Sustainability Principles Online Dialogue

There's been a lot of activity since I last checked in. That's for two reasons: activity's been up, and it's been a while since I filed.

Language and Sustainability. Aherwitz, a relatively recent entry into the conversation, argues that sustainability is more ubiquitous than generally supposed. (This is a concept I have believed in for some time, as it happens, my favorite being the need for the "sustainable ego.")

Aherwitz writes, in arguing for what he calls the "demystification of the language:"

It's been pretty quiet the past few days. There's been only one persistent thread, and it's about a point that's more broadly philosophical than it is directly related to Michael's Sustainability Principles. The discussion flows from an observation by Dick Fischbeck:

We're in the middle of it now. Multiple threads, no clear conclusions, intriguing asides ...

The Principles. In an broad-ranging post, CurtisWhite frames Michael's Sustainability Principles as a "system structure"--as one among many system structures, in fact--and offers the following opinion.

The dialogue is continuing along multiple lines. Herewith, today's (rather lengthy) summary ...

The Role of the Principles. What is the function of Michael's Sustainability Principles? Are they necessary or even useful? And what are appropriate boundaries? These important questions are popping up in the dialogue.

For Michael Ben-Eli, the author of the Principles, the Principles are about common understandings. For instance, in response to MissKitten's comment that "(I) have no idea how does one put a price on a forest, a human life, algaes, a desert, a rat, a river," Michael comments:

It's funny how dialogues work: forums (and threads) are sometimes not quite the same as the truly dominant themes. That's what I'm finding here. Alongside formal forum topics such as "Overall Response to the Material Domain Principle" and "Approach as a Whole," other themes are surfacing as axial points of the discussion. Here's today's list of such themes:

Consciousness-raising. Janos Abel notes that there are "powerful influences in positions of influence who ... are prepared to resist any serious change in [the] status quo. With 'serpent-like wisdom' we have to discern the false legitimacy on which their power rests ..." This follows on Portlandio's earlier critique of LAWCAP (lawyer-capitalism) as a "reality tunnel" that embraces scarcity, to our disadvantage.

The conversation is heating up. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the meaning of entropy, the interjection of some favored personal theories and perspectives, and the occasional high-level provocation (just my cup of tea, as it happens, but hey, we all have our therapy issues!).

Michael's Material Domain Principle is not hitting the spot for some people. Lyled calls it "(1) unambitious; (2) inconsistent with human aspirations; and (3) ... contrary to humanity's positioning as the "navigator" (per bucky) within the universe." Misskitten says entropy "is a completely natural process and is happening all the time. i don't think we should fight against it."

It's Day Two of this dialogue (Day One, depending on how you're counting), and responses so far are falling into three categories.

First, there is the matter of effectiveness. How does one take a definition of sustainability and give it a forceful presence in the world? Steve Brant recommends a strongly collaborative approach, citing recent initiatives such as Yahoo Answers and Google Answers.

Second, there are issues related to scope and languaging. For gfriend, the language of the Material Domain principle is neither "clear" nor "sufficient."