Sustainability

"Sustainability:" what does this word mean? How can this word be objectively recognized so that its underlying function can truly be understood and practiced? The word comes from Old French and Latin, meaning literally "to hold up and endure." But, in the case of growing food and thinking in a "bottom-up" modality, what exactly is being held up and what exactly is being endured when this word is used today? Here lies a question that has yet to be clearly and succinctly answered, though its unwavering presence is becoming a monster.

In literature, the term "category of analysis" refers to the framework with which certain fictions, histories and theories can be cracked open and explored. With "Sustainability" as a category of analysis, perhaps a clearer picture can be drawn for understanding just what this philosophy and practice means in the 21st century. The importance of unlearning the word "sustainability," realizing the concept that it encases, and embodying this concept minus the buzz words is a productive way to reassess modern man's wasteful tendencies, so that they may be contextualized in the coexistent cycle of production and waste renewal. I think about this a lot, and never quite come to any concrete answer other than what lies in my own jurisdiction, which is literary studies. What am I holding up? Through what must I endure?




Sustainability culture pisses me off at times, because it is something inherently genuine (what's NOT genuine about loving the Earth?) but at the same time, a trend that brings with it a hypocritical poke in the spleen: man loves Earth, man protects Earth, man utilizes Earth, man meets man, man sells Earth to man, man gets rich, man re-invents Earth, man sacrifices science for business. This would be a simplistic model of how nature (flora and fauna) is relinquished in exchange for a new and synthetic "nature" (the concrete jungle). In the latter example, profit and gain is that which increases the distance between man and his primordial connection with the planet in the raw.

There is no going back, though. And we shouldn't want to go back. After all, the ability to work toward a better future that doesn't exist yet is one of the many attributes of man that can be considered "great." To recount the Futurist Manifesto of Marinetti, we are like "lions running after death," or boldly stepping into the unknown without doubt or reservation. So what if we're going to die? It's all about dying colorfully. To limit one's own potential of springing forward and manifesting his dreams by citing an organic subservience to the Earth can become nothing more than laziness. Responsible business is key in maintaining the cooperation of ecology and profit, and I would have to close this thought out with the help of Ayn Rand: the businessman must be philosophical, and the intellectual must be practical. At the root of both should be the consciousness of ecology.

"Sustainability culture" is a springboard for building a truly great future, but is also a pitfall for those who justify their disconnectedness from the modern world by citing their alliance with the primordial. I think that the increasing trends of the "green lifestyle" is bringing us closer to our primordial Earthly origins, especially as the reality that oil is finite continues to grow concrete, but I for one would like to incorporate this primordial realization with the long history of innovation and the business of modernity that humans have cultivated with a fascination for becoming great; I advocate keeping both in synchronous orbit.