> "Our problem really is with the human mind, which needs to deal
> with discrete categories, even when these have to be imposed on
> an essentially continuous series. The trouble comes when we
> mistake the nature of our categories.
That is right on target. People should not take the three-dimensional model
of sustainability too seriously. It is just a taxonomy in which to
categorize values. It is the values and principles that are important, not
> Some of this discussion (snip) seems to reflect
> agendas well away from the core business of sustainable
IMO, discrete values and agendae need to be unpacked and discussed. Some
people resist unpacking sustainability because certain values they hold dear
might not garner support on their own.
> Some of the rules and definitions tossed around seem to drift
> off from a central concern to see that exploitation of the
Yes. This must be the central concern. If this waits until all human-human
problems are fixed, wild nature will be a thing of the past.
> Maybe it is not in the purity of the idea of sustainability but
> in the nature of such compromise that the real issues are to be
> pursued - that is, the issues for definition are in the nature
> of the principles of compromise. In part that involves defining
> what is not to be compromised..
Setting aside visions of revolutionary zeal and purity, it involves activity
and compromise in the political and policy-making arena. IMO the central
goal should be the insertion of externalities into the market.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: