Introduction

Hello, and welcome to What and For How Long, a blog dedicated to exploring questions of sustainability. I created it as a requirement for a graduate course on sustainable business practices, specifically to reflect on specific readings for the class. As such, most of the content will deal with sustainability as it pertains to business, at least in the short term, and I can only do my best to make this interesting to the layperson. Additionally, those not in the class will likely not have read our materials and my time for presenting background will be limited. However, since sustainability permeates my worldview, and because I hope to maintain the blog beyond this course, occasional posts will deal with bigger-picture issues related to sustainability.

First, I would like to explain the title. This is difficult because we really should take several steps back, and even then we probably wouldn’t have a wide enough perspective to explain it fully. For now, let’s start by defining sustainable development. The most widely cited definition was drafted by the so-called Brundtland Commission and states: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I).

I present this definition not because it is without flaws or controversy, but because it is succinct and is a good place to start. It begs the questions, “What are we sustaining?” and “For how long are we sustaining it?” All species go extinct, so what are we really hoping to achieve? These questions underlie everything, implicitly or explicitly. They are the forest, and no matter how closely we study the trees, we should occasionally take a step back so the forest is not lost.

Next, and for the benefit of those not in this class, there are a few paradigms upon which this whole sustainability thing is based. They are not universally accepted (although I no longer understand why), but must be stated. The most succinct way of encompassing all of them is also obvious. The Way Things Are is not sustainable. Obviously, we’ll expand on that. First, The Way Things Are is based on inexpensive fossil fuels, which are finite and non-renewable resources and as such, demand will exceed supply, if it hasn’t already. Second, our progress toward The Way Things Are has caused detrimental changes in the global climate. Third, the Earth has a carrying capacity and the global population will exceed that, if it hasn’t already. Fourth, all of these issues can be addressed and, at the very least, mitigated, if not “solved,” and last, we are obligated to do so. At this time, it is beyond the scope of this blog to address challenges to these paradigms, although the materials we’re reading offer ample evidence to support them and that information will invariably end up in the blog. I would also be remiss if I didn’t admit that these are the most urgent, complex, and pervasive problems with which we’ve ever been faced, and the above is a ridiculously simplistic rendering of them.

Finally, I’d like to lay some ground rules. First, I respect the scientific method and rigorous standards of research. Whenever possible, information will come from reputable sources and I’ll provide citations. This is meant to be a tool for learning, so I welcome criticism, questions, and challenges to assertions, but only if supported by quality information. I do not consider Wikipedia to be quality information and any assertions based solely on it will be disregarded. Last, if anybody would like to interact with me via comments, please keep the language respectful and tasteful, and I’ll do the same.

Thanks for stopping by. I look forward to saving the world with you, one blog post at a time.