Jump to content

Talk:Sustainability/Definition/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Jan 14 version

I've incorporated elements of my previous proposal, which I never really saw anyones comments or thoughts on, and the varying definitions. If I've totally missed the mark then we can return to working on the clean version above here, but I feel that this really hits the nail on the head in defining sustainability in a concise, collated manner. Nick carson (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Scheme of sustainable development: at the confluence of three constituent parts.[1]
This diagram incorporates the three pillars diagram within the sphere of the Earth, life on Earth and the surrounding Environment that the systems within rely on.[2]

The term "sustainability" is defined in many ways according to the context in which it is applied. As all human activity entails sustainability the word may be used to refer to any aspect of human behaviour. The fundamental integrated dimensions of sustainability are often taken to be: ecological, social and economic, known as the "three pillars" [3] These are depicted as three overlapping circles, to show that these are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing.[4]

While this model was intended to increase the standing of ecological concerns, it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world.[2] As Herman Daly famously asked "what use is a sawmill without a forest?"[5] For this reason a fourth and outer "environment" circle is sometimes added that encloses the other three.[2]

Definitions of sustainability may include statements of both fact and value, and may also be a call to certain kinds of action. Consequently, for some people sustainability is a desirable state of affairs (a "destination"), for others it is a process and way of living (a "journey"). Because of these diverse factors sustainability is sometimes perceived as a general concept like liberty or justice, which is accepted as being of critical importance to humanity and life in general. It can also be viewed as a "dialogue of values"[6] that defies consensual definition.[7] As a call to action, sustainability" is open to various political interpretations and opinions concerning the perspectives on ways to achieve particular sustainability goals.

The Earth Charter sets out to establish values and direction in this way:

We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

A simpler definition is given by the IUCN, UNEP and WWF:

Sustainabilty is: improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems.[8]

Sustainability can also be presented as a call to action, as:

... a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in the very long term.[9]

Notes

  1. ^ UCN. 2006. The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century. Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 29-31 January, 2006 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_future_of_sustanability.pdf
  2. ^ a b c Ott, K. (2003). "The Case for Strong Sustainability." In: K. Ott & P.P. Thapa (eds.). Greifswald’s environmental ethics. Greifswald: Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose. ISBN 3-931483-32-0
  3. ^ 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, World Health Organization, 15 September 2005
  4. ^ "UK Forestry Commission". Retrieved 12/19/08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ Daly, H.E.; Cobb, J.B. (1989), For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment. and a Sustainable Future, Boston, MA: Beacon
  6. ^ Blewitt, J. 2008. Understanding Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London.
  7. ^ Beckers et al., in SCOPE-ASI background paper, 2004.
  8. ^ IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991). Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland.|IUCN - The World Conservation Union, UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme, WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature.
  9. ^ CSR and International Political Economy. Allacademic.com.

Comments on current version

I like it fine the way you have re-worked it, with a few reservations:

  1. I think that the wording for the three definitions from the previous version was superior.
  2. I think we need the original three circles diagram in this section preceding the new diagram. Right now it is in the "History" section, but it doesn't make sense to have it appear after the new diagram, IMO.
  3. I also liked the explanation for the new diagram that was in the last paragraph of the previous version and think that the new diagram should apear alongside it.
  4. I had just convinced GT to keep the Daly quote about the sawmill and would hate to see it jettisoned!

Can we regroup in light of these points and come up with a final version? Sunray (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to reconcile what has been added with what is in the lead - there is quite a lot here that is now repetition. Granitethighs (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Sunray (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reservations about the sentence saying "science is the basis" - it is legitimate to regard sustainability as a social or political process - certainly informed by science though. Also not sure that introducing the word holistic here helps although it needs to be in the article somewhere. Anyway - lets put all this together and see what it looks like? Granitethighs (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agree with you on that and have made a change in the wording. I've operationalised my comments, above, by adding the original diagram and moving the new diagram down. I've also restored the lead statements to the definitions. Now, assuming all are in agreement, the section just needs some final editing and we're done. Sunray (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel the need to edit this quite a lot but, as before, I'd like to do what I think is necessary and then leave you (Sunray) to make the final decision, otherwise we could get bogged down in the detail. I will be perfectly happy for you to revert my edits if you think they are not appropriate. Granitethighs (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the edits that GT & Sunray have contributed. It needs a bit more tweaking but we're nearly there. Nick carson (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have liberally spattered quotes and italics through all th stuff I've done and am not sure what th proper procedure is - it probably needs checking. And, finally, dont we need the "four rings" diagram in here too? Granitethighs (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. It was you that struck it. Did you mean to strike the whole last paragraph, including the diagram? Sunray (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
O.k., I see that you have folded what was in the last paragraph into the first para. That looks good. However, what about the two diagrams -- just replace the one that's there now with the four circles one? Sunray (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The text problematises the concept of environment ("the natural world") being one of the three circles. Which was the whole idea behind the new diagram (which shows the circles to be a part of the environment). Do we thus need both diagrams, or can we just add some more text to clarify the new diagram? Sunray (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It was suggested at one stage that we use both. General readers would probably be more familiar with the "Sustainable development" 3 rings. I'd be inclined, at this stage, to put them both in with the text cleared up on the difference between the two. The reader would benefit from thinking about the difference for themselves. We can change later. ? Granitethighs (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure I like that approach. Do you want to take a bash at reworking the text? Meanwhile, I was asking a graphically-inclined friend of mine how to tweak the wording of the second diagram (economical --> economic). I also asked about the colour scheme. He said he would "take a look at it," and send along his suggested changes. Sunray (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Modified diagram

Here is another version of the revised diagram for consideration.

This diagram incorporates the three pillars diagram within the sphere of the Earth, life on Earth and the surrounding Environment that the systems within rely on.
This diagram incorporates the three pillars diagram within the sphere of the Earth, life on Earth and the surrounding Environment that the systems within rely on.

The circles are somewhat larger and the colours bolder. The wording "Economical" was changed to "Economic." Preferences? I think my own preference would be to go closer to the (above) original sustainable development diagram (with lighter colours), but I would be happy with either of these. Further tweaks needed? Sunray (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)






I'll tweak the text. I think it looks good. My preference would be for Economy, Society and Ecology and I would prefer these three words being larger. Perhaps we emulate the colours of SD and just have the extra ring ... anyway I'm easy on that. I think I am outnumbered on this but I liked the idea of the outside ring being the "Blue Planet" image - no takers? It could be the "logo" and be used as the image in the lead. I see the Environment people are using the Blue Planet a lot of the time: it would make us different from them and give the Blue Planet a "message", no? Granitethighs (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO we can discuss the detail of the new 4 circles as we go; the principle is there. I'm all for Sunray casting a final eye over what is there now and tweaking it into a state of uploadability. I have tweaked the text as requested.Granitethighs (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
O.K., I will prep it for uploading. Perhaps Nick should cast an eye upon it before we move it to the main article? Sunray (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a clean copy for a last look. I've added the re-revised version of the diagram, and agree that we can tweak it later. I think the smaller circles of Nick's second version were better visually and will try a lighter wash of colours for the circles like the first one. In the meantime, I agree that we should upload it if Nick is o.k. with that. Sunray (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine, just a thought. Granitethighs (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I now see it is probably best if we simply replicate the wording of the 3 pillars using the same colourings and with the foundation Earth ring outside. Granitethighs (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Uh... yes. Isn't that essentially what the new diagram does? It's just that the colours are bolder and the ellipses become circles. I still think it needs further tweaking, though to make the colours lighter (like the first diagram) and re-size the circles. Sunray (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you prefer ellipses? Not sure that is possible due to size constraints, but could ask Andrew to try that. Sunray (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I guess we are "making a statement" that sustainability is very like SD and yet different. The ellipses make more room for the important words. Couldnt we "steal/copy" the SD template and just add another ring on the outside? Granitethighs (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, we will have a go at that. Sunray (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability/Definition/Archive_2&oldid=1137213234"