I think Marcus identified the real issue (quoted below). We're in an interesting situation here because (a) change on a massive scale is required and (b) we don't have the public education system available to really effect that change in an 'enlightened' way. So the vague, 90%-acceptable (parse that however you like) definition is a social and political tool.
Ubiquity can result in meaninglessness or refinement. Now that there is general awareness of a vague concept of sustainability, work is needed at the individual, local level to clarify the relevance of the concept. That is where the vagary is addressed effectively, but it means that WE need to make sure our communication is effective: not bombastic, not holier-than-thou, but *sustainable*. The conversation itself needs to be sustained. That means recognizing particular circumstances and processes at human scales, keeping in mind the plentiful horrifying ecological examples of "solutions" gone wrong and applying those lessons socially. We are within a long dialectical process. There are a lot of definitions of sustainability out there; we'll see which ones last. I am personally hopeful. The dishonest can try to co-opt "sustainability," but there's enough diversity out there that sustainability will be, I think, fairly resilient as a meaningful term. If not, the language will evolve: the broad recognition we have now is an admission that this concept is important on many levels, and I can't imagine we'll give up working towards it and discussing it just because the vocabulary has lost its sparkle. (It's a pretty down-and-dirty utilitarian concept anyway, isn't it?) The confusion is all about scope, and scope is the problem sustainability would address... Be well, Jon On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Marcus Ricci<[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > ... 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?"
