The problem with this approach is that some contexts call for a clear
definition. For example, what about funded research on topics like
"sustainable aquaculture"? Words that have political or economic
significance have to be pinned down.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
>>Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:28:06 -0400 (EDT)
>>From: Leah Gibbons and Brandon Yarborough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sustainability Definition
>>X-Sensitivity: Normal
>>X-NAS-Classification: 0
>>X-NAS-MessageID: 7874
>>X-NAS-Validation: {F71B5959-30EB-4602-8572-F92EE25554BB}
>>
>>I know what you mean, but I woldn't worry about
>>it. "Sustainability" is like a lot of terms used in
>>science, pseudoscience, or applied science--it should be
>>defined when it is used. Perhaps eventually, when we
>>actually get closer to achieving sustainability on large
>>scales, we will all be able to agree on an unwaivering
>>definition.
>>
>>Who wants to contribute a definition of "sustainability"?
>>
>>Leah Gibbons
>>
>>==========================================================
>>On 06/05/2006 06:53 PM GMT-07:00, Wayne Tyson
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Am I the only one who worries that "sustainability" has
>>more than one
>>meaning ranging from the useful, even critical, to a
>>deceptive buzzword?
>>
>>WT
>
