Talk:Sustainability

message: 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/wiki/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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adding to the article the findings of Gaia 

message: 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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  Sustainable business practices example 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First sentence