This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I would definitely prefer if those Main article headings were removed. What is really essential will be linked from the text, and other stuff can be put in See also. I will look things over if there is anything that jumps out at me. V.B. ( talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
V.B. in red:
I have on my desk a book by William R Blackburn (I actually have about 4 meters of books on the general philosophy of sustainability) awesome, you'll be acting as our reference librarian as well as co-editor! :-)published in 2008 called “The Sustainability Handbook”, it is one of the books I put in the References section of the article. Chapter 1 is titled “Addressing the confusion about sustainability: the typical executive view”. Chapter 2 is called “Determining scope: an operational definition of sustainability”. Chapter 2 is interesting because it gives a range of definitions of “sustainability” from the general literature including: The UK Government, the World Conservation Union, United Nations Environmental Program, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, the Forum for the Future, the UN Secretary General, International Institute for Sustainable Development (business based). The book, to my mind, is too business based – but it is one among many attempts to come to grips with this slippery topic. It points out that in the general literature there are two key frequently repeated themes. The first is the definition given by the Brundtland Report (which we have in the lead), the second is the necessity for integration of environmental, social and economic forces in setting a way forward, sometimes called Elkington’s TBL (Triple Bottom Line) which we are just about to deal with. this is a real problem for me; as the article on SD points out (and I'd like to point out that that article is woefully inadequate...) this is an SD construct, including the diagram, and creates the impression that somehow economics and the human social sphere are somehow not within/dependent on, the living world Before we get going I would like to make the point that has already been raised, and that is … as an encyclopaedia Wikipedia must express a NPOV (neutral point of view). Put simply, what we should be doing is to present sustainability as it currently stands, NOT sustainability as we would like it to be. We have flexibility because of the controversial aspect of definition but sustainability, as an encyclopaedia article, can no more be “hijacked” by the environment than it can be “hijacked” by sustainable development (and I would call myself an environmentalist). well, this is part of the whole controversy, and maybe the best we can do on some subsections is to sum up the controversy and present a pro/con response to it, in order to remain fair
I found this on the web and think it is not bad: Sustainability is many things to many people. It can simultaneously be an idea, an ideology, a manufacturing method, a way of life and a crusade. Unfortunately for many businesses and marketers, sustainability is little more than a hollow buzz word. this is surprisingly good So what is sustainability?
Sustainability Defined
In order to understand what sustainability is all about it first needs a definition. Sustainability has been defined hundreds of times but the most commonly accepted definition of sustainablilty was created in 1987 at the Brundtland Commission otherwise known as the World Commission on Environment and Development.
This definition states "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations to meet their own needs".let's always keep in mind that Brundtland presented a definition of SD, not sustainability itself; from this an oft-used definition was derived, but is not the only one
I have three points:
… and three suggestions:
Granitethighs ( talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Granitethighs ( talk) 06:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
V.B. ( talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, after a good two-weeks of watching Olympics, I'm back to do some more editing on this article. OhanaUnited Talk page 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
My first sketch:
Notes: 1) after further reflection, I suggest putting History first; as I began to jot down notes on the Definition section, I needed to speak about Brundtland, and I think a newby would be clueless at this point if the Definition section came first. Once they have an overview from History, they will be in a better position to understand further discussion; 2) the organizing principles described, the three pillars (turning into 5 pillars as we speak), give undue weight to the SD POV, and are further critiqued by Hassan. She suggests another way of organizing, and it seems to me that NPOV requires that we mention the main ways of organizing but privilege none; 4) Action-guiding principles ought to go over things like waste = food, biomimetics and other guides for people who want practical advice; 5) Transition ought to focus not only on general ideas and suggestions, but also on notable practices.
I would like to see us write with close attention to honesty; not that we aren’t, but there is way too much fluff, BS, political correctness and denial in the writings on sustainability and I hope we can do better.
The otherwise excellent extended section under Environmental pillar suffers from a focus that I would call “the dire situation of the natural world” (i.e. a focus on unsustainability) and would perhaps be more properly integrated into the separate articles on each topic, whether air or cultivated land et al.
Regarding NPOV, what we have at present gives undue weight to POVs that I would classify as SD, bureaucratic (or political), and managerial. Can we enlarge the fold to include others?
Re template, it’s missing systems thinking. Otherwise, feel free to do what you will with it, right now it’s too much for me to think about. V.B. ( talk) 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thought this was in the reading list: Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes by Robert B. Gibson, Selma Hassan, Susan Holtz, and James Tansey (Paperback - Dec 2005) V.B. ( talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how this template will deal with sustainability as it applies in specific sectors (energy, waste, agriculture, and transport which is currently missing) and if not, where this content goes? Keeping the article brief and high level is a good aim, but if it's all as abstract as your headings look to be, then perhaps it may get boring? -- Travelplanner ( talk) 12:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's a variation on the outline V.B. put forward above, taking some of the comments into account, adding some of my own reactions.
Please add, subtract, or modify at will. Sunray ( talk) 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, there is only one pillar – the living world, and our dilemma is how to live within it while not continuing to wreak grievous damage on it, or even destroying our chances of survival. As Hassan points out, the three pillars framework is really conflictual, not cooperational. Every time someone speaks for sustaining some part of the natural world, the two other pillars rise in uproar and prevent anything truly effective being done, and so the status quo is perpetuated.
The other problem with the pillars approach, to my mind, is that it scatters itself over everything: sustainability is supposed to do everything from curing hunger, saving civilization and getting the crabgrass out of the lawn. Nuts. We need to refocus and deal with the real issue. Which is? Ongoing human thriving. Whatever it takes. V.B. ( talk) 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Since GT requested a philosophy section, I thought I'd add rants too... where people can clarify where they're coming from "from the heart" so to speak. V.B. ( talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I would definitely prefer if those Main article headings were removed. What is really essential will be linked from the text, and other stuff can be put in See also. I will look things over if there is anything that jumps out at me. V.B. ( talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
V.B. in red:
I have on my desk a book by William R Blackburn (I actually have about 4 meters of books on the general philosophy of sustainability) awesome, you'll be acting as our reference librarian as well as co-editor! :-)published in 2008 called “The Sustainability Handbook”, it is one of the books I put in the References section of the article. Chapter 1 is titled “Addressing the confusion about sustainability: the typical executive view”. Chapter 2 is called “Determining scope: an operational definition of sustainability”. Chapter 2 is interesting because it gives a range of definitions of “sustainability” from the general literature including: The UK Government, the World Conservation Union, United Nations Environmental Program, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, the Forum for the Future, the UN Secretary General, International Institute for Sustainable Development (business based). The book, to my mind, is too business based – but it is one among many attempts to come to grips with this slippery topic. It points out that in the general literature there are two key frequently repeated themes. The first is the definition given by the Brundtland Report (which we have in the lead), the second is the necessity for integration of environmental, social and economic forces in setting a way forward, sometimes called Elkington’s TBL (Triple Bottom Line) which we are just about to deal with. this is a real problem for me; as the article on SD points out (and I'd like to point out that that article is woefully inadequate...) this is an SD construct, including the diagram, and creates the impression that somehow economics and the human social sphere are somehow not within/dependent on, the living world Before we get going I would like to make the point that has already been raised, and that is … as an encyclopaedia Wikipedia must express a NPOV (neutral point of view). Put simply, what we should be doing is to present sustainability as it currently stands, NOT sustainability as we would like it to be. We have flexibility because of the controversial aspect of definition but sustainability, as an encyclopaedia article, can no more be “hijacked” by the environment than it can be “hijacked” by sustainable development (and I would call myself an environmentalist). well, this is part of the whole controversy, and maybe the best we can do on some subsections is to sum up the controversy and present a pro/con response to it, in order to remain fair
I found this on the web and think it is not bad: Sustainability is many things to many people. It can simultaneously be an idea, an ideology, a manufacturing method, a way of life and a crusade. Unfortunately for many businesses and marketers, sustainability is little more than a hollow buzz word. this is surprisingly good So what is sustainability?
Sustainability Defined
In order to understand what sustainability is all about it first needs a definition. Sustainability has been defined hundreds of times but the most commonly accepted definition of sustainablilty was created in 1987 at the Brundtland Commission otherwise known as the World Commission on Environment and Development.
This definition states "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations to meet their own needs".let's always keep in mind that Brundtland presented a definition of SD, not sustainability itself; from this an oft-used definition was derived, but is not the only one
I have three points:
… and three suggestions:
Granitethighs ( talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Granitethighs ( talk) 06:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
V.B. ( talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, after a good two-weeks of watching Olympics, I'm back to do some more editing on this article. OhanaUnited Talk page 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
My first sketch:
Notes: 1) after further reflection, I suggest putting History first; as I began to jot down notes on the Definition section, I needed to speak about Brundtland, and I think a newby would be clueless at this point if the Definition section came first. Once they have an overview from History, they will be in a better position to understand further discussion; 2) the organizing principles described, the three pillars (turning into 5 pillars as we speak), give undue weight to the SD POV, and are further critiqued by Hassan. She suggests another way of organizing, and it seems to me that NPOV requires that we mention the main ways of organizing but privilege none; 4) Action-guiding principles ought to go over things like waste = food, biomimetics and other guides for people who want practical advice; 5) Transition ought to focus not only on general ideas and suggestions, but also on notable practices.
I would like to see us write with close attention to honesty; not that we aren’t, but there is way too much fluff, BS, political correctness and denial in the writings on sustainability and I hope we can do better.
The otherwise excellent extended section under Environmental pillar suffers from a focus that I would call “the dire situation of the natural world” (i.e. a focus on unsustainability) and would perhaps be more properly integrated into the separate articles on each topic, whether air or cultivated land et al.
Regarding NPOV, what we have at present gives undue weight to POVs that I would classify as SD, bureaucratic (or political), and managerial. Can we enlarge the fold to include others?
Re template, it’s missing systems thinking. Otherwise, feel free to do what you will with it, right now it’s too much for me to think about. V.B. ( talk) 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thought this was in the reading list: Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes by Robert B. Gibson, Selma Hassan, Susan Holtz, and James Tansey (Paperback - Dec 2005) V.B. ( talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how this template will deal with sustainability as it applies in specific sectors (energy, waste, agriculture, and transport which is currently missing) and if not, where this content goes? Keeping the article brief and high level is a good aim, but if it's all as abstract as your headings look to be, then perhaps it may get boring? -- Travelplanner ( talk) 12:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's a variation on the outline V.B. put forward above, taking some of the comments into account, adding some of my own reactions.
Please add, subtract, or modify at will. Sunray ( talk) 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, there is only one pillar – the living world, and our dilemma is how to live within it while not continuing to wreak grievous damage on it, or even destroying our chances of survival. As Hassan points out, the three pillars framework is really conflictual, not cooperational. Every time someone speaks for sustaining some part of the natural world, the two other pillars rise in uproar and prevent anything truly effective being done, and so the status quo is perpetuated.
The other problem with the pillars approach, to my mind, is that it scatters itself over everything: sustainability is supposed to do everything from curing hunger, saving civilization and getting the crabgrass out of the lawn. Nuts. We need to refocus and deal with the real issue. Which is? Ongoing human thriving. Whatever it takes. V.B. ( talk) 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Since GT requested a philosophy section, I thought I'd add rants too... where people can clarify where they're coming from "from the heart" so to speak. V.B. ( talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)