Great question, Wayne; I agree that "sustainability" has been overused, misused and abused to the point of obscurity. It has joined the words "green," "native," "invasive" and "organic" in the Lexicon of the Vague and Meaningless. I believe that these terms need to be defined specifically whenever they are used, so the audience knows what they can expect from the ensuing discussion, book, product, advertisement, etc. To me, a layperson, "sustainability" means something along these lines: an activity that is performed in such a way that the object of the activity will renew itself or be renewable in a time-frame that does not diminish the source. I'm thinking specifically about examples like planting trees and vegetation to replenish the soil after selective logging has taken place, that sort of thing. However, each activity must be flexible ~ which species will be planted, how long they take to grow, what else is going to grow or live on that site, wildlife management in consideration of the new growth, etc. Your question, however, is not just about defining sustainability; you also want to know if people think that sustainability is sustainable. I am going to be very interested in the replies! My initial response is that, not only is our world a dynamic and changing one, so is our comprehension of it and its processes. Therefore, I believe that any attempts at "sustainability" will absolutely need to incorporate predicting and responding to those changes. What is sustainable practice now might be unfeasible within a decade. Cheers, Kelly Stettner Black River Action Team Springfield, VT
-----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]]on Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 08:42 To: [email protected] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Education vs Indoctrination Can sustainability be sustained? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Managing the social aspects of ecosystem management - LfS portal update Ecolog Forum: I am using this post as a springboard to ask you all whether or not you consider this an important matter, much less a crucial subject for consideration. To maintain a bias-free mental posture, I have not visited any of the sites. Therefore, these comments are not about the content of those sites, nor are they about the email itself; it merely reminded me of the issue. I would like your opinions about whether or not you have had similar thoughts or whether or not you find the subject disagreeable to think about or discuss, or otherwise unworthy of your time. In asking, "Is sustainability sustainable?" I have a multi-faceted concern--that while "sustainability" is a valid term in some sense, it, like "ecology" and many other perfectly good terms, has lost its discriminatory value in communication, technology, and science through overuse, misuse, and overgeneralization. Do you believe this to be the case? In any case, would you please define the term as precisely as possible? If there are alternative definitions, would you please define them too? If you believe that there is no question about the definition, that the definition is so well understood that there can be no dispute about how the terms is defined and used that asking those questions is unnecessary, would you please so indicate? Respectfully submitted, WT
