Justadude said:Total sustainability must be utopian; the world can't last forever. It's a natural fact.
But sustainability is achievable to a reasonable extent. Agrarian cultures were almost totally sustainable. Industrial cultures are much less so, which explains the environmental problems of the past 200 years. But if we can start getting our power from renewable/inexhaustible resources, and work on developing more eco-friendly materials with which to make our goods, we will find ourselves in good shape for the predictable future.
"Utopian" doesn't have to include any of those concepts. The word utopian can be defined as:Architorture said:i have to disagree with sustainability being considered 'utopian'... although it may be driven by ideals and aspirations for a 'better world' it does not ever introduce any concepts of equity, justice, freedom, or a perfect society... all things that are generally found in utopian writing and especially found in utopian designs
Architorture said:if agrarian societies were entirely sustainable why did they become industrialized?
post-industrialist societies in my view are NOT sustainable if they rely on non-renewable resources to function. Though, I think it is possible to achieve a greater degree of sustainability than we have now. It's simply very expensive, hence, it's ironic. Our expenses make sustainability simply not a sustainable concept.Buster said:I guess this discussion begs the question: are post-industrial societies sustainable?
Hell, will we be able to change ourselves, or change the world, in order to achieve ecological sustainability? Is this even possible? Are we screwed? Is it even worth trying?