Comments on: Survival of the Fittest Renamed “Sustainability”? http://micahtillman.com/2008/04/09/survival-of-the-fittest-renamed-sustainability/ Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Etc. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:04:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Steve Burri http://micahtillman.com/2008/04/09/survival-of-the-fittest-renamed-sustainability/#comment-2040 Steve Burri Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:07:39 +0000 http://micahtillman.com/2008/04/09/survival-of-the-fittest-renamed-sustainability/#comment-2040 Sustainability is another one of those poorly defined buzz words from the pedestal. Love, justice, and equality are also some of the more popular. All have noses of wax to be twisted as the speaker deems fit for his own purposes. But, hey, it's for the children so it's gotta be good. Sustainability is another one of those poorly defined buzz words from the pedestal. Love, justice, and equality are also some of the more popular. All have noses of wax to be twisted as the speaker deems fit for his own purposes. But, hey, it’s for the children so it’s gotta be good.

]]> By: Jeff http://micahtillman.com/2008/04/09/survival-of-the-fittest-renamed-sustainability/#comment-2028 Jeff Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:31:54 +0000 http://micahtillman.com/2008/04/09/survival-of-the-fittest-renamed-sustainability/#comment-2028 "Something that is sustainable is something that can last. It doesn’t have a built-in end." Is there a non sequiter (spelling?) between those two sentences? I've always viewed sustainabality as something that is not self-destructive, self-sabatoging, etc. For example, I might say that a ministry was self-sustaining at a church, meaning it was generating all the revenue it needed to survive. This ongoing sustainiability does not relate to it's lifespan. Such a ministry might be ongoing, alternatively, though, it might only be planned on for a year or a month or an hour. " Evil, for instance, seems pretty sustainable. It’s been around a very long time, anyway. What’s so great about things that last?" People (Can't name any names off the top of my head, sorry.) have observed that evil is ultimately parasitic. In the short run it might survive, but viewed from sufficient distance, evil is ultimately self-destructive, it seems to me. I'd go so far as to posit that sustaianabality exists in inverse proprortion to the level of evil in a thing. Based on this view “Something that is sustainable is something that can last. It doesn’t have a built-in end.” Is there a non sequiter (spelling?) between those two sentences? I’ve always viewed sustainabality as something that is not self-destructive, self-sabatoging, etc. For example, I might say that a ministry was self-sustaining at a church, meaning it was generating all the revenue it needed to survive. This ongoing sustainiability does not relate to it’s lifespan. Such a ministry might be ongoing, alternatively, though, it might only be planned on for a year or a month or an hour.
” Evil, for instance, seems pretty sustainable. It’s been around a very long time, anyway. What’s so great about things that last?”
People (Can’t name any names off the top of my head, sorry.) have observed that evil is ultimately parasitic. In the short run it might survive, but viewed from sufficient distance, evil is ultimately self-destructive, it seems to me.
I’d go so far as to posit that sustaianabality exists in inverse proprortion to the level of evil in a thing.

Based on this view

]]>