Where do you see Sustainability as a concept in 10 years?

[FabianPattberg]

Hello everyone!

A question to you which I find hard to have a clear opinion on:

Where do you see Sustainability as a concept in 10 years?

I have two scenarios where I se sustainability in 10 years:

1) Sustainability is at the center of governments across theworld because the effects of climate change are so severe that a normal life and future is hard to comprehend.

2) Nothing has changed and we still go about doing "business as usual".

I am interested in your views.

Fabian

[matthewtrigg]

In 10 years if all goes well the term sustainability would no longer exists.

Sustainability is not a concept that should be viewed in isolation. It cannot be related to professions such as accounting or politics. It should not be seen as something in addition to the status quo (such as 'green' buildings). Rather everything should be sustainable in its own right.

That is, in 10 years my hope is that the concept has been so well received that every aspect of society has evolved to a point where it is sustainable in its own right.

I choose my words very carefully here as this transition phase is the period that will determine the difference between monumental success or failure. To say that we should 'change' to a sustainable society is a difficult idea to sell as it implies giving things up that we may currently hold very dear. Another term that is used a lot is 'become', again this should be avoided as it entails the transformation of something into something else, that state of which may not be desirable and thus not successful. The term 'evolve' is the most suited term i have found in relation to achieving a sustainable future.

To say that we should 'evolve' towards a sustainable ideal implies that we are working with everything we have now and making it better.

It is subtleties in language such as this that can make the difference between convincing someone to act compared to making them think you are a nut.

[Neil]

Fabian,

Thanks for your introductory note. I am interested in understanding how others interpret the term sustainability. Given the widespread acceptance of the limits to growth resulting from its exponential character along with the associated negative effects upon population, pollution and resource use, is sustainability truly achieveable? Does sustainability refer to perpetuality? Can there be such a thing as sustainable growth?

I would be grateful for any comments on these questions. I shall be posting my current thoughts on these a little later.

All the best

Neil.

[matthewtrigg]

The myth of perpetual growth is one of the most reckless concepts facing our world today.

At current living standards the global community is already running into on borrowed time. As these standards rise and population increases this situation is only going to get worse. If this trend continues indefinitly, ultimatly it will lead to either the settlement of another earth-like planet or the collapse of our society due to insufficent resources.

The concept of progress needs to move away from the simple concept of growth. Basically we need to focus on quality and not quantity.

[Neil]

Matthew,

To a large extent I agree with what you have said. Despite the significant level of consensus which has developed around the 'green growth' concept (the Stern Review being just one recent example), there are robust arguments which undermine the possibility of any kind of growth. On this basis the comment about quality rather than quantity is quite correct. However, what remains is a question of agency. How do we 'evolve' to a sustainable society? Evolution reflects a move forwards. Unfortunately, it is part of the cold reality of a green society that in some respects human beings must accept some regressive developments if we are to meet our needs without preventing future generations from meeting theirs (assuming that humanity can reach a consensus on what the 'needs' actually are). Hard decisions would be required especially in terms of political organisation, a change to the prevailing economic model not to mention the social aspects, afterall the world population is an obvious form of growth which would need to be curtailed in a truly sustainable society.

In the meantime, perhaps the 'green growth' agenda, whilst not perfect, does offer the first step to sustainable evolution and should therefore not be completely discounted?

[borag]

Hey all,

This is Geta, a new member on this forum (I am working at a bank in Netherlands on sustainable development).

I agree with Matthew about the necessity of including the concept of sustainability in everything we do in the future, any decision, any type of structure or organization, and not seeing it as a separate stream, as often it is seen nowadays.

I think this will happen and it will become a very important priority for many governments unfortunately only once the effects of our actions will have touched its population and its negative effects will be felt directly in every single home (e.g. see after Katrina in US)

But my fear that this moment might be too late, taking into account how difficult is for nature to re-establish its ecological balance. To give you an example I read in a book recently: a forest cut down completely in few months or less rebuilds its entire equilibrium with the water, earth, etc only after 15-30 years...

So maybe the question is how to bring the probable awareness will exist about sustainability 10 years from now today? How to learn to live more in balance with nature, understanding better its mechanisms?

Looking forward for your thoughts,
Geta

[matthewtrigg]

Yes it would be wonderful if it could happen now, but it is unlikely that such a shift in perception and effort could occur without a significant catalyst.

Hurricane Katrina was a good example of a single event causing an issue to receive greater attention within the public consciousness. But it was not big enough.

It will take an event with an equivalent psychological influence compatible to the September 11 terrorist attacks or the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima for the world to become truly sustainable in anything less then 10 years.

Unfortunately unless more action is taken now it will be a lot further away then a mere decade. Therefore we (the committed few) try our best to help society evolve until we reach a critical mass, after which point the transition towards a sustainable society will be self-sufficient.

[MJHall]

deleted by moderator!

[Johnny Electriglide]

Originally Posted by Neil

Fabian,

Thanks for your introductory note. I am interested in understanding how others interpret the term sustainability. Given the widespread acceptance of the limits to growth resulting from its exponential character along with the associated negative effects upon population, pollution and resource use, is sustainability truly achieveable? Does sustainability refer to perpetuality? Can there be such a thing as sustainable growth?

I would be grateful for any comments on these questions. I shall be posting my current thoughts on these a little later.

All the best

Neil.

Usually, we refer to sustainability as long term, and specific to the carrying capacity on a planetary scale of humans. By long term, we really mean in the epoch. We are in an interglacial epoch, which can "hold" twice as many people--generally. Population normally goes in a slow sine wave pattern around the even slower moving sustainability.
In mammals a population may be stimulated into the classic half-bell crash curve by a sudden abundance of food, and/or lack of predation. With the present human condition it started out with a general over-tolerance and over-compassion brought about by certain religions, then wars became less selective to negatively selective while the advent of fossil fuels allowed an exponential growth in food production and distribution. Our technologies allowed greater numbers to live to reproductive age and predators, including many diseases, nearly gone. The start of the ability to control population by choice and medication helped to slow down the growth with those intelligent and motivated to use them.
True sustainability means to always be in balance with our use of the natural world. Our soil use equals our making new soil by composting and even our bodies. Our use of pure groundwater equals the rate it is being recharged. Our various types of pollution are at a rate equal or less than absorption back safely into the natural system or biosphere of the Earth. Animals, plants, micro-organisms, and fungi we need in our niche are also kept in balance.
In 10 years the Earth's people will be dumbed down more, and death rates will have increased. More governments and groups will try to stop the madness of overpopulation and pollution, but the general effect will be one of too little too late. More people will be working towards sustainability, fighting on, with the actual sustainable level going down with pollution, depletion, and feedback loops.
I agree that using the term with businesses or development is either oxymoronic or out of context with ecology, or biology.
Sustain when I play guitar is a whole different cool thing.<rockon>

[Johnny Electriglide]

The sustainable level of human population depends on the standard of living that we are using. They are often described as American, Euro, or Chinese circa 1990. Or good, fair, and poor. Right now the general standard of living is poor and going toward the bottom of abject poverty and starvation. Some people use a variety of factors, but the reality boils down to calories of food per person per day, or CPPPD. With American and its 30% obesity rate being 3,500 CPPPD, Euro being 2,500 CPPPD, and the China 1990 as 1,400 CPPPD. This is assuming they have enough water that won't kill them, and infrastructure for waste disposal/treatment. Sedentary starvation level at 1,000 CPPPD.
The amount of food produced is going down with a variety of depletion/pollution factors. In a sustainable state, the amount of food produced would be relatively static, at full healthful diet, and distributed evenly from close-by areas and much cottage or do-it-yourself food production.
With the amount of food or sustainability going down as the population goes up, a point is reached in various areas and spreading, of the sedentary starvation level being reached, migrations to fail the next area, and, of course, water running out , also, in many areas before food. Diseases and wars spreading from need for nutrition. The life expectancy goes way down.
The process is happening right now and has been happening for some time.
The biggest challenge is to attempt to educate the masses on a subject that should be natural to all, but is not.