Marcus and Forum: Rightly or wrongly, I always take people at their word unless the clearly demonstrate that they are shining me on.
I am grateful for Ricci's definition and all the others. That's what I was asking for, and I thought I was pretty direct about why, and even what my take on what seems to me to be a serious problem that can, among other, perhaps more serious effects, damage ecology and those associated with it. Ecologists can be proactive in, at the very least, correcting the record when they are misinterpreted, or they can sit back and let it happen. If "sustainability" is allowed to become a vaguely-defined buzzword used by "greenwashers" and other charlatans, I wonder if they should be surprised if their reputation is tarnished thereby. And, with respect to misuse of the term by ecologists themselves, a similar question arises with respect to self-policing or a clear statement by ecology-centered organizations such as ESA. Has ESA issued and popularized such a definition? Should it? If Ricci doesn't lose his paycheck, I am even more worried; however, I won't quibble with his analysis--he reinforces my point with more power than I had the guts to advance. That is, I fear that Ricci's 90% or x% of the population come closer to embracing the Bruntland definition than not--I don't know what percentage is "acceptable," but the job of the intellectually active, especially scientific organizations, is to be active with respect to doing what they can to diminish any trend that runs counter to the principles they embrace. Marcus, would you explain just why you think unambiguous definitions are not possible, especially in this case? WT PS: My offhand definition of habitat: "All of the factors necessary for the existence of living (and in the case of viruses, some "nonliving") species (singular and plural)." I would be delighted to learn a better one. As in the case of "sustainability," I suspect that there are many other definitions that are as good or better than mine. Unless mine is misleading, however, a Venn diagram would clearly indicate a qualitatively overlapped grouping with much in common, and that invalid "definitions" might likewise group or, perhaps more likely, be scattered all over the place, mostly outside the "truth" or "is" circle/envelope. ----- Original Message ----- From: Marcus Ricci To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:01 AM 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, 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.23/2254 - Release Date: 07/22/09 05:59:00
