Based on modern usage, it seems that just about anything can be judged in terms of its sustainability. Sustainable energy, sustainable agriculture, sustainable food, sustainable materials, even sustainable health care. But what is sustainability?
According to Merriam-Webster, there are two definitions of the term. One of the definitions has two parts — the first part relates only to agriculture and the second part uses the word in the definition. The other definition is “capable of being sustained,” sustained being defined most usefully for our purposes as “keep up, prolong.” In other words, sustainability is the ability to endure.
Since the conditions on Earth will eventually render the planet incapable of supporting life, nearly everything is ultimately unsustainable. If we are to meaningfully label things as sustainable or unsustainable, then it matters not whether something is capable of lasting indefinitely, but how long it can last.
It is difficult to determine how short-lived something has to be to be properly labeled “unsustainable.” This difficulty greatly complicates the application of the word, even regarding something like fossil fuels, as it appears to be an open question whether we can continue to use them for more or less time than is required for unsustainability. Much easier than determining what “sustainable” means is determining what it does not mean.
“Sustainable” does not mean “environmentally friendly.” Things like indiscriminate dumping can continue for long periods of time without even harming posterity until the distant future.
Nor does “sustainable” mean “good” or “just.” Contrary to a flier I once read, slavery is extremely sustainable, as evidenced by the deplorable practice’s remarkable endurance.
Not only is the definition of the word less broad than it is commonly thought to be, but sustainability itself is not as important as the rampant usage of the word would indicate. The property of unsustainability does not even necessarily provide any impetus for action.
Surely, we do not want to be caught unprepared when our current practices are no longer feasible, so it may be prudent to examine alternatives to things that are unsustainable in the short term. But simply because we cannot keep something up forever or even for very long does not directly imply that we should change our practices.
If we should switch from fossil fuels to some alternative energy source, for example, we should do so primarily because their use is harmful or sufficiently dangerous. Moreover, if we found an alternative energy source that was much less harmful but not sustainable, why should we not tap that as long as we are careful not to invest too much in a temporary energy source?
Sustainability is an important quality, especially in the aforementioned area of agriculture. However, when we speak as though the definition of “sustainable” is anything we please, the word ceases to have any meaning and importance whatsoever.
Reach Noah sustainably via e-mail at nnzarr@asu.edu.
