I describe sustainability using terms that (although difficult) can be measured. 1) renewable resources are not used more rapidly than they replenish; 2) non-renewables are not used, as a fraction of the stock, more rapidly than the use, as a fraction of use, is being converted to a renewable source; 3) toxic substances do not accumulate to the point that they disrupt natural systems or human health; 4) important natural systems are not disrupted; and, 5) human social and economic systems are just, and sufficiently resilient so that periodic disruptions do not interfere with human welfare.

The problem that I see with most definitions is that the attributes cannot be measured, so that we could not see if we are gaining or losing in the effort.

Sure, I'll bite.

Sustainability is pretty complex. Any graphical representation that is useful will simplify it, probably to the point of insensibility. Typically, the author of such a representation will be trying to make a specific point that the graphic can illustrate somewhat intuitively, but that will tend to render other aspects opaque or invisible.

In this case, by nesting the economy wholly in society, and society wholly in the environment, the implication is that creating a sustainable economy will defacto be part of a sustainable society and a sustainable ecology. While that is expected, I suspect it oversimplifies the interactions between these various 'spheres'.

Normally, this graphic is used to underscore the idea that the economy is dependent on society, and society is dependent on the environment. Which, while true, is not complete - society is also dependant on the economy and the environment, and to some extent, the environment is dependant on society and the economy (illustrated by the idea of 'ecological development', that wouldn't happen without society).

Ultimately, the concept of Sustainability looses much of it's meaning if the three pillars are taken separately. A sustainable ecology in isolation of society or economy isn't of much value to humanity. A sustainable society in isolation of the economy or ecology is, again, not much good.

We train our professionals to be experts in only small aspects of the whole of what Sustainability entails. A renaissance professional doesn't exist today - we only train expert specialists - an expert generalist is perceived as an oxymoron. So we try to compartmentalize the concepts, and allow people to focus on only one part at a time. As an engineer, I am not expected to know anything about 'social', but I am expected to bring 'economical' and 'ecological' together, without being an expert in either. I know just enough to have a conversation with either set of specialists, and rely on their expertise.

That means that it is very difficult to synthesis a tripartite solution, since the institutions, jargon, and philosophies remain separate. In the end, the 'wrong' in the figure is that the three pillars are perceived of, and worked with, as being distinct and separate. And they can't be if we are to achieve the goals of the ideal.

Dear Michael and Douglas, thank you for comment.

I intended the question to be simple, just focused on the representation.

In the late 1980s I started sharing the following picture by me found below describing the structure of sustainability in my publications and discussions, which it seems to be of similar nature of the one in wikipedia.

The point I made the picture was to show that the formal economy is between society and the environment, if there is no formal economy, society and environment would still coexist. It can be said that before Adam Smith, we had no formal economy and at the beginning it was just exchange. So If there is no society, there is no economy, and the environment still exists. You can see my picture here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lucio_Munoz2/publication/281244558/figure/fig1/AS:436952924200961@1481189103396/figure-fig1_W640.jpg

You can see that the structure of the figures is different and that the wikipedia representation allows for the possibility that without society there still could be economy, which I think you may agree that it is an illogical expectation

Would not that be the opposite? In the colored picture Economy is located inside Society, it is intrinsic to Society. Society, in turn, would be intrinsic to Environment. That would support your comment above, which I agree with, that it makes no sense for economy to exist without a society.

All simplifications are going to leave weaknesses. What are the weaknesses you perceive with your representation?

Douglas, can you see any logical weaknesses in my representation? You can list them.

I published my representation because I wanted to share a logical way of how sustainability should be represented graphycally. and from my point of view that is the way it should be as it is the way that can be defended analytically.

Those interested in the proper representation of sustainability can find some food for thoughts in the following article:

Introducing a Simple Qualitative Comparative Dichotomy Approach to State and Clarify Sustainable Development and Sustainability Related Concepts and Issues

Article Introducing a Simple Qualitative Comparative Dichotomy Appro...

Providing examples may make clear representation of sustainability. One example is to encourage farmers to forward their crop residues to paper and board industries, instead of just burning them, which damage both the economic value of residues and the environment. The below mentioned article discusses many related aspects. Happy new year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315427845_Agricultural_Residues_Wastes_for_Manufacture_of_Paper_Board_and_Miscellaneous_Products_Background_Overview_and_Future_Prospects?_sg=GY_MT-L2PQW5q5k6gUHyXMrv-Es6gjM_ijuplIGh9S8x0Pj7AJTw_f2kHkXfpkCePxUi5_DFQcIDVksr70arsLmqif8yOfEXmoXbwtel.ydLEia72EOPmTjdDbCaMedI1Pk22OX2vVFcJNN661V5ADWGHw_-ygT9ood-Rgekn0TV6q54_KnFIrfA1a6m9XQ

Again, I'll bite. Really, I'm interested in your thoughts of the strengths and weaknesses - you know your work better than I.

As I said - all representations will be simplifications, and if you use your figure to illustrate some specific point, placing people inside the economy and market can make sense, and placing the market inside the ecology/environment can make sense, too. It's not the graphic that is right or wrong, its the conclusions one tries to draw from the simplifications where someone will get into trouble.

I don't mind 3 pillars, or the Venn diagram, or the nested circles - they all illustrate different things. My preference is a 3-axis plot, but the weakness of that approach is the implication that there are inherent distinctions between environment/economy/society - if one focusses only on the distinctions, one can't get to real sustainability. Nested circles is better that way, but they imply some hierarchy where one might not exist. Is society within the economy, or economy within society? I think it may matter in some cases, and not at all in others.

In this graphic, my first thoughts are:

By implying that the economy and the market are effectively the same thing, you have disregarded all communities that have an economy without a market (small hunter-gatherer communities, for example, which are typically sustainable). You have also disregarded all aspects of our economy that are unrelated to the market (unpaid labour, for example, of which there is 2 to 3 times as much as paid labour in Canada - see General Social Survey, from Stats Can).

But the text underneath is spot on - it is the interactions that matter. To me that is the key part of the whole graphic - the rest is semantics.

Dear Douglas, your comments tell me you are trying to understand my representation from the sustainable devellopment point of view, only then "I don't mind 3 pillars, or the Venn diagram, or the nested circles - they all illustrate different things" this statement could be true.

Sustainability if represented properly means the same thing whether it is represented by 3 pilars or a venn diagram or nested circles or a triangle with 3 bases or from the point of view of the evolution of the limits to grow if necessary and sufficient conditions are present at the same time, you should know that by this time.

If you would like to understand how that picture evolved to what it is now from the beginning of humans on earth to the globalization period and to have a more complete context you can take a look or relook at:

Eco-Economic Development Under Social Constraints: How to Redirect it Towards Sustainability?

Data Eco-Economic Development Under Social Constraints: How to Re...

To those following the implications of my representation of sustainability and of that one on wikipedia, please notice that that MY figure of sustainability can be expressed OR extendend in 3 different, but compatible ways: when you move from the center up, when you move from the center down and when you move from the center right/45 degree angle, all using conjunctural causality. Most of my work is some how related or guided by the nature, structure. and implications of this figure....

Thank you for reading and commenting

Have a nice day!

The problem is when the economically weak, small domestic economy has only traditional energy minerals, such as hard coal or lignite, and there are no developed different forms of renewable energy sources. In such a situation, there is a lack of financial resources for switching energy to renewable energy sources so as to move towards sustainable development according to the philosophy of the new, green economy, in order to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. The warming of the Earth's climate is already a fact and is a serious growing problem. Therefore, renewable energy sources should be developed. Rich countries should support countries characterized by weaker economy, lower incomes and based on traditional energy technologies. It is therefore necessary to strengthen international cooperation in the area of promotion, support and financing of investment projects, thanks to which it will be possible to develop renewable energy sources in the future and aim at sustainable pro-ecological development.

I invite you to the discussion

Dariusz, your comment falls outside the scope of this specific question. Please make comments related to the question at hand if you would like to contribute to this exchange without bringing it out of topic.

This comment is just for you as you seem interested in this other topic:

As you may know neither Rio plus 20/2012, nor the UN nor the Paris Agreement have a plan on how to transition from dirty economies to clean economies....You may find some food for thoughts here:

Understanding the Road Towards the Current Dominant Non-Renewable Energy Use Based Economy: Using An Inversegram to Point Out a Step by Step Strategy Towards an Efficient Dominant Renewable Energy Use Based Economy

Article Understanding the Road Towards the Current Dominant Non-Rene...

Respectfully yours:

Dear Lucio Muñoz,

Thank you very much for making very important inquiries on the Research Gate portal and inspiring important discussions on particularly important issues.

In my opinion, it is good that there was a discussion in the question of this query.

This is a very interesting and scientifically important topic.

Question:

Can you see what is wrong with this representation of sustainability?

this is a very important issue that requires scientific research.

I answer an interesting question:

This scheme is too general and does not include in principle the issue of sustainable development based on the implementation and implementation of the concept of a new, green economy.

Dear Dariusz, this question is limited to only the proper represetantion of sustainability, whether online or in print. Let;s keep the focus on this question here please. If you have no more to contribute to this specific question, let's leave it then

I have 69 open questions some with not answers yet and some of them directly connected to your interest of "the green economy", a better place for those concerns as each question is focused on key issues and where I shared my views, you are welcome to contribute your views there, this is the link:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lucio_Munoz2/questions

You have already pointed.rather than wrong it is different

Anjay, good day. Thanks for your comment, but it is not clear what you mean at least to me.

If my representation is logically right, the wikipedia representation is logically wrong....

So the what is wrong part of the question is that the wikipedia picture should not be labled "a represntation of sustainability" as it is not.

Do you think I am wrong?

Article Global Warming Mitigation Through Carbon Sequestrations in t...

Bharath, good day. Do you have a view on this question?

Yes, most definitions are incorrect because it is a highly scientifically developed field, and currently even the question of defining is not fully standardized.

Best wishes