I was going to make this the Wikipedia definition of the day, but wasn't able to find it on Wikipedia... so instead I'm going to turn to a fellow blogger and let his blog do the talking.
Thanks a lot to Mark Caserta over at 3rblogging for putting it together so perfectly.
Read about Neo-green
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Best to Start at the Beginning....
It's aways best to start at the beginning of any story, occasionally you'll start at the middle or the end, but it can be more confusing, and for this story it just doesn't plan work. Though this I guess really isn't so much a story as much it'll be a commentary, not formal enough to be a dissertation, and not to far from a pitch.
One of the main reasons I started this blog was get myself to start engaging in a discussion on sustainability, specifically sustainability in the built environment, but sustainability at large. Hopefully, I won't have to discuss this with myself but if I do, so be it. There will still be posts on passing interests, noteworthy, or just plain amusing stories, and then the nonsensical. This blog is after all about Reaching Ix.
Before we even start, it's best to understand what I mean when I say sustainable or sustainability. The June 25th Wikipedia of the day was Sustainability. I don't think this is the be all and end all of what sustainable is, but I also don'’t think I'’m far off and it's definitely a good starting point.
I'’ve presented here what in my view is the definition of sustainability. It will likely be refined with time, as I am introduced and explore new ideas and modes of thinking. It is a fluid process, a work continually in progress.
Wikipedia defines sustainability as:
The definition of sustainability offered up in the now famous Brundtland Report (full text of report found here) of 1987: "“Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."” is more succinct than the Wikipedia definition but I think it provides little to no frame of reference.
The Brundltand definition doesn'’t identify any of the major participates, it doesn'’t address the nature or scope of sustainability. There are several key phrases in the Wikipedia definition that I think are integral to an understanding of sustainability.
The Wikipedia definition identifies sustainability is a systemic concept; all parts are related and are affected by one another. You cannot change one part of the system without considering the affect it will have on the whole. This is important because thinking systemically or holistically is not built into our modes of thinking. As a result, a new mode of thinking, a new set of skills, in fact an entirely new thought process is required to think systemically and integrate sustainability into our society. For a few, this comes naturally, developed through interactions with the people and the world around us. For the vast majority of us it is learnt well after other modes of thinking have been developed, requiring us to unlearn our old practices before we can study to integrate the new.
Sustainability affects every level of organization; this really only reinforces the first point but emphasizes the impact regional events can have on a nation or global scale and visa versa. The most important part of this point is the impact it has on the human psyche: what they are doing over there affects me sitting over here so I should care about what they are doing over there.
Both definitions are in agreement that at the core sustainability is about providing for the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This is all very well and good, but it is a very open ended task. Those of us sitting in the present are able to grasp the concept of future generations, but largely lack the perception to comprehend and understand those future generations. The task needs to be framed, and importantly the Wikipedia definition provides one: our society, its members and its economies.
The needs of these three items must be not only meet their current needs, but must have the capacity to “express their greatest potential”. At the same time the items to be preserved are clearly identified: biodiversity and natural ecosystems. It is in fact a very tall order but frames the magnitude of the task well, permitting few short cuts or simply solutions. For example, banning all unnecessary travel would be unacceptable, because it would compromise the ability of the members of todayÂ’s society to express their greatest potential.
Hopefully you're starting to get the idea here that I'm not talking about going back into the caves, or that we should all go and hug a tree. If I had to use a term to describe myself I'd use neo-green: I believe that the environmental threats we face today are very real, serious and require our immediate attention, however I also believe that extreme tractics are not only ineffective, but are an unreasonable burden for our society to bare.
One of the main reasons I started this blog was get myself to start engaging in a discussion on sustainability, specifically sustainability in the built environment, but sustainability at large. Hopefully, I won't have to discuss this with myself but if I do, so be it. There will still be posts on passing interests, noteworthy, or just plain amusing stories, and then the nonsensical. This blog is after all about Reaching Ix.
Before we even start, it's best to understand what I mean when I say sustainable or sustainability. The June 25th Wikipedia of the day was Sustainability. I don't think this is the be all and end all of what sustainable is, but I also don'’t think I'’m far off and it's definitely a good starting point.
I'’ve presented here what in my view is the definition of sustainability. It will likely be refined with time, as I am introduced and explore new ideas and modes of thinking. It is a fluid process, a work continually in progress.
Wikipedia defines sustainability as:
a systemic concept, relating to the continuity of economic, social, institutional and environmental aspects of human society. It is intended to be 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, and planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals indefinitely. Sustainability affects every level of organization, from the local neighborhood to the entire planet.
The definition of sustainability offered up in the now famous Brundtland Report (full text of report found here) of 1987: "“Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."” is more succinct than the Wikipedia definition but I think it provides little to no frame of reference.
The Brundltand definition doesn'’t identify any of the major participates, it doesn'’t address the nature or scope of sustainability. There are several key phrases in the Wikipedia definition that I think are integral to an understanding of sustainability.
The Wikipedia definition identifies sustainability is a systemic concept; all parts are related and are affected by one another. You cannot change one part of the system without considering the affect it will have on the whole. This is important because thinking systemically or holistically is not built into our modes of thinking. As a result, a new mode of thinking, a new set of skills, in fact an entirely new thought process is required to think systemically and integrate sustainability into our society. For a few, this comes naturally, developed through interactions with the people and the world around us. For the vast majority of us it is learnt well after other modes of thinking have been developed, requiring us to unlearn our old practices before we can study to integrate the new.
Sustainability affects every level of organization; this really only reinforces the first point but emphasizes the impact regional events can have on a nation or global scale and visa versa. The most important part of this point is the impact it has on the human psyche: what they are doing over there affects me sitting over here so I should care about what they are doing over there.
Both definitions are in agreement that at the core sustainability is about providing for the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This is all very well and good, but it is a very open ended task. Those of us sitting in the present are able to grasp the concept of future generations, but largely lack the perception to comprehend and understand those future generations. The task needs to be framed, and importantly the Wikipedia definition provides one: our society, its members and its economies.
The needs of these three items must be not only meet their current needs, but must have the capacity to “express their greatest potential”. At the same time the items to be preserved are clearly identified: biodiversity and natural ecosystems. It is in fact a very tall order but frames the magnitude of the task well, permitting few short cuts or simply solutions. For example, banning all unnecessary travel would be unacceptable, because it would compromise the ability of the members of todayÂ’s society to express their greatest potential.
Hopefully you're starting to get the idea here that I'm not talking about going back into the caves, or that we should all go and hug a tree. If I had to use a term to describe myself I'd use neo-green: I believe that the environmental threats we face today are very real, serious and require our immediate attention, however I also believe that extreme tractics are not only ineffective, but are an unreasonable burden for our society to bare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
