Some of these steps are quite impressive, but I think we still lack a comprehensive functional definition of sustainability. Dr. Ehrenfeld has defined sustainability as “the possibility that humans and other life will flourish on Earth forever.” I am agree with much of what is captured in this sentence; though I think it is imperfect, it is the proper definition to frame a continuing debate. I have a few quibbles, starting with the word “possibility.” Dr. Ehrenfeld writes, “Most talk about possibilities in common conversation is better couched in terms of probabilities, the chances that something missing at the moment will turn up in the next… we live only in the present” (50). In this statement, he passes over exactly the concept I would prefer – “probability,” or better yet, “likelihood.” Unlike possibility, likelihood is quantifiable. (I recently listened to a fascinating podcast from risk analyst and department chair of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University Elisabeth Paté-Cornell.)

Sustainability is often confused with stasis (particularly though not exclusively regarding economics). The word “flourish” has many definitions, but my favorite is now considered obsolete (OED verb definition 3): “Display vigour in, with; abound in, overflow with.” Human flourishing cannot be solipsistic; it must act upon or overflow into something. I am fond of the Biblical conception of humans as the gardeners of Eden. Though the question of flourishing, as Dr. Ehrenfeld says, remains subjective, the effects of flourishing in, with, upon or to may be quantified. We can create an index of measures that do not in themselves constitute flourishing, but may indicate the relative health of the human species:

• Percentage of species with a stable breeding population
• Percentage of ecosystems with intact cycles; historically stable ecosystems or changing according based on clearly non-human inputs
• Number and effect of invasive species upon native ecosystems
• Human suicide rate
• Human rate of death from resource scarcity or infectious disease
• Human armed conflict
• Diversity of human culture and language
• Discrepancy between richest and poorest in terms of standard of living, renewable and non-renewable resource consumption, and personal and political freedoms
• Existing measures like Gross National Happiness that measure lifestyle satisfaction
• Advances in all manner of knowledge and technology; their impacts upon these other measures

Such an index is a teleonomic expression of flourishing. Favorable circumstances on such measures indicate flourishing. A healthy Flourish Index and a quantitatively derived likelihood of its remaining health constitute a quantitative approximation of sustainability.

It is probably not the job of an MBA to establish this index. Our training is for enterprise, not statistics or economics. However, the reason we have tacked the S onto the MBA for Sustainability is that business leaders cannot (reasonably or ethically) ignore this debate. I hope to participate in the evolution of thought on sustainability, but I picked business over economy, philosophy, sociology, or statistics; those disciplines will be the leaders in quantifying and measuring my work.

“Democrats then insist that to pay for these absurdities they have no choice but to raise tax rates on other things—like work and investment—that aren’t politically in vogue.”

Leaving aside the partisanship – I think you could fill in that blank with anybody – I have to play the skeptic and wonder if this is truly an unintended consequence. Ok, specifically golf carts – unintended, yes. But what do you think is the real goal of tweaking the consumer-level tax structure? I would argue that the goal is to shine the apples, not upset the apple card. To generalize, politicians and corporations (same thing now?) have a very short-term vision: next quarter, next bonus period, next election cycle. Only fools and idealists are making a serious push to reconstruct our transportation system.

Press Secretary Gibbs said, “Chairman Waxman announced that the committee had found common ground on a proposal entitled “cash for clunkers,” and the President commended the members for moving forward a plan that will help the American auto industry and provide Americans with cleaner automobiles.”

The goal was to help the American auto industry and provide Americans with cleaner automobiles. This golf cart nonsense actually contributes to that goal. For example, Berline Carts are built under license with Cadillac. (Take a look at the Escalade 07.)

If I were setting the goals, I would want to create a transportation infrastructure such that most consumers do not need automobiles. Install train tracks down the median of every interstate highway. Let every exit have a station with an almost-free car rental and a free bicycle loan for consumers with good credit and safety records. Put tolls on all the highways and let the trains be free. Socialize the cost of high-speed trains and de-socialize the cost of highways. (I now have to class myself with the fools and idealists mentioned above.)

None of my ideas would help the market for automobiles, even EVs. As Chris said, “We all know it was a veiled payout to the auto industry.” Saving the climate was not the Waxman committee’s goal. Switching our car culture to newer, more efficient cars, about as useful as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, was. While it’s not yet clear that our status quo economy has been saved, Cash for Clunkers has had exactly the intended effect.

http://twitter.com/paulapoundstone

http://www.paulapoundstone.com/

I’m not sure I need to comment on this one.

Higher resolution pdf: OxfordProblem

Click here to tell the Oxford English Dictionary what you think of their language.

Follow-up 9/25, response from Oxford:

Thank you very much for your email.

We would like to thank you for your comments, we are currently in the process of reviewing this and similar entries.

Please let us know if we may be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Customer Support – Online Products

Oxford University Press

Tel: 1-800-334-4249 ext. 6484

Fax: 212-726-6476

E-mail: oxfordonline@oup.com

Visit www.oxfordonline.com

—-Original Message—–

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:29 PM

To: Customer Support

Subject: content (OED Support Form)

Message from the OED Online Support Page

——

Entry 1 for “Interlocutor” sense c.:

c. The comp?re in a troupe of nigger minstrels; the man in the middle of the minstrel line who questions the end men.

I’m appalled that you have the word “nigger” in your definition. Your entry on that word itself reads “This term is strongly racially offensive.”

I strongly hope you will promptly correct this entry to exclude derogatory and offensive language.

——————————————

Generated on …….: Wednesday Sep 23 7:28 PM (Pacific Time) 2009

Hugh MacLeod, you’re my hero. I had a brief obsession with your work my freshman year of college. 7 years later, here you are.

Go find more “cartoons drawn on the back of business cards” at www.gapingvoid.com.

According to the back cover copy of the Epstein book, “The best practices in corporate sustainability performance are no longer the exclusive domain of companies like Ben & Jerry’s or The Body Shop, as they were a decade ago; now, large, multinational companies like G.E. and Wal-Mart are leading the way…”

Has that helped or hurt the push for sustainable business practices? I am blown away by the quantity of choices companies have for regulatory and voluntary codes, associations, and certifications. How many other aspects of business are so lackadaisically regulated? I’m reminded of our current financial crisis, largely fomented by “regulatory arbitrage” – the ability of corporations to “shop around” for the most pleasing regulator. (The Planet Money podcast did an amusing skit on this process based on TV shows about marrying a rich bachelor or something.)

One of our key questions is “How can managers … create systems and structures that improve corporate social performance?” I have to say the field is surprisingly primitive. The plethora of sustainability rubrics diminishes the meaning of any one standard.

Ben & Jerry’s business profile is passé, at least since the Unilever buy-out. If our standard for a sustainable business has moved from the inspiration of Patagonia to the supply chain of Wal-Mart, we have lost some of the integrity of our quest. The fire of a revolution must eventually settle into the checks and balances of governance. The checks and balances Epstein describes will not govern for the long term. Don’t forget your heroes, because we aren’t done with them yet.

“I’ve never understood why the environment should be a left-wing issue,” said Ms. Hedegaard, with an exasperated sigh. “In my view there is nothing as core to conservative beliefs — that what you inherit you should pass on to the next generation.”

I’ve always been a little bemused by the world of difference between conservatism and conservationism. Maybe for those who are not too far from me on the political continuum, this conservatism/conservation dialectic could be a leverage point into more fruitful discussion.

Hedegaard’s alleged confusion is actually related to Systems Thinking. She is a conservative in stocks – keeping things as they are. American Republicans are conservative in flows – keeping processes as they are. She is willing to change activity in order to maintain condition. They are willing to allow condition to change in order to maintain activity.

Due to our extraordinary population pressure on this planet, it is no longer possible to be successfully conservative in both the stocks and flows of resource consumption. When we declare our opposition to change, I think we are very confused about what should stay the same.