posted 14 years ago
OK, just listened to a talk in which one of the participants was saying that sustainable food production wasn't competitive with conventional agriculture.
And I came to a realization; Those who speak of sustainability as one of multiple viable options don't likely understand on a visceral level what sustainability actually means.
"UNsustainable" means that you cannot continue doing it in the long term, by definition. It doesn't mean you shouldn't, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice, it means you can't continue doing it in the long term.
And so an argument that an unsustainable practice produces a greater yield now should elicit a resounding "so what!" from those who are listening critically.
The metaphor I think of is this; If you and I are on the roof of the Empire State Building, and have a race to the bottom, you will win the race if you jump while I take the stairs. But only the first time. For the second and subsequent races, you will be a no-show. Because your approach was not sustainable.
That's what sustainability means. I don't think a lot of people get that. I think in the popular mind, "sustainable" is the new green, and green is the new black, so it's hip to be "sustainable," it's fashionable. Be sure to get it on your tee shirts and bumper stickers.
But the truth is, issues of sustainability are issues of life and death. And I personally am resolving not to be seduced into debates framed to consider sustainability as an option rather than a life-and-death necessity.
