Talk:Sustainability/Lead/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Latest clean copy (current version)

Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity of maintaining a certain process or state. It is now most frequently used in connection with biological and human systems. In an ecological context, sustainability can be defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.

Sustainability has become a complex term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, particularly the many different levels of biological organization, such as; wetlands, prairies and forests and is expressed in human organization concepts, such as; ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, and human activities and disciplines, such as; sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture and renewable energy.

For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished. However, there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to return human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits.

Since the 1980s, the idea of human sustainability has become increasingly associated with the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Moving current version (Option 1) to article

I believe that everyone has now spoken to this and approved it for moving to the main article. Some have strongly urged that we do it right away, so I will do that. Here's hoping everyone is down with that. Sunray (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sunray, is it OK to archive everything except a copy of the version that finally went up? Granitethighs (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived. Sunray (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

We all agreed that the current lead should be uploaded but we didn’t actually vote on its contents. I must confess to not being comfortable with it in several places. I think we were all desperate get out the old and bring in the new. As we have mentioned before, at the end of the editing we need to make sure the lead indicates what is to come in the article but in the meantime I think we can do better with the “bones” that are currently in place. The opening sentence appears when anybody on the web queries what sustainability means – and that is more than the 1000-3000 hits that occur on Wikipedia itself each day. I am worried that at present they get:

Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity of maintaining a certain process or state.

I’m sorry that doesn’t even sound grammatical to me (?capacity of). Are people really happy with that? Here are some options (variants and old versions and a new option):

1. Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure by maintaining a certain process or state indefinitely.

2. Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure.

3. Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state (indefinitely).

4. Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to maintain, endure or support (indefinitely).

Because this is a very important part of the article I ask that we have just one more go at this opening sentence (please say which you prefer and why – or add other option(s). We can then work towards a vote that we can all feel committed to. Also I am still not sure if this statement needs a citation. To get the ball rolling, I understand the word "indefinitely" can be seen as superfluous but to me it gets the "feel" of sustainability across well, so I am happy with it. I also understand that the word endure might seem strange to people but to me it conveys in the simplest form what we are trying to get across. I do not like the current sentence and would rate the options above 2,1,3,4. I added 4 because it incorporates more of the (at least) 12 senses of "sustain" that are given in dictionaries. Granitethighs (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead should not be given over to rhetorical flourish or florid description.. to no purpose or real expansion, as to meaning. Original contention or research is not really an option... opinion about definitions is not a good substitute for being factual or concise. People differ on the worth of poetic allusion which may contain obscure meanings or symbolic interpretations.

1. Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure by maintaining a certain process or state indefinitely.

No definition says indefinitely, so it is not a good idea to do original research when defining things. Indefinitely? Not so. Again this could be an opinion... or someones idea.. but nature does not work that way... it is constantly changing things, and is not set in stone, hence evolution.

Enduring is a human emotion or thought construct. Nature changes... and is not trying to endure but evolve or change according to circumstances. Nature does not have opinions... nature deals in facts. skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, the whole lead will have to be revisited once the complete article is in place. This is because a good lead should describe what will be said in more detail in the article. It should summarize basic concepts, outline what will be in the article and serve to "whet the appetite" of the reader. I'm not making this up, it is part of the guidelines for writing a good lead. if you cannot live with the lead sentence (or any other aspect of the current lead), GT, I would suggest that you make a clear proposal. I think it best that you narrow it down to your preferred option, rather than providing a bunch of choices. Sunray (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To maintain, support or endure (thought for later). Granitethighs (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)