What is sustainability? Ask 10 people and you well may get 10 different answers. Most people will mention at least one of the following components: economic, social, or environmental. One of the most common comes from a 1987 United Nations commission. It states “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” However, sustainability also has varying levels. Referred to as weak, strong, and super strong, these three distinctions have specific distinctions separating them from one another.
In a 2004 article titled “The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable development” by Colin Williams and Andrew Millington in The Geographic Journal, the authors define weak sustainability by the following factors:
- a human-centered worldview is adopted;
- there is an emphasis on a growth-oriented approach to economic development;
- there is a relative lack of consideration given to the need for radical change in people’s demands on the earth and
- there is a perpetuation of the view that nature is merely a collection of natural resources that can be subdued by the human race.
Weak sustainability is the prevailing approach to sustainability in the western, industrialized world. It allows for the continuation of current trends by placing growth ahead of development. Capitalist systems have traditionally equated sustainable development with sustained growth. In their article, Williams and Millington point out that a central tenet of weak sustainability requires “Technological progress [to] enable people to manipulate the Earth to meet their enormous demands on it. [In other words,] Any problems that arise will thus be solved through technological development.”
As a counter to weak sustainability, strong sustainability advocates argue, we need “a more small-scale decentralized way of life based upon greater self-reliance, so as to create a social and economic system less destructive towards nature.” Strong sustainability does not make allowances for the substitution of human and human-made capital for natural capital. The products created by mankind cannot replace the natural capital found in ecosystems.
Robert Goodland, formerly of the World Bank, defines weak environmental sustainability as “maintaining total capital intact without regard to the partitioning of that capital among the four kinds,” namely natural, social, human, and human made capital. He states that strong environmental sustainability “requires maintaining separate kinds of capital. . . . This assumes that natural and human-made capital are not perfect substitutes.” Lastly, he refers to “Absurdly strong [or 'superstrong'] environmental sustainability,” which would “never deplete anything.” In essence, there would be no use of non-renewable resources (including energy and minerals), and renewable products would only be harvested “in the form of overmature portion[s] of the stock.”
The current course of humanity falls short of even weak sustainability, although the tenets (as posited by Williams and Millington) fit our current approach. While strong and super strong sustainability may be out of reach, and threaten our economic position, mankind must strive toward some of these goals, specifically self-reliance and sustainable harvesting of renewable goods.
[Image source]
Posted in 
Tags: 
Hmmm, anyone who has ever been in conversation with chemist Michael Braungart, co-author of “Cradle-to-Cradle” will tell you about his wild disagreement with the notion first that sustainability is a laudable goal, and second, that growth in and of itself is a problem. His classic argument suggesting that we would never laud a cherry tree for being ‘sustainable’ when instead, we applaud it’s beauty and the abundant production of fruit it bears. Similarly, he calls us to look at ant colonies for a demonstration of the fact that we can have sustainable, productive eco-systems that support a population density that blows our current or projected human population figures out of the water.
Though we’ve had our differences, particularly about communications and strategies for creating culture shift, he makes a compelling point. For this reason, I’m not sure I can align with the definitions here of weak vs. strong sustainability. We like to think the future offers the opportunity for abundant enjoyment of consumption — we simply need to radically shift the shape of our consumption, and that of the things we consume. For me, defining the problem this way limits the opportunity for us to think outside the box about new forms of more sustainable consumption. I believe our goal needs to be to explore new models of commerce that can continue to offer future generations the opportunity not only for meeting subsistence needs, but also for meeting our human need for self-expression, not to mention our need for the simple delight in discovery of something new.
Love to hear thoughts!
Koann,
Thank you for your insightful reply. The definitions of weak and strong sustainability come out of the literature, sourced from peer-reviewed work. While I have read Cradle-to-Cradle and appreciate McDonough and Braungart’s work, I think the have a vested stake in continuing the growth is good paradigm that we have lived in for the past few centuries. This is not to say that we need to go out and halt commerce. I think Paul Hawken (The Ecology of Commerce) and to a lesser extent Peter Senge (The Necessary Revolution) have some wonderful observations of how we can shift toward more sustainable practices. However, the issue at heart in this post relates more so to the throughput growth that has been such an integral part of our economy over this time frame.
Look at such studies like Limits to Growth and Turner’s follow up 30 years later and one starts to get the sense that these issues are not going away. Weak sustainability is a human-centered approach to sustainability. It is not a systems view. Does this mean that weak sustainability is inherently bad? No, I don’t think that is a valid argument. However, it is essential that we start to think about living within the bounds of the natural system that will inevitably dictate our success or failure on a geological scale.