Ok, I'll bite: A sustainable practice is one which can be continued indefinitely without depleting the resources upon which it and other features necessary to the system it supports depend.
I submit that as written it captures the essence of the idea. Knock it down if you wish, or modify it. I'll give you a couple of starts in those directions. This definition would not preclude depletion of entities not essential to the practice or to other aspects of the system it supports, and so might not satisfy those like myself who value such immaterial resources as solitude and beauty. Most aspects of natural systems are still poorly understood. That could allow persons who have particular motives dependent on resource exploitation to argue, based on this definition and current knowledge, that their practice is sustainable. However, the consequences may simply be unknown. David McNeely ---- Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > Ecolog: > > "johoma," thanks for this summary. PLos Biology is leading the way, and > someday Opens Source journals will be more common, edging out the ripoff > journals and truly advancing science and education for all. There is more > work to be done, but PLos Biology is helping to put steam behind the trend > toward adaptative progress rather than competitive concentration of power > that has stultified true progress in the past. Science will prosper in the > sunlight as the Information Age emerges from the selfish Dark Ages of > exclusivity, excess, and concentration of power in the hands of vulcanized > institutionalism. > > Doomed? Only if "we" persist in our comfortable delusions. > > But "sustainability" still needs definition. The term has suffered a similar > fate that "ecology" has--captured by spinmeisters and twisted into all sorts > of buzz-phrases that make all sorts of unsustainable practices salable by Mad > Av and its ilk. > > For starters, Ecolog subscribers could do this right here--define > sustainability with clarity. > > Please proceed. (Can 14,000+ ecologists be wrong?) > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "johoma" <joh...@gmail.com> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 2:15 PM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are we doomed yet: A journal debate about science, the > practice of sustainability, and communicating issues > > > An excerpt from the PLoS Biology editor-in-chief's overview: > > One of the reasons we publish more accessible magazine-like articles in the > front section of *PLoS Biology* <http://www.plosbiology.org/home.action> is > to raise awareness about issues that are important both to practicing > scientists and to the wider public. As an open access journal, we can reach > communities and organisations that don’t have access to the pay-walled > literature, and they in turn can redistribute and reuse these articles > without permission from us or the authors. The articles we published > yesterday in our front section provide a case in point. In Rio de Janeiro > last week, world leaders met for the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable > Development <http://www.uncsd2012.org/> to ”shape how we can reduce > poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection”. We’re > featuring three articles and an accompanying > podcast<http://blogs.plos.org/plospodcasts/>from leading ecologists > and conservation scientists that raise absolutely > fundamental concerns about the physical limits on resource use that should > be considered at the conference—but almost certainly won’t be, because > sustainability has focused primarily on the social and economic sciences > and developed largely independently of the key ecological principles that > govern life. > > Burger et al argue that resources on earth are finite and ultimately we are > constrained by the same hard biophyisical laws that regulate every other > species and population on the planet. Famous photograph of the Earth taken > on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft en route to > the Moon at a distance of about 29,000 kilometers. (Photo: NASA) > > The inspiration for this article collection came from Georgina > Mace<http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/g.mace>, > one of our Editorial Board > members<http://www.plosbiology.org/static/edboard.action>and Professor > of Conservation Science and Director of the NERC > Centre for Population Biology <http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/cpb>. It started > with an essay > <http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001345>submitted > by Robbie Burger <https://sites.google.com/site/josephrobertburger/>, Jim > Brown, <http://biology.unm.edu/jhbrown/index.shtml>Craig > Allen<http://www.fort.usgs.gov/staff/staffprofile.asp?StaffID=109>and > others from Jim > Brown’s lab <http://biology.unm.edu/jhbrown/labmembers.shtml>, in which > they argue that the field of sustainability science does not sufficiently > take account of human ecology and in particular the larger view offered by > human macroecology, which aims to understand what governs and limits human > distribution. The very strong – and seemingly obvious – point they make is > that ultimately we are constrained by the same hard biophyisical laws that > regulate every other species and population on the planet — and we have > already surpassed the Earth’s capacity to sustain even current levels of > human population and socioeconomic activity, let alone future trajectories > of growth. And while we often applaud ourselves for doing something > apparently sustainable at a local level, we ignore the fact that we > displace the consequences of using up resources either temporally or > spatially at larger regional or global scales. These authors provide a > powerful set of examples that show the wider detrimental impacts of locally > ‘sustainable’ systems, including that of Portland, Oregon – which ‘is > hailed by the media as “the most sustainable city in America”’, and the > Bristol Bay Salmon Fishery, also cited as a success story. (Burger et al’s > point here echoes a call for more ecosystem-based management of fisheries > made recently in another recent *PLoS Biology* article by Levi et > al<http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001303> > ). > > During the editorial process, it became clear that while there was > agreement that human ecology is a key factor for understanding sustainable > resource use , not everyone agreed with the pessimistic and seemingly > static outlook presented by Burger et al. We therefore commissioned John > Matthews <http://climatechangewater.org/page2/page2.html> and Fred > Boltz<http://www.conservation.org/FMG/Articles/Pages/conservation_in_action_fred_boltz.aspx>from > Conservation > International <http://www.conservation.org/Pages/default.aspx> to provide > their more optimistic > perspective<http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001344>. > They argue that the world is a much more dynamic place than that set out by > Burger et al and that human ingenuity and adaptability (both human and > planetary) may provide creative solutions that will allow human societies > to overcome resource limitation and continue to grow. > *rest of the story here: ** > http://blogs.plos.org/biologue/2012/06/20/rio20-why-sustainability-must-include-ecology/ > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > *Direct links > *Georgina Mace’s overview: *The Limits to Sustainability Science: > Ecological Constraints or Endless Innovation? > ** > http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001343 > * > Her podcast: > * > http://blogs.plos.org/plospodcasts/2012/06/19/plos-biology-podcast-episode-05-flirting-with-disaster/ > * > > The Burger et al. piece: *The Macroecology of Sustainability > ** > http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001345 > * > > Matthews & Boltz: *The Shifting Boundaries of Sustainability Science: Are > We Doomed Yet? > ** > http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001344 > * -- David McNeely
