---- Michael Riedman <mried...@terpmail.umd.edu> wrote: > Hello sustainable eco-loggers, > > This is my first eco-log post! I just graduated from University of > Maryland with a minor in Sustainability Studies. We were taught the > Brundtland Commission definition of Sustainability, which I believe is > clear and concise. Sustainability is meeting the needs of the present > without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. > > Michael Riedman
It works for an anthropocentric perspective (I am assuming that "needs" and "generations" refer to people). With that caveat, I believe it is very close to the definition I provided. > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Neil Paul Cummins < > neilpaulcumm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'll start off: > > > > > > Sustainability = "the biosphere of the Earth continuing to exist in a > > state which can sustain complex life-forms" > > > > > > This is how I define sustainability in my book: > > > > > > > > > > What Does it Mean to be ‘Green’? : *Sustainability, Respect & Spirituality* > > > > ** > > > > *http://www.amazon.com/dp/1907962131/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpublic-20* > > > > > > Dr Neil Paul Cummins > > > > http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/ > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:58 AM, 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 > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/ > > > > > > http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Neil-Paul-Cummins/333142776758442 > > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/neilpaulcummins > > > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/neilpaulcummins > > -- David McNeely
