Sustainability – A Pithy Formulation
Posted in The Dean's Blogs on November 15th, 2011 by dhassenzahl – Be the first to commentThe faculty and staff at the School of Sustainability and the Environment have begun a conversation about how best to frame “sustainability.” The following formulation (and the one that I favor) now suffuses our various advertisements, websites, interviews, videos and other media, as well as the memories of the several hundred people who have attended SSE presentations:
Sustainability requires treating as co-equal in importance the social, economic, and environmental aspects of well-being; to understand and make decisions about sustainability requires a systems perspective, informed by appropriate knowledge.
When given a bit more time, I generally add next:
Sustainability is best understood as a process, not an outcome or end state
and then
Living sustainably means using resources here and now in a fashion that does not undermine the opportunity for people in other places and times to enjoy well-being at least as satisfactory as our own.
I understand and appreciate the objections to this pithy formulation, and would be upset to find that any of our students went away thinking that it is an adequate formulation. It does, however, have broad appeal, and the adjectives bring together diverse audiences, some of whom recoil at one or more of the nouns (“social justice” or “society,” “economics” or “economic development”, and “environment”)
Some may be comforted to hear that in the mid 1990′s I had given up on the term “sustainability” after a Chicago school economist said that “whatever we do is by definition sustainable.” I have since embraced the term as a useful organizing principle. So we have considerable momentum (inertia?) in our formulation now, but not immutability. That said, one thing that conservatives in the US have shown clearly is the power of a consistent, tersely stated position.
I do not think “ecology” captures (for me, but more importantly for most audiences) the same aspects of sustainability that “environment” can. For many people, ecology is the interactions of living beings with each other, in the absence of humans. Others include humans but not physical conditions. Few people think that human artifacts (buildings, cars, roads) are part of an ecosystem UNLESS they have been abandoned by humans and populated by other organisms. “Environment” can include this a broader set of aspects in a way that no other single word can. To capture what we really mean by that “environment” term, unfortunately, would require a bunch of additional adjectives, and we would lose the pithiness of “economic, social, and environmental…”
Finally, I dislike using adjectives before “sustainable.” That is, if we think of sustainability as including economic, social, and (biogeophysicoecological) aspects of well-being, then to say “ecological sustainability” or “economic sustainability” becomes nonsensical.




