I am 66; I noticed the change in the 1990s, where sustainability replaced conservation and another word, ecology. It is not cynical to guess the reason why. As Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid."
Sustainability implies no real need to reduce consumption. And it is a consumer-driven economy that we all live in. I, on the other hand, have reduced the need and desire to consume. Thus, I am not sustaining the economy. 🕊🦜🐦
Perry, fellow old fart, I just celebrated my 67th birthday a couple weeks ago! I guess your experience is much like mine. When we were kids, everybody talked about conservation. And it meant something. And that's it precisely about sustainability, the assumption that we don't need to change our lives or reduce consumption. While I think it's terrific that I can purchase and use low-watt light bulbs, there aren't enough folks out there saying, "Turn the lights off!"
I also think big money got in the way. The fossil fuel industry makes huge profits and spews greenwash, so that a lot of people doubt climate science.
I think there's also a cultural component, making trying to do the right thing seem uncool.
As well, the desire for western hegemony is causing endless wars that are terrible for people and devastating to the environment, and the environmental effects of all these wars and military spending aren't even measured.
I don't know enough--and at this stage, I don't think anybody has enough knowledge on the subject--to make an assessment. The idea has only germinated since the pandemic. The authors of this paper on 15-minute-cities ( https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/2/512 ) summarize the state of knowledge on the subject thusly: "At this point, one can only speculate about the future of the concept. A more detailed study of the real-world applications of the concept is needed before one can thoroughly discuss its strengths and weaknesses."
That being said, the idea seems to make a lot of sense. As an adult, I've always lived in places where I can walk to get most things that I need. It's worth a try.
Very insightful and frank. I Definitely don't feel qualified to provide a valuable comment. I was in grade school in the 70s. Always that kid who was fascinated by everything I found in nature and often would try to bring home what I found to the chagrin of my family.
This destructive machine is labelled ‘civilization,’ and its violent and brutal imposition on indigenous cultures and communities is legitimized as the ‘civilizing mission’ for which exterminations of the rich cultural and biological diversity of the earth is necessary for the linear, blind rush to progress.
This is such a thought-provoking piece. Thank you. I think you have identified a very important difference of meaning between these two concepts and ways of approaching our relationship with the Earth and it's resources. When I think of Henry David Thoreau, I think of conservation and not sustainability. And it is worth considering that a figure like Thoreau was profoundly libertarian at heart, but also had a deep commitment to the public good and respect for the commons, both of which are lost upon contemporary American libertarians and neoliberals. In any case, conservation does seem to be more symbolically connected to intrinsically good values--caring for our shared environments, the places we love to visit, places we have a relationship with--whereas sustainability does seem like an economically oriented framing of our way of life in relation to the earth. Sustainability is a chore, it's a means to some distant and imposed end. Conservation as an idea may be better at affirming autonomy as well as responsibility. And demands of people to be responsible without affirming their autonomy are usually doomed.
I am 66; I noticed the change in the 1990s, where sustainability replaced conservation and another word, ecology. It is not cynical to guess the reason why. As Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid."
Sustainability implies no real need to reduce consumption. And it is a consumer-driven economy that we all live in. I, on the other hand, have reduced the need and desire to consume. Thus, I am not sustaining the economy. 🕊🦜🐦
Perry, fellow old fart, I just celebrated my 67th birthday a couple weeks ago! I guess your experience is much like mine. When we were kids, everybody talked about conservation. And it meant something. And that's it precisely about sustainability, the assumption that we don't need to change our lives or reduce consumption. While I think it's terrific that I can purchase and use low-watt light bulbs, there aren't enough folks out there saying, "Turn the lights off!"
So many words, important words, have been subsumed by areas other than where they were coined.
Now conservation, self-sufficiency, sustainability mean different things to different people.
Here, sustainability is used instead of profitability! As in business.
I also think big money got in the way. The fossil fuel industry makes huge profits and spews greenwash, so that a lot of people doubt climate science.
I think there's also a cultural component, making trying to do the right thing seem uncool.
As well, the desire for western hegemony is causing endless wars that are terrible for people and devastating to the environment, and the environmental effects of all these wars and military spending aren't even measured.
Diana, yes. Big money is probably the biggest reason we don't have the things we need, the solutions for our environmental/climate crisis.
I would be curious to know your take on the 15-minute city concept https://www.15minutecity.com/
Into the Green, I touched on the subject of 15-minute-cities in a recent post I made on walking. https://greendispatch.substack.com/p/walking-for-sustainability-and-health
I don't know enough--and at this stage, I don't think anybody has enough knowledge on the subject--to make an assessment. The idea has only germinated since the pandemic. The authors of this paper on 15-minute-cities ( https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/2/512 ) summarize the state of knowledge on the subject thusly: "At this point, one can only speculate about the future of the concept. A more detailed study of the real-world applications of the concept is needed before one can thoroughly discuss its strengths and weaknesses."
That being said, the idea seems to make a lot of sense. As an adult, I've always lived in places where I can walk to get most things that I need. It's worth a try.
Rural living is possibly a quiet setting to retire but noisy neighbours are everywhere.
They come from the city chopping down old growth,mind you not all are destroyers of said green.
Very insightful and frank. I Definitely don't feel qualified to provide a valuable comment. I was in grade school in the 70s. Always that kid who was fascinated by everything I found in nature and often would try to bring home what I found to the chagrin of my family.
This destructive machine is labelled ‘civilization,’ and its violent and brutal imposition on indigenous cultures and communities is legitimized as the ‘civilizing mission’ for which exterminations of the rich cultural and biological diversity of the earth is necessary for the linear, blind rush to progress.
Derrick Jensen
This is such a thought-provoking piece. Thank you. I think you have identified a very important difference of meaning between these two concepts and ways of approaching our relationship with the Earth and it's resources. When I think of Henry David Thoreau, I think of conservation and not sustainability. And it is worth considering that a figure like Thoreau was profoundly libertarian at heart, but also had a deep commitment to the public good and respect for the commons, both of which are lost upon contemporary American libertarians and neoliberals. In any case, conservation does seem to be more symbolically connected to intrinsically good values--caring for our shared environments, the places we love to visit, places we have a relationship with--whereas sustainability does seem like an economically oriented framing of our way of life in relation to the earth. Sustainability is a chore, it's a means to some distant and imposed end. Conservation as an idea may be better at affirming autonomy as well as responsibility. And demands of people to be responsible without affirming their autonomy are usually doomed.