What is Sustainable?

[DEPAVER]

We hear much about sustainability from our national fear-mongers, or
"news" sources, as they are euphemistically called, without defining the
meaning, or making the meaning clear through context.

I think it is essential to define a sustainable society (not a huge,
one-size-fits-all global society, but a local bioregional society). Let's
try this on for size:

Sustainable means that the society does not consume more natural
resources than can be replenished by natural biological and geophysical
cycles, and does not produce waste faster than can be dispersed by natural
biological and geophysical cycles.

I think its pretty clear that any group that does not follow these
simple guidelines will not long last.

The question is, can these basic understandings become a core organizing
principle for a human society? Can we build from the local level on these
principles, such that all human endeavor is measured against them?

[MysticArcher]

"can these basic understandings become a core organizing
principle for a human society?"

yes, but not under capitalism, where it's more profitable to strip mine and pollute

as for local level stuff, I think it's entirely possible, for example my family is building a small building in the backyard and we're trying to use as many sustainable techniques as possible, such as a grey water system and paper-crete for the walls

[The Children of the Revolution]

I consider this to be a definition of sustainability:

> Prudent use of resources (effectively what you said...)
> Low environmental impact (again, a development of your point)
> Social justice and equality

The third point is very important. Class differences and social tensions will create conflict - and therefore instability. This is why a Green-Socialist agenda is the way forwards!!

Incidentally, this was a definition first suggested by the British government. I interpreted the third point in a different way, obviously. Also, there was a fourth: "Stable economic growth". (or something akin to that) But I think this is entirely unnecessary.

[Pete]

Economic growth is not necassary, but economic redirection is. Perhaps that is a better way of terming the forth (or replacing it with). Instead of using resources on frivilious luxuries, like a forth car, a cottage (I consider people who own one to be rich... but then again most people I know do), ect, they should be used on housing, mass transportation (note: mass green transpo, not just mass.. it is polluting as all gets out), and accessible luxuries for all (though not excessive).

One native tribe from the US, the Navaho I believe, lived in a way so that other could live this way for atleast six generations after them. Thus sustainablity was kept. We must keep in mind the future, as that is where leftism points: forward.

[The Children of the Revolution]

I'm not sure about the specific example you're talking about, but we studied the American Indians and their ideas of "sustainability" a while back. I read a couple of books on the issue; turns out they were far from "utopian" - in fact, quite the opposite. They [American Indians] single handedly wiped out the great herds.

They used to hunt them by driving a whole herd off a cliff!! Obviously they couldn't eat all that meat at once, so much of it went to waste. Not to mention the fact that almost a whole herd would be annihilated just like that...

We must learn from our past mistakes though, not repeat them.

[Pete]

You have to remember, my friend, that not all of North America is plateau and praries! The Ojibwa had a similar practice, and they are of the forests of the Canadian Shield.

And the Bisons and Buffalos became extinct around the time their food did, and the rise of the cereal industry (though not exactly then). Can't have wild herds eating our oh so environmentally friendly grains now can we?

[pedro san pedro]

agreed that we cant achieve sustainablity under capitalism -which requires constant growth.
a lot of governments have begun to talk about "sustainable growth" -for example new zealand's labour party is aiming for 4%. sustainable growth to me appears to be an oxymoron -at 4%, how long until new zealands economy doubles? until nz produces and consumes twice as much?

a favourite quote of mine, from nz green party mp nandor tanczos -

we are junkies to the crack pipe dream of consumerism

we must move away from consuming and matrialislm, and learn to produce what we need. their is so much wastage and over production under our current system

[DEPAVER]

Interesting points made by all.

Yes, sustainable growth is an oxymoron, and economic redirection is a term I find appealing.

Since the industrial revolution, we have developed energy resource in a capitalist economy and a centralized political-economic system. The efficiencies of scale and centralization have led to an exploitation of energy resources at a rate unattainable, and unnecessary, in a decentralized society with a socialist economy. Human population numbers have grown hand-in-hand with this rapid resource exploitation.

If we did not have the oil resources available as we did, we could not have sustained the global population growth that we experienced. Famine and disease would have kept the population at much lower rates of increase.

The result is that we have overshot the earth's capacity to sustain human society at its present level of growth and consumption. We are approaching, within the next 10 to 40 years certainly, that payoff point, where we begin to use energy resources faster than they can be developed, using more energy than is available in the resource itself. This is not an economic calculation; the price of energy is irrelevant. No matter how high the price of energy is placed, it cannot be produced faster or use less energy. We cannot continue to grow our society faster than the total energy available to fuel that growth. This is the physical limit to human growth.

Therefore, we must devise a society that can live and thrive within that physical limit. Obviously, it cannot be a capitalist economy that requires constant growth. We will, of necessity, devise a steady-state economy, and a decentralized, locally-controlled political system to support it. This is not a matter of choice; we will achieve a steady-state society, one way or another. Either we decide to live this way on purpose, or wars, famine and disease will reduce us to pre-industrial levels from which we can attempt build on the leftovers from our present over-consumption.

[Pete]

The result is that we have overshot the earth's capacity to sustain human society at its present level of growth and consumption. We are approaching, within the next 10 to 40 years certainly, that payoff point, where we begin to use energy resources faster than they can be developed, using more energy than is available in the resource itself.

Actually some people say we already hit the peak of our current society and are on the down swing. Have you heard about the Peak Oil Crash theory? I think I posted it in Politics.. It is quite interesting, and depressing cycinical yet optismistic all at once.

It is worth checking out, as it is a 'When' not an 'If' and many experts put the 'When' by this year, and things will only get worse as time progresses.

[DEPAVER]

I've read quite a bit about it, but have no definite answers!
Has oil production peaked?
Yes. No. Maybe. As usual, the experts don't agree. Here's a decent non-technical summary of the situation:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0129/p14s01-wogi.html