Ah, the definition should be a list if questions. Sustaining what? For whom? For how long? Is it important that this resource be sustained? Why?
T On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:58 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > Ecolog: > > "johoma," thanks for this summary. PLos Biology is leading the way, and > someday Opens Source journals will be more common, edging out the ripoff > journals and truly advancing science and education for all. There is more > work to be done, but PLos Biology is helping to put steam behind the trend > toward adaptative progress rather than competitive concentration of power > that has stultified true progress in the past. Science will prosper in the > sunlight as the Information Age emerges from the selfish Dark Ages of > exclusivity, excess, and concentration of power in the hands of vulcanized > institutionalism. > > Doomed? Only if "we" persist in our comfortable delusions. > > But "sustainability" still needs definition. The term has suffered a similar > fate that "ecology" has--captured by spinmeisters and twisted into all sorts > of buzz-phrases that make all sorts of unsustainable practices salable by Mad > Av and its ilk. > > For starters, Ecolog subscribers could do this right here--define > sustainability with clarity. > > Please proceed. (Can 14,000+ ecologists be wrong?) > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "johoma" <joh...@gmail.com> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 2:15 PM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are we doomed yet: A journal debate about science, the > practice of sustainability, and communicating issues > > > An excerpt from the PLoS Biology editor-in-chief's overview: > > One of the reasons we publish more accessible magazine-like articles in the > front section of *PLoS Biology* <http://www.plosbiology.org/home.action> is > to raise awareness about issues that are important both to practicing > scientists and to the wider public. As an open access journal, we can reach > communities and organisations that don’t have access to the pay-walled > literature, and they in turn can redistribute and reuse these articles > without permission from us or the authors. The articles we published > yesterday in our front section provide a case in point. In Rio de Janeiro > last week, world leaders met for the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable > Development <http://www.uncsd2012.org/> to ”shape how we can reduce > poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection”. We’re > featuring three articles and an accompanying > podcast<http://blogs.plos.org/plospodcasts/>from leading ecologists > and conservation scientists that raise absolutely > fundamental concerns about the physical limits on resource use that should > be considered at the conference—but almost certainly won’t be, because > sustainability has focused primarily on the social and economic sciences > and developed largely independently of the key ecological principles that > govern life. > > Burger et al argue that resources on earth are finite and ultimately we are > constrained by the same hard biophyisical laws that regulate every other > species and population on the planet. Famous photograph of the Earth taken > on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft en route to > the Moon at a distance of about 29,000 kilometers. (Photo: NASA) > > The inspiration for this article collection came from Georgina > Mace<http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/g.mace>, > one of our Editorial Board > members<http://www.plosbiology.org/static/edboard.action>and Professor > of Conservation Science and Director of the NERC > Centre for Population Biology <http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/cpb>. It started > with an essay > <http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001345>submitted > by Robbie Burger <https://sites.google.com/site/josephrobertburger/>, Jim > Brown, <http://biology.unm.edu/jhbrown/index.shtml>Craig > Allen<http://www.fort.usgs.gov/staff/staffprofile.asp?StaffID=109>and > others from Jim > Brown’s lab <http://biology.unm.edu/jhbrown/labmembers.shtml>, in which > they argue that the field of sustainability science does not sufficiently > take account of human ecology and in particular the larger view offered by > human macroecology, which aims to understand what governs and limits human > distribution. The very strong – and seemingly obvious – point they make is > that ultimately we are constrained by the same hard biophyisical laws that > regulate every other species and population on the planet — and we have > already surpassed the Earth’s capacity to sustain even current levels of > human population and socioeconomic activity, let alone future trajectories > of growth. And while we often applaud ourselves for doing something > apparently sustainable at a local level, we ignore the fact that we > displace the consequences of using up resources either temporally or > spatially at larger regional or global scales. These authors provide a > powerful set of examples that show the wider detrimental impacts of locally > ‘sustainable’ systems, including that of Portland, Oregon – which ‘is > hailed by the media as “the most sustainable city in America”’, and the > Bristol Bay Salmon Fishery, also cited as a success story. (Burger et al’s > point here echoes a call for more ecosystem-based management of fisheries > made recently in another recent *PLoS Biology* article by Levi et > al<http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001303> > ). > > During the editorial process, it became clear that while there was > agreement that human ecology is a key factor for understanding sustainable > resource use , not everyone agreed with the pessimistic and seemingly > static outlook presented by Burger et al. We therefore commissioned John > Matthews <http://climatechangewater.org/page2/page2.html> and Fred > Boltz<http://www.conservation.org/FMG/Articles/Pages/conservation_in_action_fred_boltz.aspx>from > Conservation > International <http://www.conservation.org/Pages/default.aspx> to provide > their more optimistic > perspective<http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001344>. > They argue that the world is a much more dynamic place than that set out by > Burger et al and that human ingenuity and adaptability (both human and > planetary) may provide creative solutions that will allow human societies > to overcome resource limitation and continue to grow. > *rest of the story here: ** > http://blogs.plos.org/biologue/2012/06/20/rio20-why-sustainability-must-include-ecology/ > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > *Direct links > *Georgina Mace’s overview: *The Limits to Sustainability Science: > Ecological Constraints or Endless Innovation? > ** > http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001343 > * > Her podcast: > * > http://blogs.plos.org/plospodcasts/2012/06/19/plos-biology-podcast-episode-05-flirting-with-disaster/ > * > > The Burger et al. piece: *The Macroecology of Sustainability > ** > http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001345 > * > > Matthews & Boltz: *The Shifting Boundaries of Sustainability Science: Are > We Doomed Yet? > ** > http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001344 > *
