I think we've gone beyond the need for sustainability--we are at the point where the buzzword should be "regenerative." We can't sustain what we have because if we do, we're still up the creek. We need to regenerate fertile soil, creeks and rivers, clean air. We're at the point where we have to do some smart backpedaling. I happen to believe that technology can play an important role in this, but at the same time we have to recognize that we have gone too far in one direction and it's time to turn back.
But to answer the question, to me sustainability means that we, as human beings, should go back to being part of the cycle of life instead of flouting it.
ETA: I just happened to be reading a sample of Joanna Macy's new book and found a relevant passage:
"A sustainable society is one which satisfies its needs without jeopardizing the prospects of future generations." That definition is a little too vague to me, frankly, because people today have this inherent expectation that you can go into "debt" (exploit the earth and its resources) but then "pay it back" later (restore the damage). So the quote above doesn't take into account that some debts bankrupt you. Nature's balance sheet doesn't work they way our minds do.
I'd rather think of it as "a sustainable society is one in which we contribute actively to supporting the natural ecological systems which, in turn, support us."
Reply With Quote
