[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sustainability - A Not So Brief Definition
- To: permaculture <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Sustainability - A Not So Brief Definition
- From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <london@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:04:05 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <LYR75156-16389-1999.09.01-10.48.38--london#metalab.unc.edu@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Newsgroups: permaculture
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, eric + michiko wrote:
> Prompted by the recent definition of sustainable, I decided to give it a
> try. With this definition it is obvious that the goal is not sustainable,
> but invigoration. Let me know what you think.
>
>
> Sustainable is one side of a continuum, unsustainable the other. They are
> divided by a point in the middle. At the extremes are devastation and
> invigoration. Sustainable means that the system in question will continue
> to function at a level of vitality relative to the degree of benefit or
> destruction and disruption caused by one's actions. Unsustainable means
> that the destruction and disruption of one's actions will not allow the
> system to continue; the system will progressively degrade, at a speed
> relative to the level of destruction and disruption of one's actions, and
> at some time cease to function.
>
>
> I hope this leaves you invigorated ; )
It did. Very nicely done.