The Way We Think About Sustainability is B.S.

Understanding Sustainability is the foundation of everything. Let’s create some context so we can apply the principles of sustainability in our organizations and in our lives.

We’ve been throwing around this buzzword sustainability for a few years now, and I think it’s about time we lay it down in a recliner and put some cucumber slices over its eyes. Let’s refresh. We’ve been hearing about it in so many contexts that I think we forgot where it comes from, what it means, and what its purpose is. I recently took a moment to remove myself from my previous understanding of sustainability, to block out the various impressions and applications of it, and dig right down to its roots. What I found was that the way in which we currently understand how to achieve sustainability doesn’t work well in practice.

Before I explain why, I want to clarify that sustainability is not the same as environmentalism. As I talk to people about sustainability, I come to realize how widely misunderstood this concept is. Many people mistake sustainability for “going green” or practicing environmental conservation. While this is one very important piece of the puzzle, it’s just that: one piece. Sustainable development, as defined by the United Nations’ Brundtland Commission, is meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Looking at this definition, we see there is no mention of the environment. There is this very broad goal without indication of how to reach it. So let’s say it again: sustainability is not the same as environmentalism. Sustainability is a social science, concerned with the longevity of humanity. Researchers, climate scientists, biologists, and many other of our world’s brilliant minds have come to understand that sustainability simply cannot be attained without a healthy natural environment. But again, this is only one piece of the puzzle, and it’s time to start restructuring our thinking about achieving sustainability.

This is how we currently explain how to achieve sustainability:

The three pillars: environment, economy, and society. When we can find balance between these three pillars, when we can elevate one without harming another, then we achieve this sweet spot of sustainability. Sounds nice.

I call bullshit.

It is clear to me that these three pillars simply are not created equal. The natural environment would flourish if human society and the economy were to cease to exist. If humans were not consuming natural resources faster than the rate of replenishment, polluting the air with greenhouse gas emissions and the night sky with city lights, and creating space below our feet just to fill it with what we deem “trash,” other life forms on earth would be just fine. In fact, they would heal, and they would thrive again.

Human society needs a healthy environment to be healthy. This is our only source of life. To maintain the current quality of life for society, we need a healthy economy.

The economy is dependent on natural resources from a healthy environment, and without society, the economy would be entirely irrelevant — in fact, it would just go away.

So, since the other two “pillars” depend on the environment but the environment does not depend on them, there is imbalance.

Let’s restructure our model. If we’re talking about the sustainability of society in terms of life quality, shouldn’t this:

look more like this?:

Here we see the environment is the foundation of the economy and society, and society needs a healthy economy to thrive.

If we want to look at the sustainability of the economy, it might look something like this:

But sustainability of the environment would never look like this:

Or this:

The point here is that the environment is fundamental to society and the economy, it always has to be at the base of the pyramid. So this:

is B.S.

Let’s dig deeper. Sustainability of the environment and of the economy aren’t truly the end goal here. As I mentioned before, the economy is irrelevant if it’s not serving society. On a personal level, I do believe that the natural environment has much more value than what humans can monetize on. However, when we talk about sustainable development, we’re talking about accommodating for the ever-expanding human population while maintaining the current quality of life. Although the balancing act of the three pillars sounds nice, the point was never to balance. The point is to elevate society — a task dependent on the health of the economy and the environment.

If we can come to accept this understanding of sustainability as the sustainability of society, then perhaps we can restructure our thinking to look like this:

Here we have a foundation consisting of the environment and the economy working together to elevate society.

With this model, we are more accurately representing the true definition of sustainable development, which again, only touches on the longevity of society. By restructuring our thinking with more clearly defined goals for society, suddenly sustainability becomes a more tangible concept with more easily measurable impacts. We can look to society to measure the true impact of our sustainability efforts — how healthy are we? How happy are we? How many of us are in poverty? These are some the questions that we must be asking to get a true understanding of what it means to be sustainable as a society. Answering these questions on a timescale, we can see if we are thriving, merely getting by, or if we’re in decline. It is important to understand the underlying goals of sustainability before we can be successful in developing solutions for building a sustainable world.

Related posts:

Watching your favourite content is rewarding for you because it’s entertaining. Now imagine being entertained and rewarded with a cryptocurrency that has value. We are proud to announce that we have…

Today I will be going to explain about Generics concept in Java programming language. Guys this is a awesome mechanism for type safety since Java JDK 1.5. This mechanism only works in compile time…

The Annapurna Base Camp Short Trek is the ideal trek if you want to experience the mountains in a short time. It is a rushed version of Annapurna Sanctuary Trek–17 days for trekkers with short time…