Okay so, there are certain words that are used in the media and by left-leaning socialists and Democrats that really irk me. The most common used word is “sustainability,” and I know whenever I hear that word that someone is going to tell me what I can and cannot do, how I should live my life in the future, and what it’s going to cost me in my quality of life and standard of living.
Now then, there are certain words that Republicans and conservatives use also such as; “free-market capitalism,” and neither of these words is very bad in and of themselves, it’s just that sometimes they are used incorrectly. For instance, folks that are upset with corporate corruption, political kickbacks, or some other such nonsense will complain that capitalism is bad, but free-market capitalism isn’t, although when those words are uttered, often fighting words ensue from the other side.
We know what free-market capitalism means, as it is quite simple, just as we know what crony capitalism is, and they aren’t the same. But how many of us really know what the definition of sustainability? And how do we know when someone is using it correctly, or merely trying to get us to see their way? The other day, I was reading some research put out by the United Nations, which helped me better understand what these folks were trying to get at.
There was a research report, paperback book put out titled; “Computing Research for Sustainability,” which was presented at the UN in 2012 by Lynette I. Millett and Deborah L. Estrin, Editors; Committee on Computing Research for Environmental and Societal Sustainability; Computer Science and Telecommunications Board; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research Council, which is 172 pages, ISBN: 978-0-309-25758-9.
This book/research report brings us the newest definition of sustainability, the old definition being; “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” which came from “Our Common Future” by the Brundtland Commission at the UN, and it adds to that the following notation;
“An elaboration on the broad definition of sustainability above is that a system is not sustainable unless it can operate indefinitely into the future. For a system to do so inevitably requires optimization over time and space-goals that are central to much of computer science.”
Still, with a broad definition of sustainability in that realm, then nothing is sustainable. Solar energy would not be sustainable because the sun will someday run out of fuel, and burnout. “Indefinitely” is an awful long time, and even our galaxy is said to be on a collision course with our next nearest galaxy, and there will be hell to pay in 5 billion years or more when that happens.
Just because natural gas may not be sustainable forever, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it when there is an abundant amount and as our technology grows we will solve the problem, and sure enough it is usually free-market capitalism which will inevitably solve those problems. Therefore, I would submit to you that nothing that the leftists or socialists propose is sustainable without regard for a strong economic system based on free-market capitalism.
Besides that, everything changes, so what is not sustainable today, could be quite sustainable for a period of time on into the future. Thus, throwing in the word “indefinitely” into the sustainability definition is clearly absurd. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it, as we need not relinquish our strategic planning to the United Nations or any other group that hopes to control all we are and all we’ve built harvesting the rewards of our hard work, while denying us the same.