Ecolog and Schulze: With "The usual applications of sustainable strike me as practically meaningless and little more than "greener than some other conventional alternative," Schulze lets the elephant out of the closet.
Let there be honesty. His definition is a good one, too, although I will grudgingly grant that "we" may have to accept some DEGREES of sustainability as a transitional process necessary to reach transformation. Still, let's not let the dissemblers and sleight-of-hand spinmeisters, especially in science and absolutely in ecology, get away with outright bs. Unfortunately, there seems to be far too much of this, and it's time that action was taken before the credibility of ecology as an intellectual discipline goes all the way down the sewer. I hope some of the more prominent "names" in ecology will exercise their considerable leverage to expose cases that accelerate the vortex regarding not only "sustainability" but other flim-flammery in ecology and science. Pretty soon, it's gonna be too late. WT PS: Do prominent ecologists ever hear these pleas? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Schulze" <pschu...@austincollege.edu> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are we doomed yet: A journal debate about science, the practice of sustainability, and communicating issues I define a sustainable process as one that does not degrade the conditions or processes that it depends upon. But, we don't know the effects of our actions well enough to confidently classify current actions vis-a-vis sustainability (except in obviously non-sustainable cases). If that is so, then sustainability can only really be judged in retrospect and an alternative term, such as apparent sustainability, should be used for assessments of current processes that look ok but have not stood the test of time. I think I first heard this point made by Robert Costanza. Apologies to him if I have botched or muddled it. The usual applications of sustainable strike me as practically meaningless and little more than "greener than some other conventional alternative." I once heard an architect claim that a brick is sustainable. She apparently hadn't read typical accounts of what happened to the forests around the Indus Valley thousands of years ago. Pete Peter C. Schulze, Ph.D. Professor of Biology & Environmental Science Director, Center for Environmental Studies Austin College 900 North Grand Avenue, Suite 61588 | Sherman, TX 75090 USA Phone 903.813.2284 austincollege.edu On 7/17/12 10:36 AM, "David L. McNeely" <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: >---- 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 ŒGreen¹? : *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 don¹t 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 ²shape how we can reduce >> > > poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection². >> > We¹re >> > > 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 won¹t 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 >> > > Brown¹s 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 Earth¹s 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 >> > > Œsustainable¹ systems, including that of Portland, Oregon which >>Œis >> > > hailed by the media as ³the most sustainable city in America²¹, and >>the >> > > Bristol Bay Salmon Fishery, also cited as a success story. (Burger >>et >> > al¹s >> > > 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.10 >>01303 >> > > > >> > > ). >> > > >> > > 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_fre >>d_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-i >>nclude-ecology/ >> > > * >> > > * >> > > * >> > > * >> > > * >> > > * >> > > * >> > > *Direct links >> > > *Georgina Mace¹s overview: *The Limits to Sustainability Science: >> > > Ecological Constraints or Endless Innovation? >> > > ** >> > > >> > > >> > >>http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.10 >>01343 >> > > * >> > > Her podcast: >> > > * >> > > >> > > >> > >>http://blogs.plos.org/plospodcasts/2012/06/19/plos-biology-podcast-episod >>e-05-flirting-with-disaster/ >> > > * >> > > >> > > The Burger et al. piece: *The Macroecology of Sustainability >> > > ** >> > > >> > > >> > >>http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.10 >>01345 >> > > * >> > > >> > > Matthews & Boltz: *The Shifting Boundaries of Sustainability >>Science: Are >> > > We Doomed Yet? >> > > ** >> > > >> > > >> > >>http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.10 >>01344 >> > > * >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > 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
