Sustainability Principles Online Dialogue

Steven,

You stated "action is more important than parsing language". Others in the dialogue have commented along similar lines. To me this may boil down to an issue of asset allocation with time perhaps, the asset of greatest value. There is a time to think and a time to act. How much time should be invested in thinking prior to action is a key question. I look at this dialogue and its focus on words as a much needed opportunity to try and determine what should be guiding our actions.

I am concerned about the well intended jump to action not being guided by a rigorous set of principles and implementation disciplines. Such unguided action seems too hit or miss at a time when our aim has to be much more on target if humanity is going thread the eye of the sustainability needle.

Evidence is mounting that without sound principles and a systems approach to guide us we are prone to make matters worse in the long run instead of solving complex problems. Regarding the challenge of sustainability we could easily wind up taking the business as usual approach with a different and nicer color – in this case green.

The sustainability movement’s effort with regard to definitions and principles of sustainability at the systems and operational levels is rather nascent, not more than 20 years old or soby my estimation. Our recognition that we are facing any issues of sustainability at the global level is only a few decades longer. And we know that back then the recognition was appreciated by only a precious few.

The science of sustainability is just starting to accelerate while the sustainability meme is beginning to catch on. This means that there must be some sort of shared understanding emerging despite all the differing interpretations. This is a good thing.

However, the quality of the actions and investments that flow from this cultural and scientific meme is critical. If we can get an operationally effective definition approximately correct along with a comprehensive set of guiding principles (test and refine as need be through guided action); if we can also define a rigorous process of systemic problem analysis and implementation then perhaps we might actually get closer to solving our problems at the correct and needed level of complexity.

I am assuming that when humans are confronted with complex systems what seems obvious is not always obvious; evolutionary stable strategies can be counter intuitive; what feels good to do may not be good to do in the long run.

There is no substitute for trial and error ( aka action). But could we tip the scales in favor of success by rigorously articulating what should be guiding our actions? And if so how much time should we invest doing so?