This is not to say that we cannot label certain very tangible methods, etc.
as sustainable. But, they are sustainable because, within a larger
framework, they strive towards a common goal: the preservation and
rejuvenation of our planets resources (and I mean this in the most inclusive
of ways: natural resources, human resources, spiritual resources).
That the term sustainable is politically charged does not render it invalid;
it is not the first term/concept to be bandied about and continuously
re-defined. Yet I think sustainability is unique in this sense because it
demands of us to re-define ourselves, both personally and professionally and
both as individuals and as a culture. Even as we seek to define it seeks to
define us.
I believe that we are one the verge of a cultural/social change that will
rival the industrial revolution for its historic relevance. The course
towards defining sustainability and seeking to manifest it will be rocky, no
doubt. But there is nothing worth gaining that is not attained through hard
work and struggle. This is as true of a harvest of crops as it is of
spiritual enlightenment.
Ultimately, sustainability may be best understood within the context of
social change. As Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream, so must we. We must
dream of fertile fields, healthy families, prosperous communities. This
vision then sets the goal, provides the challenge which we all will face in
our own ways. The agronomist and the economist may play with different
building blocks, but the construction is one whole.
Useless? No! Challenging? Oh yes!
Thanks for listening to me rant,
Kevin
Kevin Webb
Food Circles Networking Project
Department of Rural Sociology
University of Missouri-Columbia
105 Sociology
Columbia, MO 65211
(573) 882-3776
[573] 882=1473 (fax)
webbk@missouri.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Hamilton [mailto:hhamilton@centerss.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 9:12 AM
To: Sanet
Subject: Is sustainability a useless word?
Dale writes: "Sustainability" is a political code-word, useless for ordinary
conversation
about biology, cultural practices, or ethics.
What do you all think? Clearly the word sustainability is politically
loaded. That is, if powerful sectors of our economy, led by powerful
people, and supported by powerful politicians, are engaged in activities
that are unsustainable, then the concept of sustainability has political
meaning. That doesn't make it useless, but it does add multiple layers of
meaning and import. I'd argue that the concept also has analytic
usefulness, although definitions are tough. The Natural Step folks have one
that I don't think has a social dimension. We could at least agree that
humankind shouldn't be using up resources faster than they can be
regenerated and that we should not be polluting more than can be absorbed.
I'm a layperson in these matters, lacking precision I'm sure. And I don't
really care whether we lump social concerns within or without the concept of
sustainability. I care about equity regardless, for example. But that's
another matter.
Hal
Hal Hamilton
Center for Sustainable Systems
433 Chestnut St., Berea KY 40403 USA
Phone: (606) 986-5336; Fax: (606) 986-1299
hhamilton@centerss.org
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail