by Brad Nelson
In the march to greater over-emphasis on security at all costs — with clear underpinnings of Marxism and environmental paganism — there is this new word called “sustainability.” Here’s the definition from Wiki (which I clipped some time ago and so it may have changed):
Sustainability is the capacity to endure. In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. For humans it is the potential for long-term maintenance of well being, which in turn depends on the well being of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources.
Sustainability has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, from local to a global scale and over various time periods. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. Invisible chemical cycles redistribute water, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through the world’s living and non-living systems, and have sustained life for millions of years. As the earth’s human population has increased, natural ecosystems have declined and changes in the balance of natural cycles has had a negative impact on both humans and other living systems.
There is abundant scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and returning human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits will require a major collective effort. Ways of living more sustainably can take many forms from reorganising living conditions (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (permaculture, green building, sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), to adjustments in individual lifestyles that conserve natural resources.
Note in the last paragraph that it says it will take a “collective effort.” Given the deluge of Obama-socialism that we’re being inundated with at the moment (and, really, for decades now in the West), and given the recent examples of the fraudulent (but not quite dead yet) claims of global warming, your skepticism should be engaged. With the idea of “sustainability,” we have just encountered a new form of politicized irrationalism because it is a word that has no specific scientific definition, nor can it have one, for nothing in this world has ever really been “sustainable,” other than change itself. The idea of “sustainability” serves the purposes of statism, hysteria, and socialism because any impact or just change — no matter how small, and especially no matter how natural or normal — will be deemed a reason for government to intrude on your life or your business.
Those who are able to propagandize the idea of “sustainability” as a supposedly objective and precise scientific idea, and a supposedly inherently good thing, will then be able to define those who oppose this undefinable and open-ended idea as polluters, destroyers, and capitalist pillagers of the earth. Again, we have political correctness trumping facts and reason — just as with the global warming farce where CO2 was trumped-up as a deadly poison . . . so much so that it is supposedly necessary to have government tax us to death. At some point, we just need to get a clue as citizens if we want to remain free and prosperous.
No species operates in a “sustainable” way. Whatever balance that seems to be achieved is simply a momentary snapshot of the forces which are all in play, and are all opposing or supporting one another in both competitive and symbiotic relationships. The core error of this Leftist anti-scientific idea of “sustainability” is that natural systems of any type are homeostatic systems. They are not and have never been. We make a grave and irrational error if we assume the idea of nature as “perfectly balanced” and therefore conclude that if things change it is the fault of humans.
“Sustainability” is yet another word that sounds good, but scratch the surface and absurdities abound. Imagine, for example, the idea of “sustainability” in the free market, especially as it relates to your business (or even your family). It would mean that if your business (or family) grew or shrank, this would be a sign of something being terribly wrong. Evolution itself would laugh at this naive notion of “sustainability” as species are at this moment in direct and deadly competition with each other. No elephant who wishes to survive and thrive wishes to “sustain” the lion population, for example. “Sustainability” is the Marxist-Leftist wedge for controlling that which cannot, and should not, be controlled. So-called “sustainability” is a direct assault on any notion of human progress and is yet another deceptive word being forwarded by statists of all stripes.
So long as we define anti-pollution efforts in the Orwellian language of “sustainability” we will be less concerned with reducing waste and pollution and more concerned with the various quasi-Marxist initiatives that all result in government control of our lives. And one must remember that it is human technological progress that leads to reductions in pollution and waste as innovation (not stasis) provides the answers. The last thing we want is the stasis produced by wrong-headed anti-humanist notions of “sustainability” and freeze where we are. To remain forever as we are now is to doom us. To measure supposedly adverse human “impact” in terms of how it changes things is irrational, anti-human, and anti-scientific.
Technically speaking, the sun is not “sustainable.” It will burn out in about 4 billion years. Our bodies themselves are not “sustainable.” Most of us will die before we reach the age of ninety. Thank god childhood itself is not “sustainable,” for we eventually do grow up and take on adult aspirations and responsibilities (and no longer have to take care of our children in perpetuity). No one industry is ever “sustainable” as the free market has shown time after time. New solutions tend to constantly replace and refresh older methods and ideas. The car replaces the horse and buggy. (And as charming and “sustainable” as a horse and buggy may seem, the result of the latter is streets covered with horse manure.)
“Sustainability” is a word with such an open-ended meaning it can be of great use to the controlling classes and statist politicians. The good intentions of conservation, pollution reduction, and recycling is again an idea taken over by those who have a quite different agenda. That was true of the fraudulent “science” known as global warming. It will, and is, true of the pseudo-science of “sustainability” as well.
There is, of course, such a thing as replanting forests so that you have a somewhat “sustainable” source of timber. There is such thing as “sustainable” fishing harvest. There is such thing as a “sustainable” amount of Federal spending before the economy goes bust. But keep in mind that the very same people who are grossly burying us in unsustainable debt are the ones for whom the word “sustainability” has almost a religious-like connotation. Beware. Be skeptical. Freedom itself is not sustainable if we mindlessly acquiesce to every nice-sounding word. • (1964 views)