Challenges to the Meaning of Sustainability
(Section Summary)

Social inequity, material disparity in terms of needs not being met, as well as the question of why consideration for nature should come before the welfare of humans, are at the center of the sustainability debate (Flint and Houser, 2001). Ecological sustainability is the simple part of the concept. Socio-economic sustainability, however, is a more difficult and potentially contentious concern. The question of who gets what (and how) from increasingly limited economic production raises the specter of potential conflict both within and between nations. The need for shared justice and the associated latent conflict is the most scary and politically taxing part of the sustainability question. In this regard, the Brundtland Commission sustainable development definition brings into question what the idea of needs really means. How do we distinguish between essential needs today and wants – those that are supplementary or excessive? And likewise, how do we distinguish between the needs of potentially very different cultures or people in the future compared to present-day society?

Many critics feel the concept of sustainability is just too complicated to have any real meaning to either professionals or people in the general populous, not providing a tangible foundation upon which to guide decision-making. And, the complexity of natural systems causes a certain degree of uncertainty with regards to scientific understanding. Likewise, many practitioners are overwhelmed by the perceived complexity of sustainable development and feel the need to concentrate on activities that are more narrowly focused and target-oriented on their particular environmental, economic, or social worry (give me a quick fix!). Causing most concern is the fact that in many situations sustainability is perceived as addressing only environmental issues. In addition, sustainable development is not necessarily popular with the people who can most make a difference. It suggests unwanted sacrifices and involves patience and the ability to look to the future. In this regard, there are often not instantaneous gratifications from actions we might take to fix what's going wrong, thus discouraging further efforts.

Without acceptance of a common philosophy related to what sustainability represents neither the general public nor scientists with significant expertise share a universal model for understanding and addressing issues. The absence of a shared understanding sets the stage for ideological thinking to dominate (Norton, 2005) because there is no flexibility for testing reality. To make matters worse, philosophical opponents can gravitate toward polarized theories of how benefits should be derived in socio-economic and environmental sectors to the point that separate systems of belief can block communications and make agreement on common actions more difficult to achieve. .......... read more!

This is just a summary. If you wish to purchase the COMPLETE narrative of this section of the Manifesto, or the entire Sustainability Manifesto publication, go to GET THE MANIFESTO.

Return to the Sustainability Manifesto main page.