Sustainability reloaded - v2.0: the controversy continues

-- an SWMTHiNKTANK debate

In continuation of the past debates about the topic of sustainability [1]-[4] a new debate concentrating on the current situation of sustainable development has been started - Sustainability. We are on the right way!? [5]. Main incentive for the continuation of the controversy is a perceptible hebetude in sustainable development [6]. Today sustainable development can be considered as 'institutionalized', 'standardized', 'quantified', 'technified', etc. Sustainability is still considered and treated as 'extra', i.e. as 'add-on'. Accordingly, sustainability as such is considered as a cost factor - which is basically not the case. Some quick surveys [7]-[9] demonstrated how integral sustainability is included in a person's every day live. It is more than obvious that, if the turn towards a truly sustainable society shall be successful, there is a need to change the approaches to impart sustainability. There is a need to come away from restrictive, limiting and cost-inducing approaches. A solution could certainly be to start-over with motivating soft-pushes offering opportunities, incentives. That starts already with the wording used when sustainability issues are communicated to the public (be it the broad public or a limited audience). Sustainability is soft, smooth, integral and flexible. Hardly, sustainability can, for example, be associated with e.g. 'drastic measures' [10] - a phrase that astonishingly results in more than 2'300'000 hits when searching for it. Sustainability is nice, sustainability is wanted - the need exists to make it happen.

Further readings: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]