I have to agree with Marcus. Additionally, no matter how precisely we
define a term, many will find a way to abuse it, as that is human
nature. I suppose we might make it a wee bit harder to abuse at the
risk of creating such a specific language that few will have access,
as lawyers have done. If they can green-wash a Hummer, they will green-
wash anything.
Cheers - randy
=========================================
RK Bangert
=========================================
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Marcus Ricci wrote:
Wayne, and Forum:
I will try to express what prompted my reply.
Wayne, although your initial post does explicitly state that "these
comments are not about the content of those sites, nor are they
about the email itself; it merely reminded me of the issue" it still
drew attention to that site, for me, and caused me to wonder why
this site would remind you of your concern about the ambiguity of
the term "sustainability." I assume that the answer to my own
question is that they either had a definition that was ambiguous, or
that it reminded you that others have definitions that are
ambiguous. But now I remember that you said you didn't go to the
site, so I guess just the name of the site or somebody that said
something about the site in some post reminded you that you were
concerned that some people have differing/ambiguous definitions.
Unfortunately for me, your initiating the discussion with this
website as the prompter caused me to respond with the newly-prompted
vision of that website and their goals/ideas in my consciousness.
It would have been easier and more likely that I would have
responded without that thought in my head if you had posted your
question to the list un-connected/not-in-reply-to someone else's
post advertising their pro-sustainability resource. Unfortunately,
you cannot "unring a bell." This association is what prompted me to
write in a way that must have come across as "implying" that you
thought sustainability resource websites might be bad things if they
had a definition that was not precisely identical with everyone
else's.
I never wrote anything that said or should have implied "that
clarity of definition equals "technical jargon."" What I wrote was
that when "a few specialists in a very restricted academic or
technical field ever use a particular term, it remains very
precisely defined, and we laypeople probably end up referring to it
as their jargon." And that when more people start using the
concepts and terms "that they will inevitably come to mean more
things to more people and, understandably, lose those nice, precise
definitions and moves from technical jargon to everyday verbiage."
I never said or implied that technical jargon was "bad" only that it
is usually more precise because it is used by fewer people to mean
something much more constrained.
I think it is highly unlikely that my definition, or those
definitions of any poster to this forum, will become the globally
popularized, or even forum-popularized definitions. If that is your
goal, I would suggest and support advocating the definition of an
agency that has already defined it, if that definition met with a
majority (or consensus - wow!) vote of the forum. According to the
USEPA's website, "the most widely quoted definition internationally
is the 'Brundtland
definition' of the 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development – that sustainability meansUSEPA's definition of
sustainability is: 'meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.'" Now, this is a very squishy definition, but I would bet my
next paycheck that it would Venn-diagram-encompass 90% of other
people's definitions. When you start getting more precise -
nonrenewable resources, renewability timeframes, etc. - that's when
you start losing other people's definitions, generating different
definitions, which is what you're concerned about.
I'm concerned, too, about the greenwashing of the sustainability
movement. It makes me cringe when I see commercials for "green"
Hummers and turflawn that takes _less_ watering, when I personally
think we should be biking and walking more, and planting native
species that require _no_ watering. But I also believe that we
should be focusing on finding commonality, embodied by the squishy,
encompassing, "vague" definition above. Then, rather than focusing
on a very precise definition, any action or product could be
analyzed holistically: "does this action/product compromise future
generations' ability to meet their own needs?"
Wayne, it feels to me that what you are frustrated with is
advertising, and marketing, and capitalism, and people whose
personal agendas and biases are either what they are pushing, or may
be overlaid over top of honest environmental concerns. It bothers
me, too, but I don't think we're going to gain much ground by asking
thousands of people on our list serv to offer their own definitions;
I don't see how that will help you, or others, "separate the wheat
from the chaff." Yeah, a single definition would be helpful, but my
years in grad school trying to work with a mere 4 lab colleages and
my advisor to come up with a consensual definition of "habitat" led
me to understand that unambiguous definitions are helpful but not
always possible.
Thanks for the discussion, and good luck in your search.
Greenly,
Marcus
"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability
and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise." -- Aldo Leopold
Marcus Ricci, M.S.
1301 Monroe Avenue
Charleston, IL 61920
email: spotted_blue<at>hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:56:27 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education vs Indoctrination Can
sustainability be sustained? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Managing the social
aspects of ecosystem management - LfS portal update
To: [email protected]
Marcus and Forum:
I'm having a bit of trouble, as I always do, with implications. It
seems to
me that Ricci's questions/implications are "answered" in my initial
post,
but I will make a stab at trying to interpret him as well as I can.
I hope
he will correct any misinterpretations.
Because sustainability is an "important matter," it seems to me
important
that the term is clear and unambiguous rather than muddy and
ambiguous. As
Aney has pointed out, there are a number of "definitions" that are
different, ambiguous. It would seem useful to me that the
definitions of
Ricci, Aney, and others would be given careful consideration by the
subscribers of this forum, and the clearest definitions be
popularized. If
ambiguous "definitions" are popularized, the "important matter"
could be
reduced to, for example, a greenwashing slogan used to humbug
others into
believing, for example, that a destructive activity that results in
a trend
toward the increasing degradation of "the" resource or any other
resource is
"sustainable."
I have no idea what I said that led Ricci to believe that I was
implying
that "production of a resource and communication mechanism such as
this
website [is] a bad thing? Or a non-useful thing?" I hope he will
clear that
up for me.
I am also baffled by the implication that clarity of definition
equals
"technical jargon." I am asking for clarification precisely because
I have
seen the term used as a smokescreen, snow-job, and sales pitch for
actions,
products, studies, etc. that don't seem to meet the definition that
Ricci
and others cite. What I am trying to find out is how to separate
the wheat
from the chaff. I don't understand how a proliferation, of
"mainstream"
definitions that run counter to the valid one, can be "honest."
Honest usage
is not a problem; fraudulent usage is, and the distinction between
the two
will help keep those who "honestly feel" they are doing the right
thing
recognized when they are being humbugged.
As to the implications about the site that just reminded me to ask
the
question (it has been around for a while), I made it quite clear in
the
original post that it had nothing to do with the post about the
site or the
site itself.
Marcus, it will be a big help if you cite the part of my post that
prompted
your comment; that will help me make better connections between
what you are
referring to and what I wrote.
WT
PS: I regret the following error in the original post: ". . . how
the terms
is defined . . .." The singular, "term" is correct.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Ricci" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education vs Indoctrination Can
sustainability be
sustained? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Managing the social aspects of ecosystem
management - LfS portal update
Wayne, I will first answer your questions, and then ask you why
you are
asking them.
Sustainability IS an important matter, and a crucial one. If we
are not
living in a sustainable manner, however you define it, we will
eventually
deplete our resources and be left in a very bad state. But what
do you
hope to gain by asking the list-members to "define the term as
precisely
as possible"? You will more than likely get several tens of
answers,
probably all differing from each other either minutely or
substantially. Yes, this
may indicate that the term has become more than what it used to
mean - for
me, it means "consuming less than is produced, and not resulting
in the
net depletion of non-renewable constituent resources" - but does
that make the
production of a resource and communication mechanism such as this
website
a bad thing? Or a non-useful thing?
Yes, I think it's possible that "sustainability" has become a much
more
frequently-used term by the general populace and, as such, is
likely to
get used by people to reflect _their_ particular definition of
what they
believe sustainability means. If only a few specialists in a very
restricted
academic or technical field ever use a particular term, it remains
very
precisely defined, and we laypeople probably end up referring to
it as
their jargon. As a term becomes more mainstream and used by many
millions of
people, who work in many different fields and also apply the term to
aspects
of their non-professional life, I believe that it will inevitably
come to
mean more things to more people and, understandably, loses those
nice,
precise definitions and moves from technical jargon to everyday
verbiage.
Like "conservative." Or "ecological."
I also believe that, even if a term becomes harder to pin down, it
is
important for people to use it, if it embodies what they honestly
feel
reflects what they are trying to get across to people. They should,
though, be prepared and willing to clarify what they are referring
to and how they
are using the term, just as different fields explain how they are
using
"variable," or "significant," or "adaptable." Don't be scared of
using a
term just because it has gotten some fuzzy edges.
And, for Pete's sake, don't be afraid of working together with the
people
that use the term the way you do AND with the people who use it
differently. I took a quick look at the "Learning for
Sustainability" website and it
looks like it has some pretty good resources. It may have a
little more
social science than what many folks are comfortable with,
especially when
compared to quantitative, economically-precise "cost of ecological
services" discussions, but it may be very useful to others
interested in working
with _people and society_.
Greenly (oops...),
Marcus
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web’s latest
sports videos. Check it out.
http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports
