Talk:Sustainability

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahm248. Peer reviewers: Bucketkitty.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs thorough review and updates to keep GA status

This article achieved WP:GA status in Oct 2010, so eleven years ago. Since then, I think there has been slippage in quality. On first sight I notice that the article is very long (82 k of readable prose) and that it goes into too much detail about aspects for which sub-articles exist. I am going to focus on that first, so expect to see some "shrinkage" in the next few weeks. Does anyone else want to list suggestions for improvement of this article? EMsmile (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have drastically shortened the section on eco-socialism and moved the text block to the talk page of eco-socialism. Note that the entire text block was based on just two publications.EMsmile (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been lucky enough to make contact with an accomplished scientist from Wageningen Univ who wrote an article "What is Sustainability" https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3436 in 2010 and who has continued to follow developments. The author has offered several important edits and improvements in the article and these I have entered. The work to further improve the article is ongoing. Congratulations also to User:135.23.197.114 for the several excellent edits the past few days. ASRASR (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Please consolidate population

The word "population" occurs over 40 times in this article. It should occur once in the lead and then in a section with that title and not much more than that.--Pages777 (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why, what's wrong with using the word "population"? Do you want it replaced with a different word? If you have ideas for improvements, you could edit the article accordingly (it needs a lot of work). EMsmile (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

My idea is to consolidate the use of the word "population" primarily into a single section. It will be a lot of work. I will get to it eventually.--Pages777 (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Expert edits

As part of the Wikipedia project to improve articles relevant to the SDGs, substantive factual edits have been sourced from Tom Kuhlman who has published extensively on the subject of sustainability. Readability improvements are also being made. Any feedback is welcome. ASRASR (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Work required on the lead

The lead is currently not a good summary of the article. However, before we improve the lead we probably ought to revise the structure of the article. I think it often goes into too much detail on topics for which sub-articles exist. This could be culled & condensed, and in some cases the sections about sub-topics could easily be replaced with excerpts. EMsmile (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion for major culling and condensing

I plan to do some work on this article over the coming days and weeks. When I look at this article, it strikes me that it’s actually far too long (in my opinion). And I think that’s because it goes into too much detail on topics for which sub-articles exist. Also, I think it has grown to this size because there were a number of student assignments over the years. These students add new content and new references but nobody cleans up later after them and condenses what they added, or checks if the newly added content shouldn’t rather go into a sub-article. So I think we might need deletions of whole paragraphs or even sections. I think it will eventually make the article much better if it’s more focused and has less waffle and tangential stuff. For example, I just deleted the section on research and innovation which seemed to just advertise the European research programs. See this change here. I’ve also culled content under the religion section and moved it to the relevant sub-article. It was giving too much weight to things that the pope had said, see here. I am pinging two people who are listed as top editors for this article (from a few years ago) and who are still active on Wikipedia now: User:Granitethighs, User:Sunray. What is your opinion about the current quality of the article? Also pinging User:sadads, user:ASRASR whom I have collaborated with on other sustainability-related articles. EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in here to support major culling. The very interesting information is buried in too much detail.PlanetCare (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, after I wrote my comment on 7 November I already did A LOT of culling (compare with the November version). Are you saying more culling is needed? In which sections? The first 6 sections should be reasonably good by now, but the ones after that might require more culling and condensing? EMsmile (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I will help cull elimination of clutter. This article is so full of clutter and incoherence it could use a complete do-over. Mkevlar (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "de-over"? After writing the comment about decluttering in November 2021, I have already carried out a lot of decluttering. (have you compared with the November 2021 version?). Some of the "decluttering" that you have carried out now I find too radical. My criticism towards some of your recent edits:

• You have converted some of the prose into bullet point lists. The general advise is to use prose more, not bullet point lists. Also we are not supposed to use bolding in the main text, only in the very first sentence.
• You have deleted some content where you said "it's in a sub-article". Yes, it may be in a sub-article but we are supposed to use summary style and help people discover the relevant sub-articles. So if we don't even mention the sub-articles with a couple of sentences then how can they find them? Just giving the link to the other article is not sufficient.

Would you like to connect more directly so that we can discuss some of the ins and outs of the article? I've been working on it quite intensely this year (you can see it from the edit history). I am very glad that you're taking an interest in it now. It has surprisingly few people who are improving it, given that it has quite high pageviews. I'll send you a message through the Wikipedia e-mail system (if you don't want to, no worries). EMsmile (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

A proposed new structure

I have been discussing this article with User:EMsmile (offline) and do now want to propose a new structure as follows.

1 Definitions and common /contemporary use

1.1 Historic origins

Building on the current paragraph referring to Hans von Carlowitz as well as reference to ancient cultures etc.

1.2 Sustainability in the political arena /as a policy concept 

Building on the paragraph starting with (“Modern use…”), but partly new input. Referencing other entries: UN Conference 1972, WCED, Rio (Rio Declaration, Agenda 21), MDGs, SDGs, European Green Deal I have started working on this but would like to wait with adding this to see whether there are suggestions wrt general structure.

1.3 Contemporary use 

Mainly content of existing section The Three Dimensions

1.4 Critique and Variations
1.4.1 Portfolio of critique of concept

Partly new input: critique of Brundtland definition or sustainability in general as “too late” (Meadows 2000), “exhausted” (Blühdorn 2017), to be substituted by “resilience” or Futeranity (Berg 2020)

1.4.2 Strong vs. weak sustainability 

Partly existing (see paragraph in section Resilience), to be complemented

1.4.3 Call for further dimensions 

Partly existing (see section Further Dimensions), to be complemented

1.4.4 … 

2 Related concepts Substituting “Principles and concepts”. I suggest to restructure this section and expand it. There are several related concepts

2.1 Planetary Boundaries
2.2 Environmental /ecological footprint /carbon Footprint  
2.3 Carrying capacity  

potentially to be merged with 2.2 Footprint

2.4 Resilience  
2.5 Industrial metabolism

3 Dimensions of Sustainability Integrating existing content but consolidation /clearance needed

 3.1 Environmental  

subsections to be consolidated /cleared

 3.2 Social 

subsections to be consolidated /cleared

 3.3 Economic 

subsections to be consolidated /cleared

4 Responses/reactions from different stakeholders

4.1 Governments and authorities 
  4.1.1 UN Resolution on the on 2030 Agenda  

New content to be provided – briefly explain and then refer to articles of 2030 Agenda and SDGs. Explain legal status of 2030 Agenda as resolution (not as binding as international law etc.).

  4.1.2 Regulation (i.e. binding) 

List /refer to major regulatory initiatives wrt sustainability European Green Deal , China’s Five Year’s Plan etc.

  4.1.3 Initiatives from public authorities (non binding)   

Here I would put initiatives by public authorities (of different level) like local Agenda 21 initiatives (link to respective article), the C40 initiatives (of cities) etc.

 4.2 Corporate World /Businesses Responses to sustainability  

New content to be provided – referring to several existing articles (GRI, WBCSD etc.)

  4.2.1 The concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Corporate Citizenship 
  4.2.2 Industry initiatives (UN Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board etc.)  

 4.3 Civil society /NGOs and Movements 
  4.2.1 NGOs  
  4.2.2 Movements (FFF, Extinction Rebellion, …)  
  4.2.3 … 

 4.4 Religious communities 
  4.3.1 Pope Francis (Laudato Si and Fratelli tutti) 
  4.3.2 World Council of Churches  
  4.2.3 …  

5 Implementing Sustainability

5.1 Barriers to sustainability 

Here I would put, among others, paragraphs from current sections 7 (threats), as well as reference to Hulme 2013 (Why we disagree about climate change) and Berg (2020) Sustainable Action.

 5.2 Solution proposals /Paths to sustainability 

Partly integrating aspects of current section on Paths to sustainability but mainly adding new content, e.g. referring to transitions research (e.g. Raskin et al 2002, Geels & Schot 2007, Geels 2011 etc.)

  5.2.1 Transition research 

New content to be provided – referring to transitions research (e.g. Raskin et al 2002, Geels & Schot 2007, Geels 2011 etc.)

  5.2.2 Actor focussed approaches  

New content to be provided – referring to new life-styles (e.g. LOHAS), or principles of sustainable action (Berg 2020) etc.

  5.2.3 Initiatives addressing multiple dimension  

New content to be provided – referring to Poverty-Environment Initiative (PEI) of UNEP and UNDP, and initiatives addressing multiple SDGs

Of course, I can explain these suggestions and will be happy to discuss and /or provide content /suggest edits in the coming weeks. Seemountain (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work by Seemountain talk !. This well-organised approach will provide major improvements to this article. Regards ASRASR (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this proposal, Seemountain. I like it but would propose the following changes:

1. The section on "critique" could become a Level-1 heading instead of Level-2.
2. The section on related concepts should be very brief. Perhaps we should just use an annotated bullet point list? Or sub-headings with excerpts from the other articles.
3. I find the section heading "Responses/reactions from different stakeholders" a bit strange. Maybe rather "Sustainability initiatives from different stakeholders"?
4. Also I find this heading a bit strange "Implementing sustainability": sustainability cannot be implemented as it's a concept or more of an adjective that describes a direction. Perhaps rather "Initiatives to increase sustainability of projects"? But then it also overlaps with the previous section? EMsmile (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've worked on the re-organization process today. Not yet finished. EMsmile (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Response to EMsmile's comments from Dec 3:

1. ad 1: "critique" as Level-1 heading. What I have in mind here is the critique of the concept as it is/will be explained in the previous sub-sections 1.1-1.3. Those sub-section will refer to the Brundtland commission, the three "pillars", the SDGs etc. These concepts /this concept have been criticized because some say that it would focus too much on development (i.e. while sacrificing ecology), others challenge the idea of substitutability of different capital forms (social, environmental etc.), sill others say that it's too late for sustainability (Meadows), that the concept is "exhausted" (Blühdorn) etc. Maybe the sub-section "critique and variations" needs some fine-tuning later but for the fime being would leave it as suggested. Of course, it would highlight the controversies around sustainability if this section became level-1. However, I would distinguish between the discussion on the academic level (which I see being reflected in section 1.4) and political statements (mostly from populists) that we don't need any sustainability because we wouldn't have any problems (or we couldn't change the climate, for instance, anyhow). Do you see my point @EMsmile?
2. ad 2: "related concepts should be very brief" - I agree. What I have in mind here is a very brief description why those concepts are related. For instance: "Planetary boundaries are critical for any discussion of sustainability because by exceeding those boundaries humanity would trigger irreversible and most likely dangerous developments for the future of humanity, which is by definition a major threat to any concept of sustainability" - and then refer to the respective article on planetary boundaries (which I haven't checked - but I hope will be sufficiently clear). That might work in a list of bullet points.
3. ad 3: I'm fine with the suggestion you made ("Sustainability initiatives from different stakeholders").
4. ad 4: I think you raise an important point here and I'm glad you observed that. I think de facto some people indeed use such phrases. However, I fully agree that this has to be challenged. I personally would even resist of calling any real project /circumstance truly sustainable simply because we cannot predict the long-term consequnces of anything... What I have in mind here is the academic discussion around transformation towards sustainability. Maybe a different wording could be "pathways to s.", "realizing more s." or putting 'implementing' in "." or similar. What I have in mind here is the discussion around transformation research. Differing from the section before, it is here not the stakeholder's focus (which is mostly ad-hoc or at least not integrative and systematic, simply because it is stakeholders' initiatives) but the systematic account which explains why sustainability is not just a given, what particular challenges/barriers are there, how they can /need to be addressed etc. In today's public discussion is sometimes negelcting the complexity of the challenge. Some voices suggest that we'd reach sustainability IF ONLY we use the right technology, or IF ONLY we consume differently, or IF ONLY we leave behind our growth adiction. All these are valid points but none of them suffices to provide sustainability. I have elabortated this in my 2020 book Sustainable Action). What we might consider, however, is having this as sub-section 1.5. This is a question to Wiki-experts: logically this discussion could well become sub-section 1.5. But it will require a lot of background information which is explained in the sections on stakeholder initiatives etc. So for a reader who reads the entire article on s. it would be easier to understand that more towards the end.

Seemountain (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, very useful information. Regarding number 1, the critique section: I think this will be very interesting to have, i.e. both types of critiques. We can decide later if this should be a Level-1 or Level-2 heading. Regarding number 2: that makes sense. We could probably do away with those excerpts then. But if we have only bullet points then the names of the related concepts would no longer appear in the table of contents. Is that good or bad? Regarding number 4: I have re-arranged those sections a bit again. I have moved "barriers" to become a Level-1 heading. We can rename and move sections again later, once more and new content is added. EMsmile (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on sequencing

"Sustainability Measurement" belongs in the opening section as a "term" to be explained early on. Offering that short and clear section early on would make it easier to follow the measurement details under each of the three pillars. Another sequencing issue: As is, the three pillars are referenced BEFORE they are explained. (I added the phrase, "as discussed below" but moving up the definition of the three pillars is a better solution. I could even see putting a very short presentation of the three pillars in the Definitions section. The history of how we get the three pillars could come much later (if at all)PlanetCare (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on overlap with sustainable development

I am trying to reduce overlap with sustainable development and have just started a discussion about it there on the talk page. Please contribute to the discussion there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_development#How_to_remove_overlap_with_sustainability? EMsmile (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Integrating content from the German Wikipedia into this article?

I think there is some interesting content in the German Wikipedia article for sustainability (here). You can just use Google translate of the page to get that content in English, in order to get an overview. For example, I like some of the historical and linguistic content there. I feel that the article takes a broader view, with more variations of the interpretation, whereas our English version article is now quite narrowly focused on the Brundlandt definition which marries sustainability and sustainable development together. But I also find it confusing to distinguish what's really important and what's superfluous or even waffle in the German article. EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Artem.G, I don't understand why you removed the "German language expansion tag" with the reasoning of: "it's GA, no need for expansion/translation from German". Firstly, even if it was GA, it could still benefit from translating content from a better other language Wikipedia article, couldn't it? Have you looked at the German article yet (with Google translate if need be)? Secondly, I don't think this article meets GA criteria anymore. I've listed it for reassessment a while ago but nobody has reacted to it yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sustainability/1. EMsmile (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Expansion template can work for some stub/start/C articles, if there is a problem of broadness, for example. For a GA it's almost worthless - almost nobody work on translations, and German article is not that better than this one. And of course you can translate it and integrate into current version! If you believe that template is useful, just revert me. Artem.G (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Dimension" is equally common as "pillar"

Hi User:Mkevlar, sorry, but I have just reverted your edit where you changed the lead and also replaced "dimension" with pillar in each instance. I feel that your changes to the lead were not an improvement. That definition from the Oxford dictionary clearly only related to environmental sustainability. ("The current definition of sustainability in the Oxford Dictionary is “The property of being environmentally sustainable; the degree to which a process or enterprise is able to be maintained or continued while avoiding the long-term depletion of natural resources“). If the Oxford dictionary was always right and perfect, we could just copy from there each time and wouldn't need Wikipedia... Secondly, the term "dimension" is very commonly used in the literature. So there is no benefit in replacing it with pillar in each instance. EMsmile (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your reversion is unfounded. GOOGLE "three dimensions of sustainability" and the word "pillar" comes up in searches more often than "dimension". even the UN uses pillar. In Germany the more commonly use the word is dimension but for the rest of the world it is not. I will wait for others to weigh in before changing it back. Mkevlar (talk) 2:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 14:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at Google as well. When I put "pillars of sustainability" I get 476,730 results. When I put "dimensions of sustainability" I get 287,805 Results. So I would say that's pretty similar (but doesn't take into account which term is becoming more popular and which is becoming less popular over time). I think pillar is probably the older term, whereas dimension or aspect is probably the newer term. When I look at the ngram viewer in Google Books, then "dimensions of sustainability" is far higher than "pillars of sustainability", see here: Google Ngram Viewer here. Either way, I think the article makes it clear that several terms have been used and then picks one for consistency throughout the article. EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As you mentioned the UN, they sometimes use pillar, sometimes dimension. On the website that mentioned it's pillar, yes. But in the UN declaration for the 17 SDGs in 2015 here they use dimension several times, pillar not once (example: "We are committed to achieving sustainable development in its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental – in a balanced and integrated manner." and "They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development. "). I rest my case. EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Using a 3rd metric Google Ngrams it becomes evident that pillars has become more commonly accepted in publications. So I propose a compromise: use both in the opening paragraph for definition and use pillars for the rest of the article. TheKevlar 14:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the difference with your Ngram is that you used "three pillars of sustainability". I think that gives a less accurate impression than just "pillars of sustainability" (without a number). Like the sustainability article explains, many scholars have talked about more dimensions of sustainability (not just 3), e.g. the cultural dimension. So when you don't search for a specific number, then "dimensions of sustainability" is more common than "pillars of sustainability" as per the Ngram link that I posted above, as far as I can see. But I am all for using the terms interchangeably, so no problem to use a mixture throughout the article, I guess. However, in the section headings I guess we have to use only one. I would still prefer "dimensions" as per my reasons given above. The "pillar" also doesn't do the model justice when it's described as concentric rings or as overlapping rings (see the image used in the lead section of the article, which compares 3 main images for sustainability that are being used). Pillar only works when you think of those things that hold up a building. EMsmile (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The "barrier" section needs more content

This feedback was provided by Ben Purvis: "This section stands out as not adding much that has already been said elsewhere in the article, unless it is developed more in full". On the to-do list (for someone). EMsmile (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The section "responses by different stakeholders"

Comment by Ben Purvis about this section: "The United Nations response is an important omission here as they have shaped much of the sustainability discourse since Brundtland in 1987". My response: "I am not sure how to do this. The UN is mentioned already quite a bit in the history section and when it comes to the overlap with “sustainable development”. In which sense could we call them a stakeholder? Or perhaps the heading “responses by different stakeholders” is not overly clear?" EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Responses by different stakeholders (business)

I see you have cleaned up the business section, User:Mkevlar. That's good but I am just wondering if these two bullet points were not worth salvaging in any form? I have no particular knowledge about them but am just wondering if some of the terms are not important to mention, such as sustainability standards and certification. This is the deleted text:

• The three dimensions of sustainability have served as a common ground for numerous sustainability standards and certification systems, in particular in the food industry. Standards which today explicitly refer to the triple bottom line include Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade, UTZ Certified, and GLOBALG.A.P. Sustainability standards are used in global supply chains in various sectors and industries such as agriculture, mining, forestry, and fisheries. Based on the ITC Standards, the most frequently covered products are agricultural products, followed by processed food.
• The different aspects of social sustainability are often considered in socially responsible investing (SRI). Social sustainability criteria that are commonly used by SRI funds and indexes to rate publicly traded companies include: community, diversity, employee relations, human rights, product safety, reporting, and governance structure. EMsmile (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This article and subsections should be topic lead ins with links to further reading.

• First paragraph above is handled in greater detail in Ecolabel
• Second paragraph: Businesses are a for profit ventures and the subject of SRI has nothing to do with being financially sustainable. So yes the topic does not belong in this article TheKevlar 19:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

You seem to have a narrow view of sustainability, just focused on financial sustainability (you said "SRI has nothing to do with being financially sustainable")? Socially responsible investing would fit with the social dimension of sustainability so I do think it's relevant. Secondly, just because something is handled in another Wikipedia article (e.g. ecolabel in this case), doesn't mean we shouldn't have some summary-style statements here which will help readers understand the context and click through to the relevant sub-article if they are interested. Therefore, I think both bullet points should go back in (in a slightly condensed format if needed). EMsmile (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Businesses are socially and environmentally irresponsible, what world do you live in? I work with the public in a unionized work environment and even here we have to fight for every scrap of decency. Wikipedia articles contain facts, not policy theory unless topic is theory! I vote to leave out of this section.

Yahkgirl (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Business has a narrow focused view of sustainability once it evolves to include SRI and becomes noteworthy then we can chronologize it. NGO's and governmental bodies do deal with SRI and have created policies, but still business only gives it lip-service. TheKevlar 16:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 16:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

I don't understand your statement: "Businesses are socially and environmentally irresponsible"? Nothing is ever 100% one thing or the other. Are you saying there are no businesses out there who are trying to become more sustainable? I beg to differ. But this is not a discussion forum, it's about verifiable content and references about sustainability. Anyway, do you think that the article socially responsible investing is also not justified to even have? I think it wouldn't hurt to link to it, in one form or another. - Dear Mkevlar, please sign your comments on the talk page with the four tildes for a proper "signature", thanks. Four tildes is: ~~~~. EMsmile (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User:EMsmile Using Non-dualistic thinking as a method of analysis fails to see that generalizations do not preclude outliers or early adopters! In this case I agree with Yahkgirl, its premature to include SRI. I vote to leave it out. Mkevlar (talk 16:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The section on critique

I have some questions regarding the recent edits to the section on critique, User:Mkevlar? I felt the earlier version was possibly better because it was written as flowing text (prose), not as unconnected bullet points. At the very least, we do need an introductory sentence to explain what follows there as a bullet point list, I think. I think the first paragraph of the old version was pretty good? Also you seem to have removed the page numbers of the references, was that on purpose? The edit summary states "pruned paragraph as it contained conjecture, cleaned up formatting and references", where was there conjecture - everything had references? Here is the old version which I am referring to:

++++++ The concept of sustainable development has been criticized from different angles. While some see it as paradoxical and regard development as inherently unsustainable, others are sobered by the lack of progress which has been achieved so far. "Sustainability" also has a reputation as a buzzword.

According to Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the first report to the Club of Rome, called "The Limits to Growth", many people deceive themselves by using the Brundtland definition of sustainability. This is because the needs of the present generation are actually not met today, and the economic activities to meet present needs will substantially diminish the options of future generations. Sustainability has also been described as an “exhausted roadmap” due to the fact that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive.

Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to the realities of the Anthropocene: These realities include "unprecedented and irreversible rates of human induced biodiversity loss, exponential increases in per-capita resource consumption, and global climate change". Therefore, it might become impossible to pursue a goal of sustainability when faced with these complex, radical and dynamic issues.

The Rio Process was a huge leap forward: for the first time, the world agreed on a sustainability agenda. However, global consensus was facilitated by neglecting concrete goals and operational details.“ The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) now have concrete targets (unlike the results from the Rio Process) but no methods for sanctions. +++++++++

Compare with the new version:

+++++++ * The Limits to Growth: According to Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the first report to the Club of Rome, called "The Limits to Growth", many people deceive themselves by using the Brundtland definition of sustainability. This is because the needs of the present generation are actually not met today, and the economic activities to meet present needs will substantially diminish the options of future generations. Sustainability has also been described as an “exhausted roadmap” due to the fact that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive.

• Anthropocene: Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to the realities of the Anthropocene These realities include "unprecedented and irreversible rates of human induced biodiversity loss, exponential increases in per-capita resource consumption, and global climate change". Therefore, it might become impossible to pursue a goal of sustainability when faced with these complex, radical and dynamic issues.

• The Rio Protocol was a huge leap forward: for the first time, the world agreed on a sustainability agenda. However, a global consensus was facilitated by neglecting concrete goals and operational details. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) now have concrete targets (unlike the results from the Rio Process) but no methods for sanctions. +++++++++ EMsmile (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand the "prose" quality and as a recreational read that would be fine but the world of sustainability professionals is one of high stress and low value. Many readers of this article with a business background want to skim it and find the few gems they are looking for quickly; this audience are often the decision makers that shape the world. So lets make the content digestible for them too.

As for the bullet points, they clearly articulate sub-article headings which adds structured knowledge where they reader can drill deeper with a single click and that is something worth doing. Over time more Critiques and Criticisms will be added by others, so giving then a structured format will make for better clarity TheKevlar 10:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

Well our target audience is the general public, not sustainability professionals in particular. So I think the text needs to be readable, understandable and flow well (and not be full or jargon). I agree that most readers have little time. For that reason, the lead is so important (the section before the table of content). It's supposed to be a summary of the article. About 600 words long. Many readers will not read further than the lead! Many Wikipedia articles have poorly written leads. Let's work on the lead of this article together? Also if you want to create a structure for the critique section then I recommend rather using sub-headings. This way, the sub-headings will also show up in the table of content. Shall we do that? I agree the critique section should be built up further over time, and it's good to have a structure for it. EMsmile (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! The first 600 words are worth working on. If you sandbox them with a link here I will put the effort into helping out. Mkevlar (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox is too cumbersome, I suggest improving the lead "live", making it a good summary of the article. End result should be about 4 paragraphs or 600 words. Further guidance also here: WP:LEAD. If you have time, please give it a go (saving frequently and bringing up anything that needs to be discussed here on the talk page?). I think the first paragraph of the lead is pretty good though. EMsmile (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References