Revision as of 02:35, 17 June 2008 editGranitethighs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,213 edits suggestion for a re-write← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:32, 21 November 2024 edit undoEMsmile (talk | contribs)Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users59,925 editsNo edit summaryTag: 2017 wikitext editor | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{ArticleHistory | |||
{{Environment|class=B}} | |||
|action1=PR | |||
{{to do}} | |||
|action1date=16:22, 21 March 2009 | |||
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Sustainability/archive1 | |||
|action1result=reviewed | |||
|action1oldid=278753078 | |||
|action2=PR | |||
{| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
|action2date=03:49, 29 July 2009 | |||
|- align="center" | |||
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Sustainability/archive2 | |||
| ] | |||
|action2result=reviewed | |||
''']''' | |||
|action2oldid=304720925 | |||
---- | |||
|- align="center" | |||
| ] | |||
|} | |||
|action3=GAN | |||
|action3date=14:56, 8 October 2010 | |||
|action3link=Talk:Sustainability/GA1 | |||
|action3result=listed | |||
|action3oldid=389524491 | |||
|action4=GAR | |||
'''Note''': Various tags (i.e., the "POV check" tag; the NPOV tag) have been added to the article and claims made that various critiques of ''sustainability'' are not included in the article. If you are inclined to such a view and think that a neutrality tag should be added to the article, please make your case at the bottom of this page. Tell us what critique or criticism is not represented. ] 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
|action4date=18:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
---------- | |||
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Sustainability/1 | |||
|action4result=delisted | |||
|action4oldid= | |||
|currentstatus=DGA | |||
== Deletion == | |||
|topic=philrelig | |||
Please explain this deletion: . The GDP information is sourced. The space exploration argument is obvious and the Earth only argument has no source either.] 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Environment |importance=High |sustainability=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Globalization |importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Economics |importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Futures studies |importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Sanitation|importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Tdslk|date=10 January 2023}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Refideas|f1={{Cite journal |last=Morelli |first=John |date=2011-11-01 |title=Environmental Sustainability: A Definition for Environmental Professionals |url=http://scholarworks.rit.edu/jes/vol1/iss1/2/ |journal=Journal of Environmental Sustainability |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=1–10 |doi=10.14448/jes.01.0002 |doi-access=free |issn=2159-2519}}}} | |||
{{Copied|from=Planetary boundaries|from_oldid=902808164 |to=Sustainability|to_diff=904902084}} | |||
{{American English}} | |||
{{section sizes}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 70K | |||
|counter = 35 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 8 | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |||
|algo = old(250d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Sustainability/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{annual readership}} | |||
==Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis== | |||
:If the space exploration comment is "obvious" then you shouldn't have difficulty finding a source for it. The point is that the section is titled "Criticism of infinite growth." The proponents of infinite growth have, for the past thirty years, tended to say that technology will "fix" the problem. It is an important argument. However, we are talking about planet Earth, so the space exploration idea needs to be properly developed and sourced. ] 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/UCSD/Introduction_to_Policy_Analysis_(Spring) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-03-28 | end_date = 2022-05-30 }} | |||
::Just have a look at the sources at ], for example. Please explain the deletion of the GDP and happiness argument.] 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Adding to the article the findings of Gaia == | |||
:::You suggest that because there is a source somewhere in another article, that it applies here. I don't subscribe to that reading of ''Misplaced Pages'' policies on sources. Arguments need to be properly developed and sourced ''in this article''. If the happiness argument is relevant, it needs to be better related to the rest of the section, IMO. ] 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Here is a specific link: The section contains amazing claims regarding the relationship between happiness and GDP, in effect arguing that people dying of famine due to poverty are just as happy as other people. NPOV requires the incluion of views of both sides.] 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::I don't think that was the right link. The one you added, above, talks about Dyson Sphere, but I cannot find anything about famine or happiness in it. ] 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::The GDP and happiness link was in the material you deleted but I can repeat it: . You asked for a link regarding space exploration, which I gave for regarding ]s, here it is again: ] 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
I propose to add to the page in the sections about Economic dimension and Options for overcoming barriers Issues around economic growth about the reasearch of Gaia. | |||
:Let me try to approach this another way. You asked me to explain why I deleted the passage, I responded that the space exploration argument was unsourced, I also pointed out that the happiness statement needed to be better related to the section. My point is: ''We need primary sources that say how space exploration and happiness relate to the criticism of infinite growth''. The sources you have given ''do not do that''. BTW the Dyson Sphere FAQ source you have given doesn't seem to meet the ] requirements for sources. ] 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::The space exploration argument counter the argument that resouces are limited to Earth. It goes to the ], a prominent technological university. Exactly what is your objection regarding the happiness and GDP argument, the section presents the strange opposing views, so this view is needed for NPOV.] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
'''What I want to write:''' | |||
:::Please show me where the source makes the argument. I would like to read the actual quote, because I haven't been able to see how the sources you quote make the argument you want to make. ] 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Space exploration first: "Why build a Dyson sphere? Energy and space. As described above, the amount of collected energy would be immense, and the living space simply unimaginable. Dyson pointed out that so far the energy usage of mankind has increased exponentially for at least a couple of thousand years, and if this continues we will soon consume more energy than the Earth receives from the sun, so the natural step is to build artificial habitats around the sun so that all energy can be used. The same goes for population in the long run (it should be noted that this is not a solution, just a logical result of growth)"] 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
"Some argue that decline in GDP is inevitable as if people will not stop ] willingly Earth resources will expire in the next decade due to increased consumption and this will cause collapse. But if humanity will willingly reduce ] the collapse will be prevented." | |||
:::::Interesting, without a doubt. However, the source is someone's personal webpage. How about we find a source that meets ]. ] 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::A personal webpage at respected university is not necessarily an unreliable sourced. But we can as well use this one, for example: ] 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::Also, could you give the exact quote from Lane's book where he makes these amazing claims stated in the section? ] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
'''Why I want to write it:''' | |||
::::::::No I cannot. It wasn't me that wrote that. ] 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Then I will remove it. A page number or a quote is required from a book.] 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I wouldn't remove it. It is pretty important to the section and it does have a source. It looks like an accurate summary. Why not ask for the quote or page number? ] 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::I have now and also here. I will wait for a short time before removing the claims.] 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I don't buy your point about a personal webpage at a respected university. As stated in ]: | |||
In those articles the only option talked seriously is decoupling even though it is written that it is not enough. We should write about alternatives. This study present one. it is one of the most comprehensive studies it is an analize about practical occurence of the projections of the well known "limit to growth" study. Not all think like her but if at least some seriouse study says GDP rise will peak by 2030 in any case we should include it (mentioning that not all agree with it). | |||
::::::::Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Misplaced Pages's ], fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the ] of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. | |||
:::::::::Also states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field"] 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::But surely not in this case, in which, as I have said, we are discussing an issue that is central to the theme of growth. There is a ''huge'' literature on this, article standards would dictate that we reflect that debate with appropriate sources. ] 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
'''Short explanation in this link:''' | |||
:::::::And: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." As to the second source you offer. You're kidding, right? I loved this bit: "It is possible to picture a StarWars-like universe where a Type IV civilization can use all power sources to convert matter into radiation to create an open universe instead of a closed one..." LOL! ] 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)! | |||
::::::::If you dislike it, we can take another: ] 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Please do. ] 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Did no link welll. Another: ] 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::I can't see how this relates space exploration to the criticism of infinite growth. Did I miss something? ] 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::It certainly mentions that future civilisations may create colonies around stars in order to utilize more energy.] 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-crisis-civilization-collapse-mit-2653980183.html | |||
Ultramarine again added the following statement to the article: | |||
"Ultimately, avoiding decline means turning society towards “another goal than growth,” Herrington concluded in the study." | |||
:"However, this ignores the possibility of ] and gathering resources from outside Earth, such as a ]. Also, research shows that happiness increases with a higher GDP/capita, at least below around $15,000 per person.<ref> The Cato institute. April 11, 2007</ref>" | |||
'''Original reasearch in this link:''' | |||
In the discussion above, I don't think I was clear. The statement, as it is currently worded is ]. I took issue with the references, because they do not support the argument Ultramarine is trying to make. Neither source even mentions growth. So the argument is being made by the editor, not the source, and that is ''original research.'' I've removed the statement from the article. 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Looking at the second point, what is the objection to mentioning the relationshipd between GPD/capita and happiness? ] 08:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::How does it relate to the subject? !!!! | |||
:::Continuing the discussion in the section below.] 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jiec.13084 | |||
"The two scenarios aligning most closely with observed data indicate a halt in welfare, food, and industrial production over the next decade or so, which puts into question the suitability of continuous economic growth as humanity's goal in the twenty-first century. Both scenarios also indicate subsequent declines in these variables, but only one—where declines are caused by pollution—depicts a collapse." | |||
'''Some detailes already exist in the page Limits to growth:''' | |||
THE TRANSFINANCIAL ECONOMICS PROJECTS | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Limits_to_Growth#Legacy | |||
"In 2020, an analysis by Gaya Herrington, then Director of Sustainability Services of KPMG US, was published in Yale University's Journal of Industrial Ecology. The study assessed whether, given key data known in 2020 about factors important for the "Limits to Growth" report, the original report's conclusions are supported. In particular, the 2020 study examined updated quantitative information about ten factors, namely population, fertility rates, mortality rates, industrial output, food production, services, non-renewable resources, persistent pollution, human welfare, and ecological footprint, and concluded that the "Limits to Growth" prediction is essentially correct in that continued economic growth is unsustainable under a "business as usual" model. The study found that current empirical data is broadly consistent with the 1972 projections and that if major changes to the consumption of resources are not undertaken, economic growth will peak and then rapidly decline by around 2040." ] (]) 11:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
Transfinancial Economics, or TFE offers a radical solution to the "problem" of sustainability. | |||
: No, please don't. This is a high level article which is trying to reach the general public and does not need additional detail on those issues. You could add it at ] rather. ] (]) 12:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Sustainable business practices example == | |||
http://kheper.net/essays/Transfinancial_Economics.html <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Hi ], please stop ]-ing over those examples for sustainable business practices that you want to add! The source that you are using is not a high quality source but even more importantly, the content doesn't fit in this high level overview article. If we added those very specific "how to" examples for everything it would just blow out. (and Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide, see ] guide). You could consider adding that content at ] rather, but with a better reference if possible. ] (]) 06:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
==Removal of "Criticism of infinite growth" paragraph from article== | |||
Ultramarine has removed the following paragraph from the article: | |||
<blockquote>'''Criticism of infinite growth''' | |||
<br> | |||
Critics of American society state that the philosophy of infinite ] and infinite growth in consumption are completely unsustainable and will cause great harm to human civilization in the future. In recognition that the ] is finite, there has been a growing awareness that there must be limits to certain kinds of human activity if the current diversity of life on the planet is to survive if not indefinitely, at least for the next ].{{Fact|date=July 2007}} For example, life expectancy and overall quality of life in the USA, although relatively high, are still not as high (in terms of international comparisons) as many people believe.{{Fact|date=July 2007}} This quality is delivered at enormous cost (calculated in terms of its ecological footprint). A perhaps even more surprising finding is that a few nations, even in today's world, do manage to deliver long and high quality of life more or less within a sustainable economic footprint. The explanation of these surprises stems from the fact that, as Marks et al and, earlier, Lane (1993) has argued, quality of life stems primarily from things like security for the future and networks of social contact. It has little to do with the materialistic components generally used to calculate GNP.{{dubious}} One way of summarising the outcome of this work is to view ] as a ] unnecessarily leading to the collapse of diversity and a radical population adjustment.</blockquote> | |||
== First sentence == | |||
In removing the passage, Ultramarine states, in his edit summary: "unsourced/unverifiable as per talk." I don't really think that there has been adequate discussion of this removal. The point made in the paragraph is that infinite growth is unsustainable. This is certainly a view held by many. It also seems to me to be one of the central debates related to sustainability. So there is no doubt in my mind that the section belongs in the article. What has been discussed, on this page, is the insufficiency of references. I had thought we'd agreed to put citation tags on the section and let its author, or other editors work on finding appropriate sources. Ultramarine even added some tags, but now seems to have changed his mind. I think that the paragraph should be restored and editors given time to find the necessary citations. Do other editors have any thoughts about this? ] 15:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:The material was unsourced or unverifiable as discussed above. On the on the other hand, you here delete well-sourced material. Please explain this double standard.] 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::The citations do not make the argument you want to make. It is, therefore, ]. We've discussed this already, at length. Nevertheless, if you wish to continue, that is what talk pages are for. ] 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::BTW, there is no "double standard." Both passages have now been removed to this page, one by you, one by me. ] 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::They do, happiness increases with a higher GDP contrary to claims in the unsourced section you quote above. Resources are not limitd to Earth. I removed unsourced/unverifiable material, you sourced.] 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
We've discussed the first sentence of the lead at length (see earlier on this talk page) but I can see that some more discussion might be needed, based on a recent change/query by ]. You said "co-exist with whom" but I think ''co-exist'' could just stand on its own. Alternatively one could say "co-exist with nature" or "co-exist with everything else on planet Earth" or "co-exist with other humans, animals, plants, ecosystems etc." but not sure this is needed? | |||
::::Yes, I agree that the second sentence does not constitute OR. However, it is a moot point now, since you have removed the preceding paragraph. ] 07:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Also, I noticed that you (Doomhope) combined some of the sentences in the lead. We had purposefully split them into shorter sentences in order to have a better readability of the article. I do agree that lots of short sentences in a row don't read very well though: sentence length should be varied. But this is just to explain why I would be tempted to split some of the sentences into two again which you had combined into one. Pinging ] who had previously done some work on improving the reading ease score of this article. ] (]) 10:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Deletion of sourced material and insertion of unsourced == | |||
See this: Please explain the insertion of the unsourced. The source clearly supports the statements given. Unless a concrete explanation if given, the sourced material will be restored.] 14:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Indeed, all the tools for measuring readability show poor scores for long sentences. So I've tried to break them up to make them easier to read, even though it's not as smooth as it could be for a more sophisticated or specialist reader.] (]) 12:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I am (once again) removing this paragraph from the article; | |||
::However, population growth is no longer exponential. The ] in its report ''World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision'' states that in the developed world many nations are expected to have declining populations in the future and and population growth and number of children born per women are declining the developing world. See also the ]. | |||
:Ultramarine: As I said before, this is ]. You are making the argument and using the source to back up your facts. Surely you have been around ''Misplaced Pages'' long enough to know that you cannot do that. ] 09:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
::All of this is stated in the report, no OR.] 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Definition of Sustainability == | |||
:::Then please show me a quotation that says what this paragraph says. I'd like the page number. ] 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
p. v "the population of the more developed regions is expected to remain | |||
largely unchanged at 1.2 billion and would have declined were it not for the projected net | |||
migration from developing to deve loped countries, which is expected to average 2.3 million | |||
persons a year after 2010." | |||
I disagree with the following definition being removed. In fact, maintaining a myopic definition of Sustainability on Misplaced Pages limits people's understanding of the architecural principles of sustainability, thereby limiting their ability to apply it to their lives. You are only describing one application of sustainability while missing the overarching concept. Its like saying Time only exists as minutes/hours/seconds and missing its position within the lexicon of physics. You are ignoring sustainability as a principle of physics. | |||
p. v "Below-replacement fertility prevails in the more developed | |||
regions and is expected to continue to 2050. Fertility is still high in most of the least developed | |||
countries and, although it is expected to decline, it will remain higher than in the rest of the | |||
world. In the rest of the developing countries, fertilit y has declined markedly since the late 1960s | |||
and is expected to reach below-replacement levels by 2050 in the majority of them." | |||
'''Sustainability''' is a characteristic of a system which enables its processes to be performed perpetually over time, because the processes of a Sustainable system do not deplete resources used within the system. ] (]) 05:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
p. vi "According to the | |||
: I think the current first sentence is more to the point and faster to grasp: {{tq|Sustainability is a social goal for people to co-exist on Earth over a long time.}}. Your sentence is unnecessarily wordy. Which publication does it come from by the way? You might be able to add it further down to the definition section if it comes from a reliable source. But I think it basically just repeats what the other definitions are formulating, just in other words. ] (]) 09:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
2006 Revision, fertility in the less developed countries as a whole is expected to drop from 2.75 | |||
::This definition talks about the fundamental architectural principle of Sustainability. All the other definitions on the page are of sustainability applied to specific contexts. Specific applications miss the essential foundations of the concept which are common to every instance of sustainability (that which can be sustained). | |||
children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.05 in 2045-2050. The reduction expected in the group of | |||
::This definition comes from systems theory, which is applied to physics, engineering, computer programming, etc as much as societies and human behaviour. It is a temporo-spatial, architectural condition, not limited to the physical world (eg humans surviving on earth) but also to metaphysical concepts like mathematical equations and auto-generative algorythms (eg pi resulting in a non-depleting iteration of fractional divisions). | |||
50 least developed countries is even sharper: from 4.63 children per woman to 2.50 children per | |||
::This might seem wordy, but it is an incredibly important concept to all practices involved in designing systems (arguably every field of human study, and definitely every area of governance and policy design). | |||
woman." | |||
::The common but myopic description of sustainability - limited to how people are currently describing the shared social goal - in my experience, has resulted in a lot of people not really understanding what makes something sustainable or not. This can lead to false claims of sustainability, or disagreement over whether something is or isn't sustainable. By developing an understanding of the foundational principle, people learn how to apply the test of sustainability to any context. | |||
::This requires being able to perceive the system in which the processes run, and determine whether the processes deplete resources in the system over time. This concept can then be applied to social and economic systems as easily as environmental systems. For example, many economic policies have been designed based on a model of eternal growth. The entire discourse of economics needs to be redesigned to ensure economic policies and processes don't deplete economic resources over time, to correct for this myth of eternal growth which informed 20th century thinking. | |||
p. viii "the populations of 46 countries or areas, including Germany, Italy, Japan, | |||
::This is a large shift in thinking for most people and will take generations to solve. All economic, social and environmental challenges can be solved eventually by making them sustainable, but only if the designers of the solutions understand what sustainability fundamentally means. ] (]) 23:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
the Republic of Korea, most of the successor States of the former USSR and several small | |||
:::Seen from this perspective, phrases currently on the page like "sustainability is a concept that provides a normative structure" can be invalidated; as normative is a biased judgement open to perceived interpretation. Sustainability at its purest is binary. Something can either persist perpetually, or it can't. An example for economic and social sustainability would be a universal wage for all. It is sustainable if it can operate perpetually within an economic system without depleting system resources (eg without depleting labour, entrepreneurship, innovation, if they are also essential components of that system). It is not sustainable if it can't operate perpetually because it erodes resources within the system. EG would a universal wage lead to no one wanting to work, so no health or education services were available. The parent page is currently awash with confusion because it attempts to describe sustainability as something humams choose, like a set of shared values, instead of being a true/false test of a system's condition. ] (]) 23:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
island States are expected to be smaller in 2050 than in 2005."] 19:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Taking this example further; a universal wage for all might BE sustainable in a country with sufficient revenues to afford it, and a culture where a sufficient percentage of citizens wanted to deliver labour services despite the universal wage. And it might simultaneously BE NOT sustainable in another country which doesn't have sufficient revenue, or where too many people no longer want to work (eg due to different weather conditions or cultural values). It therefore has no 'normative structure'; in a system with certain conditions it is sustainable, in the same system with different conditions it is not. There is no 'normal'; it can either be sustained perpetually over time, or it can't, based on the design of the system and its conditions. ] (]) 23:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I think the overall description of Sustainability on this page is so far off the mark that it should be retitled to 'Human Sustainability' because it is not covering the core concept of Sustainability at all. ] (]) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:But, inexplicably, you omitted the first sentence of the paragraph on p. V, to wit: | |||
:::::: Please first review Misplaced Pages's policies on ] and ]. Then tell us '''which sentences''' from '''which reliable sources''' you'd like to insert '''where''' in the article. Please remember the talk page is not a forum (]) and we are not writing about original research (]) on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
::According to the 2006 Revision, the world population will likely increase by 2.5 billion | |||
over the next 43 years, passing from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050. | |||
:Now. please tell me how the selective quotation you have used relates to the section on "Population growth and consumption." What is its significance for sustainability? That is the piece for which you will need a reliable source. ] 19:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I stated that "in the developed world many nations are expected to have declining populations in the future and and population growth and number of children born per women are declining the developing world." Which as seen the source supports.] 19:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::You are not answering my question. The source supports what you have said, but what you have said is ''meaningless'' when the report shows that global population is growing with no end in sight. That is selective quotation and original research. ] 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::How is the population going to grow with no end in sight when women have less than 2 children each? At least 2.2-2-3 is usually considered necessary in order to keep the population stable since some children die before they can grew up and have children etc.] 23:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::Of the four possible scenarios, the report bases its estimates on the medium variant. This leads to the following projection: | |||
::::::"... Assuming that fertility levels continue to decline, the world population is expected to reach 9.2 billion in 2050 and to be increasing by about 30 million persons annually at that time, according to the medium variant." (vii) | |||
:::::Since the report assumes the medium variant, we cannot use selective quotations to say anything else. ] 06:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Metrics and indices== | |||
This page contains considerably more material on sustainability metric and indices, then the actual page ]. The section Metrics and indices contains 15 subsections, mostly in list form. Why? Or more acutely, why has this material not been moved to the main article? ] 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:It is clearly appropriate to move content from here to ]. Why don't you try it? ] 22:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you Brimba. That was a brilliant stroke. I've long thought that that section was way too long and technical for this article. By moving it you have cut almost 30 kb out of this article, making it much more readable. Kudos. ] (]) 18:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
=="Criticisms" section== | |||
I've removed this section from the article: | |||
:Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as ] (1798) predictions about this inevitable causing continuing famines in Europe, ] (1968), ] (1972), and the ] (1980) have been proved false, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically.. | |||
The identical section was removed from the ] article. Simply put: '''this paragraph is ]'''. The editor has taken ''his'' idea and found citations that support it. The citations do not refer to sustainability. To be relevant, they would have to discuss the notion of sustainability. This they do not do. Thus they can hardly be used as "criticisms" of sustainability. ] (]) 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== See Also Section == | |||
Having linked this article to 'buzzword' is an appropriate addition. When any term is so widely used as this one, it begins to blur and become poorly defined. Having seen it used in absurd contexts (I can get some newspaper articles to support this), I think that it is appropriate. I shall thus be adding it once more. ] (]) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)yerocdiamond | |||
== Add Sustainability Science to Sustainability Article == | |||
I have added two external links, one for the AAAS Center for Science, Innovation and Sustainability, and one for Sustainability at the National Academies. The point is that a tremendous amount of work has been done under the aegis of the principle scientific societies of the United States which is not properly reflected in this article, and consequently, the article does not illustrate the full development of the field at this time. For example, there is a meeting this week sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences on "Linking Knowledge With Action for Sustainable Development" There was a substantial focus on sustainability at the annual meeting in February of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (see: and ). The article as written is a good start, but needs to reflect the further developments in the field. Moreover, the article has a bias towards the debate of an either/or proposition of sustainability, as if a design or process could be developed or found that was "sustainable," rather than sustainability constituting an human process of intentional action and change for mitigation, adaptation, and transformation. There are some who in fact challenge the entire proposition of "development" as inherently problematic. The key point is, as discussed at the AAAS annual meeting, hermeneutic, ontological, and epistemological questions are now being raised concerning sustainability science, policy, and action that are shifting the focus from static concepts of "right design" to dynamic concepts of ongoing intentional change, in which human creative intelligence is a fundamental part of the evolutionary process. Indeed, the essence of the epistemological question concerns the essential paradigm of reductionist science itself: how can questions of value be raised within the framework of science, as opposed to imposing external ethical authorities from non-scientific sources, such as committees on The Protection of Human Subjects of Research; and how can purpose be introduced into 'value-neutral' 'materialist' science itself, insofar as the entire enterprise of 'sustainability science' is predicated on a value judgment at the heart of the inquiry which implies that action must derive from the inquiry, not merely sterile 'knowledge.' The space here does not permit a full presentation on these questions, but suffice it to say that the Liberal Arts framework of epistemology, which arose from an elitist construct of stratified society in which few were educated, and those were of a "free" class (Libera) in contradistinction to a "slave" or peasant or otherwise subordinated class (despite democratization of the concept in the modern era), is being challenged by the Sustainability framework itself, in which new Kuhnian paradigms are emerging not only in all fields of science, but in challenging the separation of Sciences from Humanities at the core of the Liberal Arts themselves (an inherently political, rather than ontological, decision from when scientists were being burned at the stake for alleged heresies against religious orthodoxy - in part derived from the alchemical roots of modern science in older pagan philosophical traditions). | |||
] (]) 03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Richard Moore "The Omnist" | |||
==Change Lotka-Volterra by Verhulst== | |||
In the part of Population grouth and consuption, I'm chaniging that mistake.--] (]) 07:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
==REWRITE SUGGESTION== | |||
There are several appeals on Misplaced Pages for a re-write or total reorganisation of this article. I am willing (with trepidation) to carry out this task but it will certainly entail a substantial reorganisation of the material to fit in more with the conventions of Encyclopaedia articles and formal citation of sources. I realise that this might cause concern. It may be possible to post a preview of the article somewhere to allow comment and feedback - but I dont know how to do this. | |||
Anyway, at present my proposal is to replace the current article with the new one on 1 July 2008. If this causes offence or upsets protocols please let me know. ] (]) 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:32, 21 November 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sustainability article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 8 months |
Sustainability was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Planetary boundaries was copied or moved into Sustainability with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sammy J 37 (article contribs).
Adding to the article the findings of Gaia
I propose to add to the page in the sections about Economic dimension and Options for overcoming barriers Issues around economic growth about the reasearch of Gaia.
What I want to write:
"Some argue that decline in GDP is inevitable as if people will not stop overconsumption willingly Earth resources will expire in the next decade due to increased consumption and this will cause collapse. But if humanity will willingly reduce overconsumption the collapse will be prevented."
Why I want to write it:
In those articles the only option talked seriously is decoupling even though it is written that it is not enough. We should write about alternatives. This study present one. it is one of the most comprehensive studies it is an analize about practical occurence of the projections of the well known "limit to growth" study. Not all think like her but if at least some seriouse study says GDP rise will peak by 2030 in any case we should include it (mentioning that not all agree with it).
Short explanation in this link:
https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-crisis-civilization-collapse-mit-2653980183.html
"Ultimately, avoiding decline means turning society towards “another goal than growth,” Herrington concluded in the study."
Original reasearch in this link:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jiec.13084
"The two scenarios aligning most closely with observed data indicate a halt in welfare, food, and industrial production over the next decade or so, which puts into question the suitability of continuous economic growth as humanity's goal in the twenty-first century. Both scenarios also indicate subsequent declines in these variables, but only one—where declines are caused by pollution—depicts a collapse."
Some detailes already exist in the page Limits to growth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Limits_to_Growth#Legacy
"In 2020, an analysis by Gaya Herrington, then Director of Sustainability Services of KPMG US, was published in Yale University's Journal of Industrial Ecology. The study assessed whether, given key data known in 2020 about factors important for the "Limits to Growth" report, the original report's conclusions are supported. In particular, the 2020 study examined updated quantitative information about ten factors, namely population, fertility rates, mortality rates, industrial output, food production, services, non-renewable resources, persistent pollution, human welfare, and ecological footprint, and concluded that the "Limits to Growth" prediction is essentially correct in that continued economic growth is unsustainable under a "business as usual" model. The study found that current empirical data is broadly consistent with the 1972 projections and that if major changes to the consumption of resources are not undertaken, economic growth will peak and then rapidly decline by around 2040." Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, please don't. This is a high level article which is trying to reach the general public and does not need additional detail on those issues. You could add it at Eco-economic decoupling rather. EMsmile (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Sustainable business practices example
Hi User:Mistery13, please stop WP:EDITWAR-ing over those examples for sustainable business practices that you want to add! The source that you are using is not a high quality source but even more importantly, the content doesn't fit in this high level overview article. If we added those very specific "how to" examples for everything it would just blow out. (and Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide, see WP:NOTHOWTO guide). You could consider adding that content at sustainable business rather, but with a better reference if possible. EMsmile (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
First sentence
We've discussed the first sentence of the lead at length (see earlier on this talk page) but I can see that some more discussion might be needed, based on a recent change/query by User:Doomhope. You said "co-exist with whom" but I think co-exist could just stand on its own. Alternatively one could say "co-exist with nature" or "co-exist with everything else on planet Earth" or "co-exist with other humans, animals, plants, ecosystems etc." but not sure this is needed?
Also, I noticed that you (Doomhope) combined some of the sentences in the lead. We had purposefully split them into shorter sentences in order to have a better readability of the article. I do agree that lots of short sentences in a row don't read very well though: sentence length should be varied. But this is just to explain why I would be tempted to split some of the sentences into two again which you had combined into one. Pinging User:Jonathanlynn who had previously done some work on improving the reading ease score of this article. EMsmile (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, all the tools for measuring readability show poor scores for long sentences. So I've tried to break them up to make them easier to read, even though it's not as smooth as it could be for a more sophisticated or specialist reader.Jonathanlynn (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Definition of Sustainability
I disagree with the following definition being removed. In fact, maintaining a myopic definition of Sustainability on Misplaced Pages limits people's understanding of the architecural principles of sustainability, thereby limiting their ability to apply it to their lives. You are only describing one application of sustainability while missing the overarching concept. Its like saying Time only exists as minutes/hours/seconds and missing its position within the lexicon of physics. You are ignoring sustainability as a principle of physics.
Sustainability is a characteristic of a system which enables its processes to be performed perpetually over time, because the processes of a Sustainable system do not deplete resources used within the system. Rgc~enwiki (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the current first sentence is more to the point and faster to grasp:
Sustainability is a social goal for people to co-exist on Earth over a long time.
. Your sentence is unnecessarily wordy. Which publication does it come from by the way? You might be able to add it further down to the definition section if it comes from a reliable source. But I think it basically just repeats what the other definitions are formulating, just in other words. EMsmile (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)- This definition talks about the fundamental architectural principle of Sustainability. All the other definitions on the page are of sustainability applied to specific contexts. Specific applications miss the essential foundations of the concept which are common to every instance of sustainability (that which can be sustained).
- This definition comes from systems theory, which is applied to physics, engineering, computer programming, etc as much as societies and human behaviour. It is a temporo-spatial, architectural condition, not limited to the physical world (eg humans surviving on earth) but also to metaphysical concepts like mathematical equations and auto-generative algorythms (eg pi resulting in a non-depleting iteration of fractional divisions).
- This might seem wordy, but it is an incredibly important concept to all practices involved in designing systems (arguably every field of human study, and definitely every area of governance and policy design).
- The common but myopic description of sustainability - limited to how people are currently describing the shared social goal - in my experience, has resulted in a lot of people not really understanding what makes something sustainable or not. This can lead to false claims of sustainability, or disagreement over whether something is or isn't sustainable. By developing an understanding of the foundational principle, people learn how to apply the test of sustainability to any context.
- This requires being able to perceive the system in which the processes run, and determine whether the processes deplete resources in the system over time. This concept can then be applied to social and economic systems as easily as environmental systems. For example, many economic policies have been designed based on a model of eternal growth. The entire discourse of economics needs to be redesigned to ensure economic policies and processes don't deplete economic resources over time, to correct for this myth of eternal growth which informed 20th century thinking.
- This is a large shift in thinking for most people and will take generations to solve. All economic, social and environmental challenges can be solved eventually by making them sustainable, but only if the designers of the solutions understand what sustainability fundamentally means. Rgc~enwiki (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Seen from this perspective, phrases currently on the page like "sustainability is a concept that provides a normative structure" can be invalidated; as normative is a biased judgement open to perceived interpretation. Sustainability at its purest is binary. Something can either persist perpetually, or it can't. An example for economic and social sustainability would be a universal wage for all. It is sustainable if it can operate perpetually within an economic system without depleting system resources (eg without depleting labour, entrepreneurship, innovation, if they are also essential components of that system). It is not sustainable if it can't operate perpetually because it erodes resources within the system. EG would a universal wage lead to no one wanting to work, so no health or education services were available. The parent page is currently awash with confusion because it attempts to describe sustainability as something humams choose, like a set of shared values, instead of being a true/false test of a system's condition. Rgc~enwiki (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Taking this example further; a universal wage for all might BE sustainable in a country with sufficient revenues to afford it, and a culture where a sufficient percentage of citizens wanted to deliver labour services despite the universal wage. And it might simultaneously BE NOT sustainable in another country which doesn't have sufficient revenue, or where too many people no longer want to work (eg due to different weather conditions or cultural values). It therefore has no 'normative structure'; in a system with certain conditions it is sustainable, in the same system with different conditions it is not. There is no 'normal'; it can either be sustained perpetually over time, or it can't, based on the design of the system and its conditions. Rgc~enwiki (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the overall description of Sustainability on this page is so far off the mark that it should be retitled to 'Human Sustainability' because it is not covering the core concept of Sustainability at all. 27.96.192.65 (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please first review Misplaced Pages's policies on WP:Verifiability and WP:RS. Then tell us which sentences from which reliable sources you'd like to insert where in the article. Please remember the talk page is not a forum (WP:NOTAFORUM) and we are not writing about original research (WP:OR) on Misplaced Pages. EMsmile (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the overall description of Sustainability on this page is so far off the mark that it should be retitled to 'Human Sustainability' because it is not covering the core concept of Sustainability at all. 27.96.192.65 (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Taking this example further; a universal wage for all might BE sustainable in a country with sufficient revenues to afford it, and a culture where a sufficient percentage of citizens wanted to deliver labour services despite the universal wage. And it might simultaneously BE NOT sustainable in another country which doesn't have sufficient revenue, or where too many people no longer want to work (eg due to different weather conditions or cultural values). It therefore has no 'normative structure'; in a system with certain conditions it is sustainable, in the same system with different conditions it is not. There is no 'normal'; it can either be sustained perpetually over time, or it can't, based on the design of the system and its conditions. Rgc~enwiki (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Seen from this perspective, phrases currently on the page like "sustainability is a concept that provides a normative structure" can be invalidated; as normative is a biased judgement open to perceived interpretation. Sustainability at its purest is binary. Something can either persist perpetually, or it can't. An example for economic and social sustainability would be a universal wage for all. It is sustainable if it can operate perpetually within an economic system without depleting system resources (eg without depleting labour, entrepreneurship, innovation, if they are also essential components of that system). It is not sustainable if it can't operate perpetually because it erodes resources within the system. EG would a universal wage lead to no one wanting to work, so no health or education services were available. The parent page is currently awash with confusion because it attempts to describe sustainability as something humams choose, like a set of shared values, instead of being a true/false test of a system's condition. Rgc~enwiki (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- Sustainability task force articles
- B-Class Globalization articles
- High-importance Globalization articles
- B-Class Economics articles
- High-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- B-Class futures studies articles
- High-importance futures studies articles
- WikiProject Futures studies articles
- B-Class sanitation articles
- Low-importance sanitation articles
- WikiProject Sanitation articles
- B-Class Climate change articles
- Mid-importance Climate change articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles
- B-Class Science Policy articles
- High-importance Science Policy articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English