Talk:Sustainability/Archive 1

message: The following entry does not make any sense to me. I mean sense even in terms of English. FOLLOWING this entry, the text DOES go on to talk about types of sustainability in a way that makes sense even if one disagrees with them. It is as if someone has dropped this entry in here without paying attention to the structure of the overall article. What are "considerations for technical cooperation that affect three types of sustainability". If it means conditions for funding cooperative projects, why are the entries questions and why should it be technical cooperation that might lead to the outcomes the questions are about. The whole entry just seems to me to be some kind of jibberish and should, in my opinion, be deleted.
Quester67 18:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of sustainability

message: I don't quite know what to do about this.
There are three fundamental problems with this site.
First, it is assumed that if the issues are known current government structures are capable of doing something about them. Yet in virtually every area of public policy from education to health care public policy fails to deliver the desired benefits. Only two of the hundred plus speakers who addressed the G8 Alternatives seminars in Edinburgh at the time of the G8 meeting last year addressed the question of HOW to run a society in the long term public interest. It was assumed that if one shouted loudly enough the G8 "leaders" would do something about the hundreds of issues that were highlighted. Yet all the evidence is that, even if they were gentlemen of goodwill (which they are not) they would know HOW to run a society in the long term public interest. We find ourselves in the position of sailors in the world prior to Newton shouting at our captain and our priests to summon up a wind that would blow us home again. Until Newton had elucidated the concept of force and shown that its components could be mapped, measured, and harnessed it was impossible to do anything about the situation. We urgently need ways of thinking about, maping, measuring and harnessing the social forces which every day undermine well intentioned public action.
The second problem is related. It assumes we need values change. But all the evidence is that our values are in the right place. We simply find ourselves unable to enact them. Worse, we can all see that systems processes will undermine any small scale action - such as not using our cars - that we might take as individuals.
The third problem is also related. So far as I can see, a sustainable society will have to be as different from our society as an agricultural society was from a hunter-gatherer society. And, just as no one in a hunter gatherer socity could envisage what an agricultural society would look like so no one in our society can envisage what a sustainable society would look like. All we know is that we have to get rid of our cars, our planes, our defence systems, our chemical and energy intensive agriculutrer and so on and so on. But what would a society without these things look like? How would we gain meaning in our lives. (One fortunate thing is that NEF ... see Marks in refs ... has now shown that such a thing is possible without reducing the quality of our lives.)  How to create a climate of innovation and learning without any blueprint, without any central authority being able to say where we are going?  Now, this was the very question that Smaith and Hayek sought to answer. Their answer - the marketplace - does not, and cannot, work. But where is there any discussion of an alternative answer? One suggestion ... perhaps the only suggestion .. has been made by Raven in "The New Wealth of Nations". (There are, of course, other answers to the question of how to run a sustainable society ... Anarchism, Budhism,"spirituality" .. but this is not the question I am discussing here.)
So, I could write an entry along these lines, but, at present, I can't quite see where to put it. Any suggestions?
Quester67 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments appear to be Original Research, so you should first find references for these opinions. Paul Studier 20:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Management

message: I don't know if anybody is watching this page, but if you are, could you please assist me with the following: Tom Haws
I have been wanting to have a working Wikipedia:WikiProject Sustainability or Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development.  We currently have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations that is going nowhere.  Please answer in poll format (Support or Oppose) the following proposals: Tom Haws
Move Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sustainability.
* Support.  This seems to be the biggest umbrella and the most acceptable term.  Tom Haws 22:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
* Support. Seems to define the subject best, to the point. --DanielCD 14:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sustainability project poll

message: The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not.  It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment.  However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:
:(1)  Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
:(2)  Rank of country’s HDI;
:(3)  Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3F|VOTE!!]]''' - HDI in [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Countries|country infobox]]/template? 

message: The article seems to have elided other common meanings of the term sustainability such as, "the sustainability of an electric arc is a function of..." and  "the sustainability of the ISS depends upon its distance from the upper atmosphere..." The article seems to have commandeered the term for a single meaning. I can think of a few ways to correct this but I thought maybe yawl might have some ideas before I make changes.  wgoetsch 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other meanings 

message: This section seems to be repeated 10 times in total. I've deleted all but the first.--Discus2000 18:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept and Issues 

message: When i read definition of sustainability in the beginning of this article i realized that i can't understand the sentence It is the same construct as virtuous or vicious spiralling, and the compound consequences of this can be mapped ahead of a time if a system's gravitational cooordinates are wholly specifiable. I am not a native english speaker. 1) i suspect that virtuous or vicious spiralling is right or left spiralling. 2) What does the phrase "gravitational coordinates" mean here? Is there some real sense, or is it used just as couple of beautiful words?
Actually i suspect that my not understanding of it is connected with initial dumbness of "foundations" of sustainability, rather than with complicated language. Gravitational effects that can't be explained by Newton's mechanics and need general theory of relativity, are obviously unable to affect human life at this level. Just too thin effects for us on Earth to feel them. General theory of relativity has it's own "areas" where it's significant -- i.e. strong gravitational fields. E.g., the trajectory of ray of light, passing nearby Sun, curves on the angle of about one second. I think, that a sudden fall of a meteorite, or unexpected tectonical processes of high amplitude, or a new decease are much greater challenges for sustainability of human civilization than such effects, as curvature of ray of light. But "gravitational coordinates" must sound good for people with power and money. ellol 20:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of sustainability 

message: I've now removed the green politics template as well. Nowdays the terms is much more widesprean than just the Green movement. 20 years ago it would have been relavant as the greens were the only ones singing the sustainability tune. There may be a case to write something about sustainability and political parties in the main text. --Salix alba (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I was thinking sustainability is a more "business"ized term for environmentalism. was I right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.76.99.106 (talk • contribs) .
:Your question made me think that environmentalism might just be a "radical"ized term for sustainability :-)  However, if you compare the two articles Environmentalism and Sustainability there does seem to be the tinest difference.  Ah words! So different and yet so similar! Sunray 22:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: basically the difference is that enviromentalists (radical environmentalists at least) try to put the environment first, humans second, and take little account of "economic sustainability" or infact refute the validity of that phrase, in that it's impossible to have an "economically sustainable" system (businesstalk: continue to be able to profit from the practice) without exploiting the environment, or the people. sustainability as a movement came after environmentalism, and is basically environmentalism trying to fit into the capitalist system. most environmentalists would say that economics is irrelevant to true sustainability, and that only environmnetal and social sustainability are important. --naught101 13:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmentalism 

message: That external links section is really out of control.  Please review: Wikipedia is not an internet directory.  Some of those links will not inform the reader about the issue of sustainability, but instead lead to websites that are green projects at colleges, etc.  While I may find these interesting, that's not the purpose of the external links section.  Thanks!  --Rkitko 16:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Please go ahead and weed out the ones that are not worthy.  Be bold... Sunray 06:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through and took out the links I felt were unnecessary; tried to leave the ones offering further information on sustainability and removed those that where more focussed on local community building. --jwandersTalk 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  linkspam 

message: The following footnotes were removed from the sustainability metric section perhaps because not in the right citation format. If someone has the time please put them in the right format so that the citations are correctly referenced. Cheers. Sholto Maud 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations Needed

message: Currently there is a separate, and rather underdeveloped, article for sustainable development.  This article covers all the information that should be in that article; this article essentially is an article on sustainable development.  I strongly feel that the two articles should be merged or, perhaps, the sustainable development article should be deleted and this one should be renamed sustainable development, given that this term is a very dominant term in the field of international development.  Thoughts? --The Way 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Sustainable Development? 

message: I have marked this article with the NPOV tag because it asserts the recommendations of various individuals without any discussion of differing opinions.  Furthermore, it asserts these recommendations to be correct and implementable (e.g. "most people's hearts are in the right place for us to move forward") - implying rather strongly that this still-contreversial opinion is the only one in existance and is "right."  (76.214.251.189 05:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been much debate of this. I agree with the contention that there could be more balance in the article. However, this is an article on "sustainability" and it is therefore important to outline the concept to the reader. Criticism gets pretty technical and may be beyond an entry-level encyclopedia article. To address the concerns identified above, I suggest we add a brief section that problematizes the concept, without getting too technical. After all, 100% sustainability is virtually impossible for species that are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, which includes humans. I will add a section about this. Sunray 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: A recent addition () makes a general claim about American small towns enacting legislation to increase sustainability requirements, but bases the assertion on one town.  the sources all seem to lead back to an "energyspin" blog posting.  The writing seems rather promotional and the claim is much broader than the sources support.  Since the sources don't seem to be particularly solid I thought it could do with more scrutiny.  Is there any real substance to the claim?  -- Siobhan Hansa 01:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sustainability and business addition