Talk:Sustainability/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Deletion

Please explain this deletion: [1]. The GDP information is sourced. The space exploration argument is obvious and the Earth only argument has no source either.Ultramarine 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If the space exploration comment is "obvious" then you shouldn't have difficulty finding a source for it. The point is that the section is titled "Criticism of infinite growth." The proponents of infinite growth have, for the past thirty years, tended to say that technology will "fix" the problem. It is an important argument. However, we are talking about planet Earth, so the space exploration idea needs to be properly developed and sourced. Sunray 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just have a look at the sources at Dyson Sphere, for example. Please explain the deletion of the GDP and happiness argument.Ultramarine 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You suggest that because there is a source somewhere in another article, that it applies here. I don't subscribe to that reading of Wikipedia policies on sources. Arguments need to be properly developed and sourced in this article. If the happiness argument is relevant, it needs to be better related to the rest of the section, IMO. Sunray 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a specific link: [2] The section contains amazing claims regarding the relationship between happiness and GDP, in effect arguing that people dying of famine due to poverty are just as happy as other people. NPOV requires the incluion of views of both sides.Ultramarine 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was the right link. The one you added, above, talks about Dyson Sphere, but I cannot find anything about famine or happiness in it. Sunray 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The GDP and happiness link was in the material you deleted but I can repeat it: [3]. You asked for a link regarding space exploration, which I gave for regarding Dyson Spheres, here it is again: [4]Ultramarine 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to approach this another way. You asked me to explain why I deleted the passage, I responded that the space exploration argument was unsourced, I also pointed out that the happiness statement needed to be better related to the section. My point is: We need primary sources that say how space exploration and happiness relate to the criticism of infinite growth. The sources you have given do not do that. BTW the Dyson Sphere FAQ source you have given doesn't seem to meet the WP:V requirements for sources. Sunray 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The space exploration argument counter the argument that resouces are limited to Earth. It goes to the Royal Institute of Technology, a prominent technological university. Exactly what is your objection regarding the happiness and GDP argument, the section presents the strange opposing views, so this view is needed for NPOV.Ultramarine 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where the source makes the argument. I would like to read the actual quote, because I haven't been able to see how the sources you quote make the argument you want to make. Sunray 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Space exploration first: "Why build a Dyson sphere? Energy and space. As described above, the amount of collected energy would be immense, and the living space simply unimaginable. Dyson pointed out that so far the energy usage of mankind has increased exponentially for at least a couple of thousand years, and if this continues we will soon consume more energy than the Earth receives from the sun, so the natural step is to build artificial habitats around the sun so that all energy can be used. The same goes for population in the long run (it should be noted that this is not a solution, just a logical result of growth)"[5]Ultramarine 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, without a doubt. However, the source is someone's personal webpage. How about we find a source that meets WP:V. Sunray 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A personal webpage at respected university is not necessarily an unreliable sourced. But we can as well use this one, for example: [6]Ultramarine 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you give the exact quote from Lane's book where he makes these amazing claims stated in the section? Ultramarine 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No I cannot. It wasn't me that wrote that. Sunray 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I will remove it. A page number or a quote is required from a book.Ultramarine 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove it. It is pretty important to the section and it does have a source. It looks like an accurate summary. Why not ask for the quote or page number? Sunray 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now and also here. I will wait for a short time before removing the claims.Ultramarine 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy your point about a personal webpage at a respected university. As stated in WP:V:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Also states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field"Ultramarine 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But surely not in this case, in which, as I have said, we are discussing an issue that is central to the theme of growth. There is a huge literature on this, article standards would dictate that we reflect that debate with appropriate sources. Sunray 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." As to the second source you offer. You're kidding, right? I loved this bit: "It is possible to picture a StarWars-like universe where a Type IV civilization can use all power sources to convert matter into radiation to create an open universe instead of a closed one..." LOL! Sunray 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)!

If you dislike it, we can take another: [7]Ultramarine 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Sunray 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Did no link welll. Another: [8]Ultramarine 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how this relates space exploration to the criticism of infinite growth. Did I miss something? Sunray 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It certainly mentions that future civilisations may create colonies around stars in order to utilize more energy.Ultramarine 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine again added the following statement to the article:

"However, this ignores the possibility of space exploration and gathering resources from outside Earth, such as a Dyson sphere.[9] Also, research shows that happiness increases with a higher GDP/capita, at least below around $15,000 per person."

In the discussion above, I don't think I was clear. The statement, as it is currently worded is original research. I took issue with the references, because they do not support the argument Ultramarine is trying to make. Neither source even mentions growth. So the argument is being made by the editor, not the source, and that is original research. I've removed the statement from the article. 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the second point, what is the objection to mentioning the relationshipd between GPD/capita and happiness? Ultramarine 08:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

How does it relate to the subject? !!!!

Continuing the discussion in the section below.Ultramarine 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

             THE TRANSFINANCIAL ECONOMICS PROJECTS

Transfinancial Economics, or TFE offers a radical solution to the "problem" of sustainability.

      http://kheper.net/essays/Transfinancial_Economics.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 

Removal of "Criticism of infinite growth" paragraph from article

Ultramarine has removed the following paragraph from the article:

Criticism of infinite growth

Critics of American society state that the philosophy of infinite economic growth and infinite growth in consumption are completely unsustainable and will cause great harm to human civilization in the future. In recognition that the Earth is finite, there has been a growing awareness that there must be limits to certain kinds of human activity if the current diversity of life on the planet is to survive if not indefinitely, at least for the next seven generations. For example, life expectancy and overall quality of life in the USA, although relatively high, are still not as high (in terms of international comparisons) as many people believe. This quality is delivered at enormous cost (calculated in terms of its ecological footprint). A perhaps even more surprising finding is that a few nations, even in today's world, do manage to deliver long and high quality of life more or less within a sustainable economic footprint. The explanation of these surprises stems from the fact that, as Marks et al and, earlier, Lane (1993) has argued, quality of life stems primarily from things like security for the future and networks of social contact. It has little to do with the materialistic components generally used to calculate GNP. One way of summarising the outcome of this work is to view the American dream as a Pied Piper unnecessarily leading to the collapse of diversity and a radical population adjustment.

In removing the passage, Ultramarine states, in his edit summary: "unsourced/unverifiable as per talk." I don't really think that there has been adequate discussion of this removal. The point made in the paragraph is that infinite growth is unsustainable. This is certainly a view held by many. It also seems to me to be one of the central debates related to sustainability. So there is no doubt in my mind that the section belongs in the article. What has been discussed, on this page, is the insufficiency of references. I had thought we'd agreed to put citation tags on the section and let its author, or other editors work on finding appropriate sources. Ultramarine even added some tags, but now seems to have changed his mind. I think that the paragraph should be restored and editors given time to find the necessary citations. Do other editors have any thoughts about this? Sunray 15:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The material was unsourced or unverifiable as discussed above. On the on the other hand, you here [10] delete well-sourced material. Please explain this double standard.Ultramarine 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The citations do not make the argument you want to make. It is, therefore, original research. We've discussed this already, at length. Nevertheless, if you wish to continue, that is what talk pages are for. Sunray 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there is no "double standard." Both passages have now been removed to this page, one by you, one by me. Sunray 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

They do, happiness increases with a higher GDP contrary to claims in the unsourced section you quote above. Resources are not limitd to Earth. I removed unsourced/unverifiable material, you sourced.Ultramarine 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the second sentence does not constitute OR. However, it is a moot point now, since you have removed the preceding paragraph. Sunray 07:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material and insertion of unsourced

See this: [11] Please explain the insertion of the unsourced. The source clearly supports the statements given. Unless a concrete explanation if given, the sourced material will be restored.Ultramarine 14:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am (once again) removing this paragraph from the article;

However, population growth is no longer exponential. The United Nations in its report World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision states that in the developed world many nations are expected to have declining populations in the future and and population growth and number of children born per women are declining the developing world.[12] See also the demographic transition.

Ultramarine: As I said before, this is original research. You are making the argument and using the source to back up your facts. Surely you have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that you cannot do that. Sunray 09:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All of this is stated in the report, no OR.Ultramarine 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please show me a quotation that says what this paragraph says. I'd like the page number. Sunray 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

p. v "the population of the more developed regions is expected to remain largely unchanged at 1.2 billion and would have declined were it not for the projected net migration from developing to deve loped countries, which is expected to average 2.3 million persons a year after 2010."

p. v "Below-replacement fertility prevails in the more developed regions and is expected to continue to 2050. Fertility is still high in most of the least developed countries and, although it is expected to decline, it will remain higher than in the rest of the world. In the rest of the developing countries, fertilit y has declined markedly since the late 1960s and is expected to reach below-replacement levels by 2050 in the majority of them."

p. vi "According to the 2006 Revision, fertility in the less developed countries as a whole is expected to drop from 2.75 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.05 in 2045-2050. The reduction expected in the group of 50 least developed countries is even sharper: from 4.63 children per woman to 2.50 children per woman."

p. viii "the populations of 46 countries or areas, including Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, most of the successor States of the former USSR and several small island States are expected to be smaller in 2050 than in 2005."Ultramarine 19:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But, inexplicably, you omitted the first sentence of the paragraph on p. V, to wit:

According to the 2006 Revision, the world population will likely increase by 2.5 billion

over the next 43 years, passing from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050.

Now. please tell me how the selective quotation you have used relates to the section on "Population growth and consumption." What is its significance for sustainability? That is the piece for which you will need a reliable source. Sunray 19:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I stated that "in the developed world many nations are expected to have declining populations in the future and and population growth and number of children born per women are declining the developing world." Which as seen the source supports.Ultramarine 19:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not answering my question. The source supports what you have said, but what you have said is meaningless when the report shows that global population is growing with no end in sight. That is selective quotation and original research. Sunray 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the population going to grow with no end in sight when women have less than 2 children each? At least 2.2-2-3 is usually considered necessary in order to keep the population stable since some children die before they can grew up and have children etc.Ultramarine 23:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Of the four possible scenarios, the report bases its estimates on the medium variant. This leads to the following projection:

"... Assuming that fertility levels continue to decline, the world population is expected to reach 9.2 billion in 2050 and to be increasing by about 30 million persons annually at that time, according to the medium variant." (vii)

Since the report assumes the medium variant, we cannot use selective quotations to say anything else. Sunray 06:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Metrics and indices

This page contains considerably more material on sustainability metric and indices, then the actual page Sustainability metric and indices. The section Metrics and indices contains 15 subsections, mostly in list form. Why? Or more acutely, why has this material not been moved to the main article? Brimba 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly appropriate to move content from here to Sustainability metric and indices. Why don't you try it? Gabriel Kielland 22:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Brimba. That was a brilliant stroke. I've long thought that that section was way too long and technical for this article. By moving it you have cut almost 30 kb out of this article, making it much more readable. Kudos. Sunray (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Criticisms" section

I've removed this section from the article:

Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas Malthus (1798) predictions about this inevitable causing continuing famines in Europe,[13] The Population Bomb (1968),[14][15][16] Limits to Growth (1972),[17][18][19] and the Simon-Ehrlich wager (1980)[20] have been proved false, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically.[21].

The identical section was removed from the Ecological footprint article. Simply put: this paragraph is original research. The editor has taken his idea and found citations that support it. The citations do not refer to sustainability. To be relevant, they would have to discuss the notion of sustainability. This they do not do. Thus they can hardly be used as "criticisms" of sustainability. Sunray (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

See Also Section

Having linked this article to 'buzzword' is an appropriate addition. When any term is so widely used as this one, it begins to blur and become poorly defined. Having seen it used in absurd contexts (I can get some newspaper articles to support this), I think that it is appropriate. I shall thus be adding it once more. Yerocdiamond (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)yerocdiamond

Add Sustainability Science to Sustainability Article

I have added two external links, one for the AAAS Center for Science, Innovation and Sustainability, and one for Sustainability at the National Academies. The point is that a tremendous amount of work has been done under the aegis of the principle scientific societies of the United States which is not properly reflected in this article, and consequently, the article does not illustrate the full development of the field at this time. For example, there is a meeting this week sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences on "Linking Knowledge With Action for Sustainable Development" [22] There was a substantial focus on sustainability at the annual meeting in February of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (see: [23] and [24]). The article as written is a good start, but needs to reflect the further developments in the field. Moreover, the article has a bias towards the debate of an either/or proposition of sustainability, as if a design or process could be developed or found that was "sustainable," rather than sustainability constituting an human process of intentional action and change for mitigation, adaptation, and transformation. There are some who in fact challenge the entire proposition of "development" as inherently problematic. The key point is, as discussed at the AAAS annual meeting, hermeneutic, ontological, and epistemological questions are now being raised concerning sustainability science, policy, and action that are shifting the focus from static concepts of "right design" to dynamic concepts of ongoing intentional change, in which human creative intelligence is a fundamental part of the evolutionary process. Indeed, the essence of the epistemological question concerns the essential paradigm of reductionist science itself: how can questions of value be raised within the framework of science, as opposed to imposing external ethical authorities from non-scientific sources, such as committees on The Protection of Human Subjects of Research; and how can purpose be introduced into 'value-neutral' 'materialist' science itself, insofar as the entire enterprise of 'sustainability science' is predicated on a value judgment at the heart of the inquiry which implies that action must derive from the inquiry, not merely sterile 'knowledge.' The space here does not permit a full presentation on these questions, but suffice it to say that the Liberal Arts framework of epistemology, which arose from an elitist construct of stratified society in which few were educated, and those were of a "free" class (Libera) in contradistinction to a "slave" or peasant or otherwise subordinated class (despite democratization of the concept in the modern era), is being challenged by the Sustainability framework itself, in which new Kuhnian paradigms are emerging not only in all fields of science, but in challenging the separation of Sciences from Humanities at the core of the Liberal Arts themselves (an inherently political, rather than ontological, decision from when scientists were being burned at the stake for alleged heresies against religious orthodoxy - in part derived from the alchemical roots of modern science in older pagan philosophical traditions). Omnist (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Richard Moore "The Omnist"

Change Lotka-Volterra by Verhulst

In the part of Population grouth and consuption, I'm chaniging that mistake.--Feministo (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)