The Trouble with “Sustainable”
When I’m asked what kind of farming I do, I often reply “sustainable farming.” Or, if I’m being more honest I say, “I attempt to farm sustainably.” But there is a problem with this reply, and that is the answer to the question of “what is sustainable?”
“Sustainable” is a word I throw around easily, but as soon as someone asks me to define it, I start stuttering. “Well, it’s trying to live in balance with the earth,” I might say, but that explanation usually gets me nowhere. I’ve come to see that the problem isn’t with people’s comprehension of the word, but with their ability to make meaning of it in the way that I use it.
Imagine you were to ask me about my life goals, and I was to tell you that I was committed to living a sustainable life. Suppose that meant that I was interested in living a long time. Your mind might be instantly flooded with the complexities of my goal and what it means. It might mean that I avoid death, or it might simply mean that I pursue health. The meaning of the goal can be murky.
What if instead I said that my goal was to be healthy? That would be a fairly understandable thing. It would mean that I would only occasionally indulge in deep-fried Twinkies, and would exercise on a regular basis. All of the hows of the goal still wouldn’t be clear, but you probably wouldn’t ask me what I meant when I said that I want to be healthy.
The difference between the goal of long life and health is that you can do something about one of them, and you can’t do anything about the other. I can be healthy and I can get to work on that goal immediately. I cannot ensure that I will have a long life—I could die tomorrow despite my commitment to my goal of living for a long time.
Talking about the goal of sustainability is something like talking about the goal of long life. Sustainability isn’t a goal one can clearly act upon. It is the byproduct of actions, just as long life is a very probable result from the goal of health.
I now find myself in the unfortunate position of pointing to a problem, but having no satisfying solution for it. I don’t know what term should replace sustainability, but I do think we should work toward one. Health might work—“I am working towards maintaining a healthy farm”—but I have the feeling there is a more concrete and actionable term for what we are attempting to point to with the word sustainable. Any suggestions?
See more articles from A Farmer's Notebook
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.plentymag.com/blog-mt1/mt-tb.cgi/3457
Comments
How about using "Earth-friendly farming?" To me that says that you farm in such a way that not only does no harm to the Earth but also helps to keep it viable for the future.
Posted by:Joe Payne |October 10, 2007 9:46 AM
It’s that while farmer’s markets provide refuge for those who sit around all day interacting with their own abstractions, farmers are getting all tangled up in semantics. While the intellectualization of food may be helpful in pushing the cause of local and sustainable farm movements, we should not put farmers on the defensive to explain themselves. Otherwise we could end up eating our own words. To Farmer Sutterfield, I’d suggest he try the words, “Trust me.”
Posted by:Roxanne Christensen |October 10, 2007 3:59 PM
Why not just simply give them the definition of the word? As in, "Capable of being continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment"
Posted by:Debra Jo |October 13, 2007 1:13 PM