• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sustainable Sustainability

briandunning

Thinker
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
183
I can't stands no more!!!!!!!

If I hear the word "Sustainable" used one more time to describe a product, I'm going to throw up.

This is from the Evil Skeptoid Debunkatron podcast (http://skeptoid.com):

=======

I bet you didn't know that the Evil Skeptoid Debunkatron is a sustainable podcast, delivered over a sustainable Internet, using sustainable networks, and received through your sustainable ears. Now you know. But really you should have known that already, because this year's winner of the meaningless, overused buzzword award has to be the word "sustainable".

To label your product as "sustainable" is to imply that competing products are not sustainable. What this is intended to mean is often pretty vague. Presumably it means that competing products are manufactured from materials that we'll run out of, should current methods and usage continue.

The environmentalists, usually portrayed in the media as the good guys, first coined the phrase to describe products or methods that are generally better for the environment than the competition. Soon the marketing gurus got ahold of the word, and now everything from toothpaste to music to real estate is being sold as "sustainable".

It's so effective, and thus popular, because it's an alarmist term. Calling your product sustainable is not really saying anything about your product; it's clanging the warning bell about the alternative being unsustainable: Can't be sustained! The world is ending! It's like calling your product "hate free" or "cruelty free". In no way is it descriptive of your product, it's simply an underhanded way to insult your competition. As any marketing expert will tell you, people respond much better to a negative than to a positive.

One gross overusage of the term is "sustainable agriculture", used almost exclusively by those selling organic crops. Organic agriculture is certainly sustainable, so long as a third of the world's population is willing to die off so the rest of us can eat. As with many people who use the word sustainable, proponents of organic foods aren't really saying anything particular about their product, they're trying to frighten you into thinking that modern advanced farming methods will somehow destroy or deplete the environment, and are thus "unsustainable". Ironically, the reverse is closer to the truth. Among other benefits, modern hybridized crops are designed for specific soil types, and to leave those soils less depleted so that they can be replanted for more seasons before being rotated. So-called sustainable agriculture is, in fact, far less sustainable than the planting of crops that have been optimized to thrive in the available conditions.

The word "organic" is itself the same kind of deceptive marketing: intended to trick you into thinking the alternative is somehow not organic. Strictly speaking, all plants and animals are organic, according to the word's true definition. When you hear any product defined only by a vague buzzword, be skeptical.

You also hear a lot about sustainable fuels for cars. This usually refers to biodiesel and ethanol, since they come from renewable resources instead of a limited resource, natural petroleum. In this sense, the production of biodiesel and ethanol is certainly more sustainable than gasoline, since we'll always be able to grow them. However, they have a show-stopping drawback. Burning biodiesel or ethanol in our cars exhausts the most significant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, into the air — just like gasoline does. So even if we switched all of our cars over to biodiesel and ethanol tomorrow, down the road we'll be no better off. The production of biodiesel and ethanol might be sustainable, but their usage is absolutely not. This is a great example of why you need to bring a skeptical attitude when you hear the word "sustainable". Are the environmentalists promoting biodiesel really looking out for what's healthiest for the earth, or do they have some other motivation, possibly political, possibly economic, possibly philosophic?

The word sustainable has become so pervasive that its usage is often just plain silly. Colgate recently purchased a company that makes sustainable toothpaste. It contains bone powder. Does an intelligent person really think that it's unsustainable to make toothpaste any other way?

Sustainable tourism is being marketed everywhere. It usually describes destinations where the attractions are generally undeveloped, like the Amazon. It is really unsustainable to vacation in developed destinations like Paris or Tokyo?

Sustainable economics are particularly bizarre. Google the term, and you'll find that it's used largely to refer to wealth redistribution. Has communism really proven to be more sustainable than capitalism?

A prominent automotive magazine recently tested four "sustainable sport sedans". Are four cars that get marginally better gas mileage than other similar cars — none of which are particularly great — honestly the only type of vehicles whose production can be sustained?

Sustainable music is also all over the Internet. In one case, it means the guy makes his own instruments. Is "sustainable" really the word that best describes that? Playing an instrument someone else made is not sustainable? In other cases, it refers to songs about anticorporatism. Is it truly impossible to sustain the playing of music about other themes?

I found a web site offering sustainable real estate. Two of the houses were built of corn cobs and hay bales (I wish I was making this up). I'll ask the Big Bad Wolf how sustainable that type of engineering is.

There's no doubt that doing things in a truly sustainable way is good. Accomplishing a worthy goal in a way that's infinitely repeatable is best, and that's what sustainable really means. True sustainability might violate the laws of thermodynamics, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It's still a good goal, and as such, sustainability deserves not to be diluted into a meaningless buzzword. Thus, true environmentalists should be the first ones to object to the misleading pop-culture usages of the word that we see every 2 minutes. When you hear it, be skeptical. Figure out what they're really trying to say, and what their motivation is. And for God's sake, don't buy any bone-powder toothpaste just because it says "sustainable" on the package.
 
I've never seen or heard someone describe their product as "sustainable". Is this a European thing?
 
Brian, is that your site? Because I really, really disagree with one of the rants...

"I personally would have no problem stepping up and selling my own psychic predictions. I would love to be able to perform a good cold reading. My dream is to start a church and become fabulously wealthy, with the world's happiest customers."

And then, later on...

"However, these cases are in the minority. Most of the time, people who buy paranormal products or services — be it goddess worshipping seminars, homeopathy, acupuncture, or psychic readings — are buying completely harmless services that P.T. Barnum would have been happy to sell. If money is changing hands, and responsible adults are going into it with their eyes open, they receive exactly what they want, and they are completely satisfied with the results, then I would have no problem participating in such a transaction and profiting from it. The customer is happy, the peddler is happy, nobody is hurt, everybody involved is enriched by the transaction. This is their choice. They don't have a problem with it, why should you? It's none of your business."

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4003

1. It's fraud, and therefore illegal.
2. It's also unethical.
3. If people take this attitude, then what the JREF does becomes pointless.
4. The second you promote the paranormal as quite alright, you ditch promoting the rational.
 
Biofuels are what are generally referred to as "carbon neutral". They do release CO2, but that CO2 was removed from the air to grow the fuel, so it's a wash.
The problem is that it's not scalable.
 
To label your product as "sustainable" is to imply that competing products are not sustainable. What this is intended to mean is often pretty vague. Presumably it means that competing products are manufactured from materials that we'll run out of, should current methods and usage continue.

Not quite. Certainly, if I label my product as "sustainable" and you don't, then the customer can infer that your product is unsustainable and we'll eventually run out. Nothing keeps you from making your product "sustainable," too -- but complaining that the word is meaningless is at best misleading and at worst an active lie.

Let's take the toothpaste for a moment. Last time I checked, most of the toothpastes out there contained various minerals, such as stannous fluoride, as additives. Where do we get that stuff? To the best of my knowledge -- and I admit to not being a toothpaste expert -- we mine tin for it. I don't know of any toothpaste-reclaimation facilities that mine the tin back out of wastewater. Mining is almost by definition non-sustainable. Over enouth time we will run out of tin unless we start using some sort of reclaimation process -- or use something else as toothpaste additives.



One gross overusage of the term is "sustainable agriculture", used almost exclusively by those selling organic crops. Organic agriculture is certainly sustainable, so long as a third of the world's population is willing to die off so the rest of us can eat. As with many people who use the word sustainable, proponents of organic foods aren't really saying anything particular about their product, they're trying to frighten you into thinking that modern advanced farming methods will somehow destroy or deplete the environment, and are thus "unsustainable". Ironically, the reverse is closer to the truth. Among other benefits, modern hybridized crops are designed for specific soil types, and to leave those soils less depleted so that they can be replanted for more seasons before being rotated.

Unfortunately, most conventional agriculture relies heavily on petroleum-based fertilizer. Where does the fertilizer come from? Where are we going to get more petroleum? Similarly, if you look at the amount of topsoil that has been lost through erosion, that's another resource that is being overexploited in a "nonsustainable" fashion. The plants themselves may be better designed, but the overall process does not seem to be.

You also hear a lot about sustainable fuels for cars. This usually refers to biodiesel and ethanol, since they come from renewable resources instead of a limited resource, natural petroleum. In this sense, the production of biodiesel and ethanol is certainly more sustainable than gasoline, since we'll always be able to grow them. However, they have a show-stopping drawback. Burning biodiesel or ethanol in our cars exhausts the most significant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, into the air — just like gasoline does.

As was pointed out, biofuels are C02-neutral; the plants take up C02 from the air in the process of growing, and the (re-)release it when burned. The problem with burning petroleum is that the C02 released when it burns is essentially new C02, carbon that has been locked out of the atmosphere and the current environment for millions of years.

Basically, I think that the rant is very imaginative. Particularly in its treatment of the facts.
 
I usually hear "sustainable agriculture". The implication is that evil corporations working the land to maximum efficiency will permanently wreck the Earth, and cause famine. Obviously, California must be a barren dust bowl after several decades of non-sustainable agriculture.
 
After I read the OP, on NPR I heard, "this program was supported by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, which is dedicated to blah, blah and a sustainable society."
 
What is Sustainable Agriculture?

Just in case somebody wanted an actual idea to discuss, instead of a strawman.

I thought we were discussing the applicability of the word "sustainable", not the flaws in the philosophies it was attached to.

Anyway, let's take the link you provided as a typical description of what is called "sustainable agriculture". Without addressing each claim on this page, there are some main classes of fallacies I see.

The first is to point out that modern agriculture uses huge amounts of water, energy, pesticides, etc, while ignoring the fact that it produces even huger amounts of produce. If anything deserves to be called "sustainable" it is a system which does not disrespect the land by using it inefficiently.
 
I usually hear "sustainable agriculture". The implication is that evil corporations working the land to maximum efficiency will permanently wreck the Earth, and cause famine. Obviously, California must be a barren dust bowl after several decades of non-sustainable agriculture.

Interesting terminology you use, since acc. to Wikipedia:
Dust BowlWP was the result of a series of dust storms in the central United States and Canada from 1931 to 1939, caused by decades of inappropriate farming techniques, with buffalo herds that fertilized the soil displaced by wheat farming, followed by a severe drought.

Are you saying that because some environments are very resilient, that it is impossible to destroy them? I offer the former Fertile CrescentWP as a counter example:

About 5000 years ago, large cities were flourishing in the flat plains of what is now southern Iraq. The cities were surrounded by thousands of hectares of crop land irrigated from the rivers. Farmers grew barley, wheat, flax, dates, apples, plums and grapes, and herded sheep and goats for meat and milk.

This early example of intensive agriculture proved unsustainable. By around 4000 years ago, desert had replace the fields and the cities had been abandoned. History records many such examples of agricultural communities flourishing and then failing, often because farming eroded the soil, exhausted the soil’s nutrients or caused a build-up of salt.

Source
 
The first is to point out that modern agriculture uses huge amounts of water, energy, pesticides, etc, while ignoring the fact that it produces even huger amounts of produce. If anything deserves to be called "sustainable" it is a system which does not disrespect the land by using it inefficiently.

You do like that strawman. Looking at the same link, I see this:
Water supply and use. In California, an extensive water storage and transfer system has been established which has allowed crop production to expand to very arid regions. In drought years, limited surface water supplies have prompted overdraft of groundwater and consequent intrusion of salt water, or permanent collapse of aquifers.
So, are they complaining about the use of "huge amounts of water" (your strawman) or about concrete problems like salinization and permanent collapse?
 
The first is to point out that modern agriculture uses huge amounts of water, energy, pesticides, etc, while ignoring the fact that it produces even huger amounts of produce. If anything deserves to be called "sustainable" it is a system which does not disrespect the land by using it inefficiently.


I'm, um, not following your reasoning. Almost by definition, the most "efficient" method of doing anything tends not to be sustainable. The most "efficient" way to harvest codfish is to catch them all on a single trip -- but that won't leave any left to spawn the next generation. Result : overfishing and "unsustainable" harvest. The most efficient way to harvest timber is to clear-cut, with resulting erosion.

The problem with modern agriculture -- California being a good example -- is not simply that huge amounts of water are used. The problem is that the amounts of water that are used are not (capable of) being replentished, and so we're getting increasing problems with salination. The ground level in parts of the central United States has demonstrably dropped by something like three meters in the past century, due to overfarming and topsoil erosion. (There's a good photo in Diamond's Collapse.)
 
As the Prophet Malthus foretold, there are too many farkin people and diminishing resources.
Restaurant sketch 2047.
Yes, Messeurs and Madame, I am Jaques, you waitthing,tonight.we have no appetizers, so shall we cut to the chase?
Got any fish?
One, but it's a bit tumorous.
Are they big?
You bet, these are gigantic tumors. In fact, they are the biggest tumors on a fish I have ever seen.
What kind of fish?
I believe a grunion, but it's a bit hard to tell, with all the tumors.
Good, I'll have it, sauteed in white wine sauce and shallots. As for the wife...
I'd like the long pork in the razzberry glaze, pomme de terrorist and some baked Alaskan for afters.
 

Back
Top Bottom