's a well written and fantastic article in it's own right, I'm concerned with the fundamental definition of sustainability vs sustainable development.

I was always taught and forever read that fundamentally; sustainability is the ability of a system to sustain itself, whilst; sustainable development is any type of development that is sustainable [be it the development of human population, urban development, business development, etc] (granted, these are just rough definitions but you get the idea). My concern arrises when our definitions of sustainability and sustainable development overlap and are a bit out of step with their basic definitions. I think we're on the right track with defining "sustainability", my concern lies in the definition of "sustainable development" as expressed in it's wikipedia article; it appears to overlap with "sustainability" too much and focusses little on the "development" aspect of it's title, as should be the case with the fundamental definition of sustainable development.

I have a theory for why this is the case... I think that many people and organisations, etc, have somehow come to supplant the term sustainability with the term sustainable development, as sustainability is more often than not applied to the development of human systems, however, as we all know, development isn't the only way in which sustainability can be applied. As this is a rapidly growing area of knowledge and we're all coming to terms with defining these concepts and understanding their inner workings, and notwithstanding the fact that many people and even news sources now cite wikipedia definitions, it's the best opportunity to properly define such terms rather than merely reflect what has naturally been picked up in common usage, to avoid confusion and contradictions between terms. (Some WP users may tell me to read "WP is not" policy, but essentially without argument WP is nothing if it is not a reflection of truth, not merely a reflection of various sources of information, but a synthesis of them all to piece together the best picture of reality as possible, but I digress slightly)

I know this is a pain in the arse but it's important. We've got to define and separate these terms properly and make any adjustments that we need to, if that means tweaking the sustainable development article too then so be it. My positive comments are though that I think we're on the right track with defining sustainability here. What's everyone's thoughts?

Also, In regards to my proposed 'new version' in red half way up this page, I'd be happy to drop the "other contexts" section to address the concerns we have over the use of the three seperate terms. Nick carson (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As this is a rapidly growing area of knowledge and we're all coming to terms with defining these concepts and understanding their inner workings, and notwithstanding the fact that many people and even news sources now cite wikipedia definitions, it's the best opportunity to properly define such terms rather than merely reflect what has naturally been picked up in common usage, to avoid confusion and contradictions between terms. quote, an editor.... - We are not here to inject our opinions. Original research is not appropriate. Both terms mean different things contextually. This is not a confusing or contradictory subject... and to present it so is not good. The whole section of this material is redundant and not really good information and repetitive. It could be dropped as a section. It is confusing and misleading as to information on the subject. At the very least it needs to be presented better... with a different focus... and not so negative.

I have made some small focus and clarity editing. This has not affected the sources.skip sievert (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick: I agree that we need to be clear, in the two articles, about the difference between "Sustainability" and "Sustainable Development." As you say, that may mean adjusting the latter article. What confuses me at the moment, is which draft we are working on. I had thought it was the one at the top of the page. It had seemed to me that GT did a major refocus after some discussion, above. TP also added to it and Skipsievert and I have copyedited and tweaked it. My understanding is that TP is going to do some magic with the graphics and tweak the commentary on the "three ellipses" diagram. I'm going to move the current draft down so we can be clear on what we are working on. Sunray (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, sounds good, I had proposed a 'new version' (which is in red) but i think it slipped alot of people's notice, I'll start working on the draft that everyone else is working on.

Skip, I am not injecting my opinion, I was suggesting that we take this as an opportunity to properly synthesise the definitions of sustainability for use here in WP. I didn't suggest the subjects were confusing or contradictory either, I suggested that the content in each article was at times. I agree, the section doesn't need to be lengthy at all and we do need to reassess what we've got, thats why I proposed using my proposal above (in red) and dropping the "other contexts" subsection. Nick carson (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Marked up version

Although the definition of sustainable development (above [this refers to the definition in the lead])given by the United Nations Brundtland Commission, is frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Defininitions of sustainability can be difficult problematic because the word sometimes refers to the sum of all human activity, and sometimes to only one of its parts (e.g. sustainable agriculture). Definitions may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination." This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition. As an appeal for action it is also open to many interpretations as to how it can be achieved. Sustainability has been regarded as both an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice" and as a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance., so it is important to view this word in the context of how it is presented.

The idea of sustainable development is sometimes itself can be viewed as an oxymoron because development inevitably depletes and degrades the environment. Consequently some definitions either avoid the word development or emphasise the environmental component, as in "environmentally sustainable development". The conclusion is thus to remove the word "development," to defining sustainability simply in terms of human impact on the environment (see figure and definition below).

The Earth Charter, for example, a definition sets out to establish values and direction in this way:

We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

While a more factualA simpler definition is given by the IUCN, UNEP and WWF:

Sustainabilty is: improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems.

Recent definitions often emphasise suggest the necessary integration of environment, society and economy (known as the "three pillars" ) as emphasised bythat form a strong part of the UN sustainable development action plan, Agenda 21, and which which also provides the conceptual framework for triple bottom line accounting. Ecological, social and economic processes are depicted as three overlapping circles, to show that these are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing. While this model was intended to increase the standing of ecological concerns, it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world; as Herman Daly famously asked "what use is a sawmill without a forest?".

Sustainable - able to be sustained for an indefinite period without damaging the environment, or without depleting a resource; renewable. [Wiktionary]

Sustainability can also be a call to action:

A means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in the very long term.

Comments

An example of permaculture utilizing animals and gardens. Sustainability is used in the context of permaculture and also in the context of industrial agriculture as well as many other ecological topics.

Some nice person has inserted a pic. Not really suitable here IMO but probably great for another spot. Granitethighs (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This picture gets a lot of ideas across... from a local farm to a widescale agri approach An example of permaculture utilizing animals and gardens. Sustainability is used in the context of permaculture and also in the context of industrial agriculture as well as many other ecological topics. And, the caption contains some good linked info. Also... please try to keep the sarcasm between editors to a minimum of zero... and comment on content. skip sievert (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No question that it is a good picture. It just doesn't seem to fit in this section, IMO. Sunray (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinions are best expressed by saying why and how and what for etc. Not by disclaiming something out of hand.... like your comment .. which means nothing in context above. This is a contextual definition of Sustainability. A contextual one mentioning disparate things... that fall under the umbrella. skip sievert (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Skip, my comment above might have sounded condescending or patronising (for which a apologise) but it was meant absolutely literally. Granitethighs (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I may have already commented on this, but I think the image is better suited to the description section. Nick carson (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

?Clean version

Could we put a "clean" version of the definition up at the top of this page please so that we can have a last go at it before putting it up in real time? I like TPs sentiments(as usual) at the end of the piece with the Daly quote, but am not so sure it is encyclopaedia style. I have added an opening sentence to link this section with the definition of sustainable development given in the lead. This is in the current "live" version and IMO provides a good link to the problem of defining sustainability. Also IMO whatever we think of the UN and sustainable development we have no option but to quote the by far most quoted definition of sustainability. But we can also point out the many difficulties - as we now do. Granitethighs (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed a part of a sentence to show that these are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability/Definition&diff=next&oldid=263281526 - That did not affect the citation... which goes to a somewhat unrelated site any way. As written it seemed confusing and not necessary. skip sievert (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A clean version would be great, it's easier to read through and then the changes can be made to the edited version before being made current in the clean version. The most quoted definition(s) may not be the most accurate definition of sustainability, thus compromise the quality of the article. I think we need to synthesise the various definitions. I'm still struggling to see why defining sustainability is difficult if we follow the premise that sustainability is the ability of a given system, lifeform, etc, to sustain itself, and acknowledge that sustainability can be applied to almost everything about life on Earth and human systems.

Skip, if you use a colour specific to you and strikeouts, etc, it's an easier way of notifying us of what you've contributed. Nick carson (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick, on the definition - I see your point and perhaps this current discussion isn't clear about the complications. As you express it sustainability is simple but when you look at the sustainability literature and web it is clearly a quagmire - people simply dont agree. Certainly to sustain is to endure, maintain a state etc. but it has come to mean more than that. The UN has had a big influence and so definitions relating to sustainable development loom large: sustainability has become a "global program" (for some). So definitions become normative - they not only state factually "to sustain ..." they also say how "by combining economic, social, environmental" and why as in the Earth Charter which sets out values to be pursued. I am a scientist and prefer simple statements of fact but must admit that a collective effort probably needs more than the bearest definition. Also your definition treats sustainability as a destination (sustainability). But many people see sustainability not as an end point but as an enterprise, process, program, a "way of living". Our opening sentence in the lead is a simple statement like yours above so we are covered but surely in an encyclopaedic account we must take account of other views? Also we need to be careful about devising our own solutions to problems and making up our own definitions - we can, for the most part, only report what others have said and thought. Perhaps there is a "synthesised definition" out there somewhere that we can quote - trouble is people just see sustainability in different ways so I dont know that it is possible. Sorry to be a bore and carry on like a pork chop. This section probably needs a clearer explanation. I think difficulty of definition is beyond dispute - how to explain it is another matter. You got us started with all this and we will need your help again soon.  ;-) Granitethighs (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh by all means, I see sustainability as a destination and a way of life, style of living, responsibility, set of values, essential, everything. I can see how complicated sustainability has become, but we can uncomplicate it by omitting overly complex sub topics and terms, etc, while still explaining any difficulties in it's definition. But ultimately, we're just concerned with sustainability in this article, we can briefly touch on it's history, how to achieve it, how to measure it, how to define it, etc, but as I stated way back in November, this article may essentially be a collection of summaries of the various detailed sub topics and thus act like a sort of hub for sustainability topics. (Although that really should be the job of the 'sustainability portal' which due to complications in definitions has been named the 'sustainable development portal' even though its content reflects that of sustainability in general, not just sustainable development.)

I tend to think that rather than people seeing sustainability in different ways, they just see it from different perspectives (building, economic, forestry, agriculture, etc) that they may be involved or interested in, and sustainability within each of these perspectives is obviously different as per its relation to the individual area. Essentially, sustainability itself isn't as complicated as the sum of it's potential areas of application, as one example. But we don't need to describe everything here, 'building' for example, and how sustainability relates to it (defined) can be explained in the respective 'sustainable building' and 'building' articles which will inevitably merge. (maybe even one day a historic 'unsustainable building' article will be created, but thats another story) Nick carson (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Current clean version - Jan 11

Definition

This diagram incorporates the three pillars diagram within the sphere of the Earth, life on Earth and the surrounding Environment that the systems within rely on.

Although the definition of sustainable development (above) given by the United Nations Brundtland Commission, is frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination." This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition. As an appeal for action it is also open to many interpretations as to how it can be achieved. Sustainability has been regarded as both an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice" and as a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance.

The idea of sustainable development is sometimes viewed as an oxymoron because development inevitably depletes and degrades the environment. Consequently some definitions either avoid the word development and use the term sustainability exclusively, or emphasise the environmental component, as in "environmentally sustainable development".

The Earth Charter sets out to establish values and direction in this way:

We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

A simpler definition is given by the IUCN, UNEP and WWF:

Sustainabilty is: improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems.

Sustainability can also be presented as a call to action, as:

... a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in the very long term.

Recent definitions often suggest the necessary refer to the integration of environment, society and economy (known as the "three pillars") as emphasised by the UN sustainable development action plan, Agenda 21, which also provides the conceptual framework for triple bottom line accounting. Ecological, social and economic processes are usually depicted as three overlapping circles, to show that these are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing. While this model was intended to increase the standing of ecological concerns, it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world. As Herman Daly famously asked "what use is a sawmill without a forest?"

Comments

Here's a clean copy. I've left the last quote ("a call to action") in. It seems to fit well. Comments on this version? Sunray (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You removed a picture and also have altered text changes without discussion. skip sievert (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The picture was not in the version of the text that I moved. Both GT and I have suggested that, while it is a good picture, we do not find it appropriate in this section. If you continue to think that it should be in this section, let's hear from the other editors. As to altering of text: If you are referring to the deletion that I restored, I believe it was me who deleted it in the first place and I clearly indicated that I was restoring it and asked for comments. Sunray (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it'd be a great image for the 'description' or 'application/implementation' sections, but not here in the definition section, this section would probably benefit from having no images. Nick carson (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

GT: What was it you objected to in the Daly quote? I think it gets the point across in simple terms and was an interesting practical example of the principle being stated. As it is one of the things that humans seem so often to forget, with typically short-sighted approaches to the use of natural resources, the emphasis seemed appropriate to me. Sunray (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning this up Sunray, I like the additional definition. I think we have now got as near as possible to Nick's desire for a "synthesis". He has been very patient with the "complicating" of something that is, in principle, very simple. However, in reporting what has been written and said about sustainability it always seems to be the Brundtland definition that is quoted followed by a pointing out that it is unsatisfactory but that a consensus on anything else is very difficult. The Daly quote just sounded a bit strange to me for an encyclopaedia but it makes the point simply and well - lets leave it in. I made a few small tweaks to help flow. It may be a fraction long but we can revisit it in a final edit. What do others think about this section now? Granitethighs (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting there, but it's all still a bit messy. I imagined this section being "sustainability is this, that, that and these, and then quote the sources" rather than; "X said sustainability was this and Y said it was like that but a bit different and Z said it was a bit different again", this explanation of my observation, however, is a bit crude. But, as this is where WP and I disagree, my contributions may not coincide with consensus. Me and GT have discussed some issues surrounding the definition of sustainability (just above), it's some great discussion that I think would be beneficial for the editing team to read, so my thoughts can be found there. Nick carson (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need to distinguish between what goes in the "Definition" section and what in "Description." I think that the note we have sounded here (that there are many approaches to definition) is appropriate. Sunray (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the three different definitions we quote give people a feel for "variety" of definition. Do you think the last definition could follow the previous two, just before the last sentence about the three pillars - so we have the selection of three together? Then could I suggest it goes up (without image) - we might feel we can do better when we return to look at the whole later but it would be nice to move on now. TP may not be back 'til ?early Feb. Granitethighs (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the three definitions together. I've also moved the confluence diagram down to the paragraph in which it is discussed. It looks great, BTW, who did it? We need Nick to comment of the permaculture picture. One editor suggested it go here. Two have said they think it belongs elsewhere in the article. Once that is settled, I agree that it should go into the live article. Sunray (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe this is the third place I've commented on it, permaculture image belongs in the description or application/implementation sections, the only image we need for this definition section is the confluence diagram. Nick carson (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)