Nurture and Human Development

Do The Criticized Deserve The Personal Attacks of The Criticizer †Ethics Essay

Do The Criticized Deserve The Personal Attacks of The Criticizer – Ethics Essay Free Online Research Papers Do The Criticized Deserve The Personal Attacks of The Criticizer Ethics Essay In front of their faces, most of us act civilly to the people in our lives. Yet all of us have criticized some of them behind their backs. I too, have done this in the past. However, now that I am older, my experiences with my family, friends and even acquaintances have led me to become repulsed with the whole notion of criticizing people behind their backs. Keep in mind that I am not talking about war criminals and murderers; I am talking ordinary people whom we encounter on a daily basis in our lives, like the school bus driver or the cashier at the supermarket. In almost all the situations which I have witnessed I find the criticizer to be unjust in one or more of three ways. Firstly, if the attacks are personal in nature, it has been my experience that the criticized never deserve the personal attacks of the criticizer. In almost every instance, the victims’ characters are abused base on one of their minor flaws or annoying habits. From the time when I was young, I was taught to hate the sin, not the sinner. (As simple and logical as that is, I find that very few people follow this rule.) Everyone has many different sides, and it is unfair to judge someone based on just one act or one aspect of their personality. Besides this tendency to transfer abhorrence of the act to the person, I have found that a lot of the criticizers often act out the very crimes they condemn. My parents, for example, always verbally abuse with great relish drivers who make a rather dangerous move, yet I have seen them drive in a similar manner themselves on several occasions when they were in a hurry. This hypocritical behaviour is not limited to my parents. When circumstances prescribe it, many of my friends and acquaintances have done the deeds which they denounce when another acts it. If the attacks don’t fit into either of the two situations above, I still find a problem with people criticizing each other behind their victims’ backs. More often than not, I see the criticizers to act perfectly pleasant when their victim is doing the very act which bothers them. Why don’t they try to eliminate that which is bothering them by honestly explaining how they feel to their faces? That is because most people don’t like to deal with the consequences of their actions. Rather than pointing out the mistake to their victims’ faces so that they may correct the situation, people prefer to avoid the confrontation that will invariably follow and to hurt their victims in a way that leaves no messy business for themselves to deal with. They put people down, feel good about themselves, and the only thing that lasts is the tarnish upon their victim’s reputation. Granted there are exceptions to this rule. There are certainly people who criticize the behaviours of other people only after countless fruitless confrontations. The extreme rarity of it in my experiences, however, has done nothing to change my disgust in the act. Despite my heated comments, I don’t hate these criticizers. This only one side of them, and I have seen enough of their good qualities to know that they are decent people. Besides harming the reputation of their victims, however, I feel that in doing these acts they also harm themselves. They have wrongly convinced themselves that certain people are annoying and irritating. Unless they break out of this mindset, they will forever be under that illusion and be deprived of the company and things that their victims can teach them. Expand, ENDING -metaphor Negative division, if our words don’t build people, keep your backseat comments in the backseat. I have seen the people around me, my family, friends, acquaintances and even fictional characters, in the roles of the criticizer and criticized, and my descriptions hold true in almost all of these cases. If the attacks were ad hominem, it has been my experience that the criticized never deserve the personal attacks of the criticizer. If the attacks were ad rem, I find that in a lot of cases, the criticizers do the very act they condemn when the circumstance prescribes it. Even if this isn’t the case, and the act is something which they would never, ever do, I find it unfair that the criticizers blacken the person’s name behind their backs rather than attempt to correct their behaviour by criticizing them to their faces. Besides these immediate victims, these constant unjustified criticisms can certainly lower one’s view on humanity, as they never think back and analyse, I shouldn’t have thought and said these things. They’d just think, people are al jerks. Some might call it making excuses for lowlife. I call it a logical method that helps you love your fellow man, which is what we are called to do. Research Papers on Do The Criticized Deserve The Personal Attacks of The Criticizer - Ethics EssayCapital PunishmentComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoMoral and Ethical Issues in Hiring New EmployeesHonest Iagos Truth through DeceptionHip-Hop is ArtHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows EssayStandardized TestingUnreasonable Searches and SeizuresPersonal Experience with Teen PregnancyTwilight of the UAW

U.S. governments generic drugs policy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

U.S. governments generic drugs policy - Essay Example This study is concerned with prevention of erosion of the viability of Pharmaceutical Companies and ways in which these companies will re-invent themselves to stand out against the crisis in addition to what economic forces will influence their ultimate survival.This proposal seeks to study the impact of price control on generics medicines on the pharmaceutical companies of the U.S. and how they should face the challenges to survive the impact. This proposal sets the outline for studying the impact of the U.S. Government's generic drugs policy, how it affects the pharmaceutical industry and how the companies should address the situation in order to stay competitive and continue to meet the dynamic and ever growing health care needs. The situation is alarming as many drugs will go off-patent with the result, the pioneering pharmaceutical companies will be pitted against the rest of the world in surviving the competition from generic drugs market unless they continue to innovate and in vent newer drugs for existing and new diseases. This study will identify the interplay of economic theories that underpin the survival of pharmaceutical industry in the wake of increased competition in generics market.World pharmaceutical sales are estimated to grow by 5 -6 % in 2008 as opposed to 6 -7 % growth in 2007... d in the increase of use of low cost generics, accelerated payer pressure, limited access to some therapies and increased safety measures that lead to the slowing down and stopping of introduction of new drugs. On the other hand, the emerging markets called "pharmerging" markets of China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey and Russia are expected to register an increase of 12-13% in consumption of drugs due to greater access to generic drugs, improvement in primary care and increased interest to take private health insurance. In the U.S, there will be soon the end of Medicare Part D rhetoric as a result of pressures on price increase, patent expiries and increased safety measures taken by the FDA. The forecast says that the shift will be in terms of absolute growth in cancer drugs, anti-diabetic drugs, angiotensin II antagonists, respiratory drugs and psychiatric drugs. In Diabetics treatment alone 9%-10% growth is expected (IMS Health Incorporated 2008) Pharmaceutical companies are watched out to check on profit generation. The UK government, for instance, under its PPRS allows the companies to set their prices but keep their earned profit margins within the agreed upon limit. Any extra profit should be submitted to the NHS. OFT has recommended that the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) should be reformed, so that they can use money from NHS to manufacture drugs with the greatest benefits for patients. (Office of Fair Trade: Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme). Though the WTO's newly adopted measures seek to give greater guarantee to the R & D efforts of pharmaceutical companies to the developed countries, it will not give any corresponding benefits to original inventor pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. and other developed countries due

Theatre Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Theatre - Essay Example The situation is further complicated by Catherine’s successful and bossy sister Claire (Hope Davis). As Gwyneth Paltrow who played Catherine in the stage version of this play, so her portrayal of Catherine with her volatile moods and her struggle to gain confidence in her talent is very convincing and realistic. The film is more of a heavy drama that requires a rapt attention and concentration on the part of the audience. Madden’s approach towards costume and set is not that deft. He fails to exploit the scattered settings at Robert’s home, with bits of paper spread around, and unattended dirty dishes, to throw light on the scattered and disturbed lives of the characters in the story. Still, there are many meaningful scenes in the story that bring out the darkly comical mindset of the characters. Overall Proof failed to achieve that depth and meaning on the screen, that it successfully approached in its stage version.

Business Ethics in the Footwear, Clothing, and Textile Industries Essay

Business Ethics in the Footwear, Clothing, and Textile Industries - Essay Example   Business ethics and conduct have been a major talking point in the TCF industry, especially with regards to the fairness of its dealings, processes, stakeholder treatment, and competition policies. The principle of fairness seeks to ensure that TCF organizations engage in; fair and free ethical competition deals with all stakeholders in a way that can describe as being equitable and fair and is non-discriminatory during the process of contracting and hiring (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2010: p401). This principle has been a problematic one within the TCF industry. The workforce is 80% female on minimum wage that averages $38 every month. This industry has the lowest costs of labor globally, and the workers’ unions are intimidated with violence in order to stay quiet on industry standard violations (Sajhau, 2013: p34). The industry needs to create a more friendly culture for workers, enforcing freedom of association sans victimization, pro-labor legislation, balance the gender in equality gap, and fire and building inspection codes. This can be achieved with the help of global retailers.   Issues related to diligence and loyalty is an important concern with regards to business ethics in the TCF industry. The industry would be required to act as a fiduciary for investors and the company by carrying out the organization’s operations in a loyal and diligent manner expected of trustees (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2010: p402). Corporate ethics are reflective of the business’ philosophy, and one of its objectives is the determination of the company’s fundamental purposes.

Concepts for Environmental Sustainability

Concepts for Environmental Sustainability A Perspective on environmental sustainability? Environmental Sustainability The Commissioner acts as an independent voice that advocates, audits and reports on environmental sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to explore the meaning of environmental sustainability. The community needs a definition of environmental sustainability that is easily understood, is logical, and is helpful in facilitating understanding, communication and effective action by all key players (government, community, business, innovators, academia, communicators, etc.). The paper also explores the meaning of related terms and definitions eg. sustainability and related words in common usage ecologically sustainable development (as defined by the Commissioners enabling legislation) sustainable development (the Brundtland definition) triple bottom line. A preferred definition of environmental sustainability Environmental sustainability is the ability to maintain things or qualities that are valued in the physical environment This is the simplest and most fundamental way to express the concept.But people using the term environmental sustainability can specify or elaborate the term further to add extra meaning or to apply the concept to more specialised contexts. What is the physical environment? This is the physical surrounds to something.For example, the land, waters and atmosphere, physical resources and thebuildings and roadsand other physical elements go to make up the urban environment.Rural environments are made up of the farms and living areas of people andthe land and waters and atmosphere and biological elements (species utilised by agriculture, pest species, and native species, and ecological communities both human induced and natural).Natural environments are those where the influence of wild species (indigenous and naturalised) is dominant or very strong.Physical resources, of all sorts, including mineral resources, can be considered to be part of the environment. Physical environments can be considered on all scales from the micro to the local, global and even larger scales. There is no sharp distinction between the environmental and other domains (eg. social and economic) in fact the content of each domain overlaps other domains massively. The key to understan ding doesnt lie in trying to set non-overlappingboundaries between the domains but lies in being clear about the focus of different domains. (Link to) Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 00 The physical environment includes the natural and biological environments. What makes an issue a sustainability issue? A sustainability issue arises whenever a valued system, object, process or attribute is under threat.The existence of the valued system, object, process or attribute could be threatened or its quality could be threatened with serious decline. In other words there is a sustainability issue whenever there is something that is valued that faces the risk of not being maintained. Whenever there is a strong sense of urgency, there is always a sustainability issue involved.This urgency couldrelate to something thatalready existsortoan understood potential.For example biodiversity might be threatened with extinction or the chance to realise the potential of a human being might be threatened, for example, if they remain in poverty or their lives are threatened by violence or disease.(The latter would usually be thought of as being social sustainability issues.) What exactly are we trying to maintain in the physical environment and who decides? There is no automatic, fixed agenda built into the term environmental sustainability. We have to look to the context to see what might be sustained.And many people and organisations already have well developedideas about what aspects of the total environment should be sustained when environmental sustainability is pursued. In a place like Victoria, with our culture, political processes and physical environment, there is strong public pressure to maintain (sustain) things like: ecosystem services (eg. nutrient cycling, the water cycle, natural water purification, climate moderation, soil protection high quality urban environments areas of natural beauty other species and ecological communities the user value flowing from physical resources (eg. minerals, energy, renewableresources, water) What motivates us to want to sustain something in the physical environment? We might want to sustain something in the physical environment because it is useful to us: e.g. the quality of local urban environments. Or we might want to do it because we care about the wellbeing of other people or other species for their sake, not ours. That is we can be motivated by utilitarian concerns and/or altruism. Sometimes we maintain something in the environmental domain in order to make it possible to achieve another goal in another domain.For example, we might sustain marine habitats in order to support the livelihood of coastal townships.Or we might sustain renewable resources so that we can support economic development or genuine progress Genuine progress is development that creates new benefits without undermining or destroying old benefits that are still valued in the community.In recent years a lot of work has been done on ‘genuine progress indicators as alternatives to GDP measures .) How long should we try to sustain something? This question can only be answered after deciding specifically what needs to be sustained and why. For example, ecosystems services for clean air would need to be sustained as long as there are living things (including people) that need to breatheclean air.For all practical purposes that means forever . Living species seem to last on average a few million years before becoming extinct though some may evolve into new species.So if we maintained a natural extinction rate for species it is so low that for practical purposes we would need to manage in the here and now as if we wanted all species to survive, effectively forever. Sustaining the recycling of certain materials may only need to continue for as long as those material types are needed technologically, and depending on the pace of technical change this could be for centuries or for decades.It is risky to assume that resources are only needed for a short time however as society might find new uses for materials as technology, lifestyles and environmental awareness develop. When it comes to trying to sustain habitat on a site-s pecific basis, very specific localised habitat or ecological community patches might need to persist for anywhere between thousands of years and just a few years depending on the ecological system involved provided all of the dependent species can access these habitat or ecological community typessomewhere consistently and at adequate scale within their local ranges forever. Is there any connection betweenenvironmental sustainability and social or economic sustainability? Since humans depend in countless ways on the physical environment (both natural and human constructed) sustaining desired environmental conditions directly contributes to the sustaining of people and human societies, that is, to social sustainability.The viability of theeconomy clearly depends on environmental resources and service flows so economicsustainability depends on environmental sustainability. More generally it can be seen that sustainability in one domain can be necessary for sustainability in another.Sustainability requirements can be mapped to show complex dependencies across domains.We classify sustainability issues into separate domains, not because the sustainabilityissues are unrelated, but for reasons of convenience and tradition, for example, to allow specialisations to develop in RD and administration, to break up complex whole into mentally manageable chunks, to reflect historical connections, etc. Can the idea of environmental sustainability drive commitments to specific action? While the idea ofenvironmental sustainability is very broad in its possible scope, concerns for environmental sustainability can be translated in specific practical goals and these can and should drive action programs.See the section How to use the definition of environmental sustainability to facilitate effective action. on page . Is restoration part of an environmental sustainability program? In a world where life-support systems and other conditions required for sustainability have been run down,environmental sustainability can only be achieved through a combination of both preventive and restorative actions.So restoration is a key part of what needs to be done to achieve sustainability.In most instances it is better to avoid destroying environmental values in the first place rather than relying on restoration as the primary strategy.However, where damage has been done that could prevent valued elements of the physical environment being sustained, restoration should not be overlooked. If we pursue an environmental sustainability program how much should we try tosustain? The physical environment is powerfully affected by and is made up of evolving systems ecological systems, societies and economies.These evolving systems will create changes in some aspects of the physical environment and will prevent or resist changes in other aspects.So anenvironmental sustainability program could never aim to sustain or maintain absolutely every component and attribute of the entire physical environment.Anyenvironmental sustainability program must start out by being clear about what it is hoped will be maintained in the physical environment and what can be allowed to change or what will be made to change.Precisely what people set out to sustain within the physical environment will depend on their value judgements, needs, skills and technology and available resources to support the action program and the current state and the dynamics of the physical environment.We cannot assume that we automatically know what should be sustained (and what should not) in the physic al environment just because there is an environmental sustainability program operating.We need to work the answer out explicitly. The origin of the core word sustain and its main derivatives The word sustain has been in the language for thousands of years.It comes from the Latin sustenare meaning to hold up ie. to support.From there it evolved long ago to mean to keep something going or extend its duration, with an overtone of providing the support or necessities that made the extended duration possible eg. a sustaining meal.These days, for commonest non-specialised use of the word the closest synonym is maintain. Sustain and its derivatives (eg. sustainability, sustainable, sustaining) were first used in a micro or personal context.However several hundreds of years ago the Swiss and Germans invented a form of forestry designed to keep the forest going as productive systems over the very long term and this was called, in the English speaking world, sustainable forestry.The idea was then extended to sustainable fisheries. From there it was not such a big step for the term to be applied, during the 0s and 0s, in the macro context of environmental issues where there was a need to sustain the whole environment and human society.This usage was established by the time of the UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm. The drifts in meaning Having reached a macro level of application sustainability was most often talked about in terms of sustainable development.The 0 World Conservation Strategy produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN or World Conservation Union) put forward the concept of sustainable development meaning development that would allow ecosystem services and biodiversity to be sustained.The Brundtland Report shifted the meaning of sustainable development to mean â€Å"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generationsto meet their own needs†. Then the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio set in train processes such as Agenda and Local Agenda that resulted in many people coming to the view that sustainability equals the integration or balancing of environmental, social and economic issues or simultaneous progress in the environmental, social and economic domains, often in t he context of strong programs of consultation and participation. Many people however felt uneasy with the notion of development as it is often associated with the destruction of environmental and social attributes that they value, so they felt better talking about sustainability rather than sustainable development. So, over time sustainability and sustainable development came to be treated by many people as synonyms.This trend was reinforced because some people found the term sustainable development to be a bit of a mouthful and they used sustainability as a convenient (if inaccurate) shorthand. As the scale of the taskof achieving a sustainable environment and society has become apparent many people have tried to insulate themselves from the enormity of the challenge by retreating into small incremental changes.So some people have started to say that sustainability is a process of change and not an end state, and that its the journey that counts, not the destination. As the terms sustainability and sustainable development have been used more and more in government and corporate circles, because of increasing discussion of environment and development, the business world has started using the terms more and more for its own purposes.Curiouslyin this context sustainable has quickly reverted to its earlier simple meaning of able to be maintained.So sustainable profits, or sustainable competitive advantage mean profits or competitive advantage that can be maintained for the longer term.The straightforward use of sustain and its derivatives within the domain of business is understandable because businesses face competition and hence the risk of decline and extinction every day of the week.This experience of threat leads business people to reproduce meanings of the terms that are the same as those in long-term common usage or those in the area of biological conservation. The benefits of definitional clarity and a strong relationship to core meanings The important benefit of definitional clarity is that it makes it easier to avoid logical problems and makes effective action more likely. A search on the web reveals hundreds of definitions of sustainability and sustainable development Although this diversity is a little overwhelmingit is not really. surprising given that there are many diverse people involved in the sustainability debate and there are legitimate complexities involved.However, a careful review of these definitions reveals that they fall into four basic categories only one of which (type ) is a normal dictionary-style definition.The other types are referred to in this paper as contextual definitions because they create a greater understanding of the context of a term rather than defining its essence.The four types of definitions are: Type : definitions based on the essence: x is/means y eg. sustainability is/means the ability to sustain something; sustainable development is development that can be maintained; sustaining development is development that sustains something Type : contextual definitions based onstrategies for achieving the thing being defined: the achievement of x requires y eg. the achievement of sustainability requires, for example, the integration of environmental, social and economic issues Type : contextual definitions based on the outcomes of the thing being defined: x results in y; eg. sustainable development results inthe meeting of needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations Type : contextual definitions based on what amovement with that label tries to achieve or is interested in: x is what the X movement strives for eg. sustainability is what the Sustainability movement strives for ie. Sustainability encompasses the protection of the environment and people, peace, and end to poverty, the meeting of human needs, enhancement of human wellbeing, promotion of happiness, etc., etc., etc. Furthermore any of these types of definitions can be framed in a more general or a narrower context eg. applied to whole systems eg. society and the environment or just to specific contexts eg. the environment of a particular species, or to specific human communities or a particular economy. The last three types of definition can be useful as they are carefully expressed so it is  clear what sort of context they are creating.But if they are written using words that See Susan Murcotts list of definitions of sustainable development in the Reference section. Where sustaining is used as an adjective (not as a verb). suggest that they are type , or dictionary-style, definitions then these types of definitions usually cause significant confusion. For example, the type definition the achievement of sustainability requires, for example, the integration of environmental, social and economic issues is usually presented as if it were a type definition ie. sustainability is the integration of environmental, social and economic issues.This produces the absurd implication that if we simply consider environmental, social and economic issues together that this somehow generates a sustainability outcome.Often the opposite is true because the issues are traded off against each other and one or more of the objectives are not adequately fulfilled leading to a decline (unsustainability) in the domains traded off. So in this case, a lack of clarity in the expression of the definition leads to a substitution of means for ends and the outcome is unsustainability. The much-used Brundtland definition of sustainable development is a type definition, that is, it describes what theoutcome will be of pursuing sustainable development.The wording that is universally used is â€Å"sustainable developmentis development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs†.But this is in fact a not-careful-enough paraphrasing of the original in the Brundtland report which read: â€Å"Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.† (definition quoted from p. of the Brun dtland Report).The Brundtland statement should have been paraphrased along the followinglines: â€Å"sustainable development can under the right circumstances result in the needs of the present being met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs†. This formulation then focuses peoples attention on what is to be sustained, what needs are to be met in different generations and what strategies are to be applied to get the desired outcomes. Not only is definitional clarity important but so is maintaining a strong relationship between the core meaning of words and their various derived forms.For example, the terms sustainability and sustainable development are now used interchangeably by many people.For some, the motivation fordoing this is to find a shorter term to substitute for sustainable development.Others prefer to use the term sustainability as a synonym for sustainable development because they dont like talking about development since in their experience it has negative connotations either for themselves or for others.  But the end result is that two terms that originally had distinctly different meanings which served practical communication purposes are now blurred into each other thus losing the distinction of meaning. Or sustainable development. Sustainability is about continuity and development is about change. There are manythings about life that we want to sustain (maintain) and many that we want to change.So it makes sense to create the notion of sustainable development that combinesdesired change and desired continuity -for example we might change exploitation,unhappiness, poverty, destructiveness, etc.and sustain the rest of nature, trust, tolerance, honesty, happiness, health, etc.Treated in this waysustainable development doesnt have to be an oxymoron (a combination of conflicting terms). While theory says that sustainable development does not have to be an oxymoron, it can sometimes take quite a bit of negotiation before a whole society can be comfortable with a shared definition of what should be maintained and what should be changed. Developing a preferred definition of environmental sustainability The meanings of words gain their legitimacy from shared use, so in the final analysis there are no independently correct meanings, just meanings that are well understood by many people But words also help to shape our understandings and then our. actions, so the key question is not what is the correct definition? but what do we want environmental sustainability to mean, what would be most desirable? How we choose to answer this questiondepends critically on our preference for treating environmental sustainability as either a practical goal or a utopian concept. The historian Arnold Joseph Toynbee wrote in A study of history () that: The twentieth century will be chiefly remembered by future generations not as an era of political conflicts or technical inventions, but as an age in which human society dared to think of the welfare of the whole human race as a practical objective. Sometimes the meaning of words can evolve into almost their opposite.For example terrific used to mean to c ause extreme terror now it most often means extraordinarily good.The linking meaning was probably exciting eg. the roller coaster ride was terrific†. The quote by English historian Arnold J. Toynbee was used in Lester B. Pearsons Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in . (Pearson won for introducing the concept of peacekeeping through the United Nations.)From: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates//pearson-lecture.html This could be extended so that we think of our present era as being distinguished as the age in which human society dared to think of the welfare of both the whole human race and the whole planet as a practical objective. If this is so then we can perhaps put aside the idea of seeingenvironmental sustainability as a utopian concept and, instead, opt for seeing it as a practical objective, that is, something to be both aspired to and achieved. But we should be doubly practical. We want to be able to use a definition of environmental sustainability that: makes it easier for us to get things done (the first practicality) and we want the definition to help us focus our minds on getting the most important or relevant things done (the second practicality). To help in getting things done a definition of environmental sustainability will need to: facilitate communication between all the people who need to be involved in the issue make it easier to identify actions that need to be taken in order to achieve environmental sustainability Before exploring how thechoice of definition ofenvironmental sustainabilitycan help us be doubly practical we need to identify some definitional choices that we can apply our choice-criteria to. Some of the basic types of definitions of environmental and sustainability that are used currently are: environmental. referring to just the biological environment referring to all possible environments(contexts) eg. social, economic, physical,intellectual referring to the physical environment including thebiological, the geomorphological environment and theconstructed and cultural physical environments sustainability.. meaning the integration or balancing of social, environmental and economic issues,or programs or actions based on stakeholder or community consultation meaning sustainable development or making people better off in an ethically sound way meaning the ability to sustain something. How should we select among these options if we want to facilitate communication? There is really no sectorof the economy or group of people in the community that should be uninvolved in efforts to achieveenvironmental sustainability.Soifitis possible to use simple definitions that are in common usage throughout the whole community there is a good chance that most people will be able to understand each0 other.Also definitions that are widely spread in the community are likely to be more stable because drifts in meaning that emerge in small groups are not likely to be taken up by the whole population. The compound-concept ofenvironmental sustainability is not widely used in the community, nor is the word sustainability.But the core concept to sustain is widely used, and the term environmentor environmental is widely used.In common usage to sustain means tokeep something going or maintain something.Environment means, incommon usage, either the context or surroundings of something, or itmeans, more specifically, the physical environment.Clearly the Parliament of Victoria, when it passed the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 00, was using the word environment in the sense of the physical environment rather than more universal meaning of the context for anything. How can our choice of definition make it easier to identify actions to take to achieve environmental sustainability? Having an action focus, especially where the aim is actually to achieve desired outcomes, means that it is not helpful touse definitions that are fuzzy or based on logical confusion.So treating sustainability and sustainable development as synonyms (ie. as having the same meaning) is not likely to be a good idea.Adding the word sustainable to development must change the type of development we are talking about otherwise why would we bother talking about sustainable development if we could more conveniently just use the word development?So if we say that sustainability has the same meaning as sustainable development what we saying in logical terms is: Concept A= Concept A + Concept B In other words it doesnt make any logical sense at all! This sort of definitional fuzziness and confusion can only persist where people are not trying to be clear about what they are talking about.And indeed some people argue that sustainability is anunattainable goal so they are not greatly fussed about the details of the definition that they use. (That is, they treat environmental sustainability as a Utopian concept rather than a practical goal.) However, if we want to use a definition ofenvironmental sustainability that makes action easier then we should avoid confusions like defining sustainability as sustainable development. How can our choice of definition help us focus our minds on gettingthe most important or relevant things done? We can only answer this by going back to what motivated societys interest in environmental sustainability in the first place.The historical record makes it clear that people became concerned aboutenvironmental sustainability when they discovered tha t aspects of the environment that they loved or depended on for survival or quality of life were threatened with extinction or serious degradation.There was an urgent concern about loss that made people think about sustainability.Were they originally thinking about integrating environmental, social and economic issues?Not at all.They were worrying about maintaining or keeping going something that they valued.How then did the ‘integration or ‘balance definition emerge?After some years of trying to achieve environmental sustainability people realised that unless they also dealt with the interacting social and economic issues they would simply not succeed in achieving their environmental goals.But did this practical/pragmatic (and perhaps ethical) realisation, change peoples environmental goals? Not really. So why did some people then change the definition of environmental sustainability to mean the integration of environmental, socialand economic issues? It was most likely because their practical focus of attention had shifted to the integration issue and they inadvertently made a classic mistake of confusing means with ends (ie. methods with goals) There is another issue that bears on thequestion of getting the most important or relevant things done.Andthat is, in what way does environmental qualify the notion of sustainability when they are compounded?Doesenvironmental sustainabilityimply the sustainability of thewhole physical environment?Or just parts of it?From a practical point of view the physical environment is so inclusive that no real-lifeenvironmental sustainabilityprogram would everset out to sustain and maintain every aspect.If we tried to do that we would, for example, freeze in place or maintain the distribution and abundance of pest plants and animals, the reduced distribution and abundance of native species, coal-fired power stations and an excessive allocation of land and resourcesto road-based transport, dangerous and resource inef ficient buildings, over-built flood plains, etc. Societys are always selective about what they want to sustain even if the agenda for action is still a huge one (eg. maintaining life support systems, maintaining quality of life, keeping native species going, maintaining the resource-base for the economy, etc.). Finally, if we are concerned to get the most important or relevant things done, what definitions should we rule out? Definitions of sustainability such as the integration or balancing of social, environmental and economic issues, or programs or actions based on stakeholder or community consultation no longer seem appropriate and definingenvironmental sustainability as applying to absolutely everything in the physical environment no longer seems useful. Pulling all these issues together, it is now possible to propose a preferred definition for environmental sustainability as follows: environmental sustainability is the ability to maintain things or qualities that arevalued in the physical environment . This happens because people have a way of expressing themselves that goes like this: environmental sustainability is all about .(insert the practical action or implication of their choice).Then people forget that this is not a definitional statement and they go on to treat it as one. A compatible suite of sustainability terms This suite of words has been developed to distinguish: between what is doing the sustaining and what it is being sustained ie. between means and ends the scope of what is being sustained Word (form) Meaning Suggested usage Incompatible usage sustain (verb) means to maintain something through time; to keep it going; to extend its duration eg. communities are working to sustain ecosystem services, or quality of life or other species sustainability (noun) means the ability or capability to sustain (maintain) something eg. will this community ach ieve sustainability for the things that it wants to persist through time (adjective) means related to or having to do with sustainability eg. a sustainability action plan is an action plan about sustainability not an action plan that can be kept in operation over an extended period sustainable (adjective) means able to be sustained, durable or able to be maintained (note: in this meaning the noun that the word is attached to is the thing that is sustained) eg. a sustainable policy is a policy that is kept in force over an extended period not a policy about sustainability sustaining (adjective) means having the propensity or tend Concepts for Environmental Sustainability Concepts for Environmental Sustainability A Perspective on environmental sustainability? Environmental Sustainability The Commissioner acts as an independent voice that advocates, audits and reports on environmental sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to explore the meaning of environmental sustainability. The community needs a definition of environmental sustainability that is easily understood, is logical, and is helpful in facilitating understanding, communication and effective action by all key players (government, community, business, innovators, academia, communicators, etc.). The paper also explores the meaning of related terms and definitions eg. sustainability and related words in common usage ecologically sustainable development (as defined by the Commissioners enabling legislation) sustainable development (the Brundtland definition) triple bottom line. A preferred definition of environmental sustainability Environmental sustainability is the ability to maintain things or qualities that are valued in the physical environment This is the simplest and most fundamental way to express the concept.But people using the term environmental sustainability can specify or elaborate the term further to add extra meaning or to apply the concept to more specialised contexts. What is the physical environment? This is the physical surrounds to something.For example, the land, waters and atmosphere, physical resources and thebuildings and roadsand other physical elements go to make up the urban environment.Rural environments are made up of the farms and living areas of people andthe land and waters and atmosphere and biological elements (species utilised by agriculture, pest species, and native species, and ecological communities both human induced and natural).Natural environments are those where the influence of wild species (indigenous and naturalised) is dominant or very strong.Physical resources, of all sorts, including mineral resources, can be considered to be part of the environment. Physical environments can be considered on all scales from the micro to the local, global and even larger scales. There is no sharp distinction between the environmental and other domains (eg. social and economic) in fact the content of each domain overlaps other domains massively. The key to understan ding doesnt lie in trying to set non-overlappingboundaries between the domains but lies in being clear about the focus of different domains. (Link to) Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 00 The physical environment includes the natural and biological environments. What makes an issue a sustainability issue? A sustainability issue arises whenever a valued system, object, process or attribute is under threat.The existence of the valued system, object, process or attribute could be threatened or its quality could be threatened with serious decline. In other words there is a sustainability issue whenever there is something that is valued that faces the risk of not being maintained. Whenever there is a strong sense of urgency, there is always a sustainability issue involved.This urgency couldrelate to something thatalready existsortoan understood potential.For example biodiversity might be threatened with extinction or the chance to realise the potential of a human being might be threatened, for example, if they remain in poverty or their lives are threatened by violence or disease.(The latter would usually be thought of as being social sustainability issues.) What exactly are we trying to maintain in the physical environment and who decides? There is no automatic, fixed agenda built into the term environmental sustainability. We have to look to the context to see what might be sustained.And many people and organisations already have well developedideas about what aspects of the total environment should be sustained when environmental sustainability is pursued. In a place like Victoria, with our culture, political processes and physical environment, there is strong public pressure to maintain (sustain) things like: ecosystem services (eg. nutrient cycling, the water cycle, natural water purification, climate moderation, soil protection high quality urban environments areas of natural beauty other species and ecological communities the user value flowing from physical resources (eg. minerals, energy, renewableresources, water) What motivates us to want to sustain something in the physical environment? We might want to sustain something in the physical environment because it is useful to us: e.g. the quality of local urban environments. Or we might want to do it because we care about the wellbeing of other people or other species for their sake, not ours. That is we can be motivated by utilitarian concerns and/or altruism. Sometimes we maintain something in the environmental domain in order to make it possible to achieve another goal in another domain.For example, we might sustain marine habitats in order to support the livelihood of coastal townships.Or we might sustain renewable resources so that we can support economic development or genuine progress Genuine progress is development that creates new benefits without undermining or destroying old benefits that are still valued in the community.In recent years a lot of work has been done on ‘genuine progress indicators as alternatives to GDP measures .) How long should we try to sustain something? This question can only be answered after deciding specifically what needs to be sustained and why. For example, ecosystems services for clean air would need to be sustained as long as there are living things (including people) that need to breatheclean air.For all practical purposes that means forever . Living species seem to last on average a few million years before becoming extinct though some may evolve into new species.So if we maintained a natural extinction rate for species it is so low that for practical purposes we would need to manage in the here and now as if we wanted all species to survive, effectively forever. Sustaining the recycling of certain materials may only need to continue for as long as those material types are needed technologically, and depending on the pace of technical change this could be for centuries or for decades.It is risky to assume that resources are only needed for a short time however as society might find new uses for materials as technology, lifestyles and environmental awareness develop. When it comes to trying to sustain habitat on a site-s pecific basis, very specific localised habitat or ecological community patches might need to persist for anywhere between thousands of years and just a few years depending on the ecological system involved provided all of the dependent species can access these habitat or ecological community typessomewhere consistently and at adequate scale within their local ranges forever. Is there any connection betweenenvironmental sustainability and social or economic sustainability? Since humans depend in countless ways on the physical environment (both natural and human constructed) sustaining desired environmental conditions directly contributes to the sustaining of people and human societies, that is, to social sustainability.The viability of theeconomy clearly depends on environmental resources and service flows so economicsustainability depends on environmental sustainability. More generally it can be seen that sustainability in one domain can be necessary for sustainability in another.Sustainability requirements can be mapped to show complex dependencies across domains.We classify sustainability issues into separate domains, not because the sustainabilityissues are unrelated, but for reasons of convenience and tradition, for example, to allow specialisations to develop in RD and administration, to break up complex whole into mentally manageable chunks, to reflect historical connections, etc. Can the idea of environmental sustainability drive commitments to specific action? While the idea ofenvironmental sustainability is very broad in its possible scope, concerns for environmental sustainability can be translated in specific practical goals and these can and should drive action programs.See the section How to use the definition of environmental sustainability to facilitate effective action. on page . Is restoration part of an environmental sustainability program? In a world where life-support systems and other conditions required for sustainability have been run down,environmental sustainability can only be achieved through a combination of both preventive and restorative actions.So restoration is a key part of what needs to be done to achieve sustainability.In most instances it is better to avoid destroying environmental values in the first place rather than relying on restoration as the primary strategy.However, where damage has been done that could prevent valued elements of the physical environment being sustained, restoration should not be overlooked. If we pursue an environmental sustainability program how much should we try tosustain? The physical environment is powerfully affected by and is made up of evolving systems ecological systems, societies and economies.These evolving systems will create changes in some aspects of the physical environment and will prevent or resist changes in other aspects.So anenvironmental sustainability program could never aim to sustain or maintain absolutely every component and attribute of the entire physical environment.Anyenvironmental sustainability program must start out by being clear about what it is hoped will be maintained in the physical environment and what can be allowed to change or what will be made to change.Precisely what people set out to sustain within the physical environment will depend on their value judgements, needs, skills and technology and available resources to support the action program and the current state and the dynamics of the physical environment.We cannot assume that we automatically know what should be sustained (and what should not) in the physic al environment just because there is an environmental sustainability program operating.We need to work the answer out explicitly. The origin of the core word sustain and its main derivatives The word sustain has been in the language for thousands of years.It comes from the Latin sustenare meaning to hold up ie. to support.From there it evolved long ago to mean to keep something going or extend its duration, with an overtone of providing the support or necessities that made the extended duration possible eg. a sustaining meal.These days, for commonest non-specialised use of the word the closest synonym is maintain. Sustain and its derivatives (eg. sustainability, sustainable, sustaining) were first used in a micro or personal context.However several hundreds of years ago the Swiss and Germans invented a form of forestry designed to keep the forest going as productive systems over the very long term and this was called, in the English speaking world, sustainable forestry.The idea was then extended to sustainable fisheries. From there it was not such a big step for the term to be applied, during the 0s and 0s, in the macro context of environmental issues where there was a need to sustain the whole environment and human society.This usage was established by the time of the UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm. The drifts in meaning Having reached a macro level of application sustainability was most often talked about in terms of sustainable development.The 0 World Conservation Strategy produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN or World Conservation Union) put forward the concept of sustainable development meaning development that would allow ecosystem services and biodiversity to be sustained.The Brundtland Report shifted the meaning of sustainable development to mean â€Å"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generationsto meet their own needs†. Then the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio set in train processes such as Agenda and Local Agenda that resulted in many people coming to the view that sustainability equals the integration or balancing of environmental, social and economic issues or simultaneous progress in the environmental, social and economic domains, often in t he context of strong programs of consultation and participation. Many people however felt uneasy with the notion of development as it is often associated with the destruction of environmental and social attributes that they value, so they felt better talking about sustainability rather than sustainable development. So, over time sustainability and sustainable development came to be treated by many people as synonyms.This trend was reinforced because some people found the term sustainable development to be a bit of a mouthful and they used sustainability as a convenient (if inaccurate) shorthand. As the scale of the taskof achieving a sustainable environment and society has become apparent many people have tried to insulate themselves from the enormity of the challenge by retreating into small incremental changes.So some people have started to say that sustainability is a process of change and not an end state, and that its the journey that counts, not the destination. As the terms sustainability and sustainable development have been used more and more in government and corporate circles, because of increasing discussion of environment and development, the business world has started using the terms more and more for its own purposes.Curiouslyin this context sustainable has quickly reverted to its earlier simple meaning of able to be maintained.So sustainable profits, or sustainable competitive advantage mean profits or competitive advantage that can be maintained for the longer term.The straightforward use of sustain and its derivatives within the domain of business is understandable because businesses face competition and hence the risk of decline and extinction every day of the week.This experience of threat leads business people to reproduce meanings of the terms that are the same as those in long-term common usage or those in the area of biological conservation. The benefits of definitional clarity and a strong relationship to core meanings The important benefit of definitional clarity is that it makes it easier to avoid logical problems and makes effective action more likely. A search on the web reveals hundreds of definitions of sustainability and sustainable development Although this diversity is a little overwhelmingit is not really. surprising given that there are many diverse people involved in the sustainability debate and there are legitimate complexities involved.However, a careful review of these definitions reveals that they fall into four basic categories only one of which (type ) is a normal dictionary-style definition.The other types are referred to in this paper as contextual definitions because they create a greater understanding of the context of a term rather than defining its essence.The four types of definitions are: Type : definitions based on the essence: x is/means y eg. sustainability is/means the ability to sustain something; sustainable development is development that can be maintained; sustaining development is development that sustains something Type : contextual definitions based onstrategies for achieving the thing being defined: the achievement of x requires y eg. the achievement of sustainability requires, for example, the integration of environmental, social and economic issues Type : contextual definitions based on the outcomes of the thing being defined: x results in y; eg. sustainable development results inthe meeting of needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations Type : contextual definitions based on what amovement with that label tries to achieve or is interested in: x is what the X movement strives for eg. sustainability is what the Sustainability movement strives for ie. Sustainability encompasses the protection of the environment and people, peace, and end to poverty, the meeting of human needs, enhancement of human wellbeing, promotion of happiness, etc., etc., etc. Furthermore any of these types of definitions can be framed in a more general or a narrower context eg. applied to whole systems eg. society and the environment or just to specific contexts eg. the environment of a particular species, or to specific human communities or a particular economy. The last three types of definition can be useful as they are carefully expressed so it is  clear what sort of context they are creating.But if they are written using words that See Susan Murcotts list of definitions of sustainable development in the Reference section. Where sustaining is used as an adjective (not as a verb). suggest that they are type , or dictionary-style, definitions then these types of definitions usually cause significant confusion. For example, the type definition the achievement of sustainability requires, for example, the integration of environmental, social and economic issues is usually presented as if it were a type definition ie. sustainability is the integration of environmental, social and economic issues.This produces the absurd implication that if we simply consider environmental, social and economic issues together that this somehow generates a sustainability outcome.Often the opposite is true because the issues are traded off against each other and one or more of the objectives are not adequately fulfilled leading to a decline (unsustainability) in the domains traded off. So in this case, a lack of clarity in the expression of the definition leads to a substitution of means for ends and the outcome is unsustainability. The much-used Brundtland definition of sustainable development is a type definition, that is, it describes what theoutcome will be of pursuing sustainable development.The wording that is universally used is â€Å"sustainable developmentis development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs†.But this is in fact a not-careful-enough paraphrasing of the original in the Brundtland report which read: â€Å"Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.† (definition quoted from p. of the Brun dtland Report).The Brundtland statement should have been paraphrased along the followinglines: â€Å"sustainable development can under the right circumstances result in the needs of the present being met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs†. This formulation then focuses peoples attention on what is to be sustained, what needs are to be met in different generations and what strategies are to be applied to get the desired outcomes. Not only is definitional clarity important but so is maintaining a strong relationship between the core meaning of words and their various derived forms.For example, the terms sustainability and sustainable development are now used interchangeably by many people.For some, the motivation fordoing this is to find a shorter term to substitute for sustainable development.Others prefer to use the term sustainability as a synonym for sustainable development because they dont like talking about development since in their experience it has negative connotations either for themselves or for others.  But the end result is that two terms that originally had distinctly different meanings which served practical communication purposes are now blurred into each other thus losing the distinction of meaning. Or sustainable development. Sustainability is about continuity and development is about change. There are manythings about life that we want to sustain (maintain) and many that we want to change.So it makes sense to create the notion of sustainable development that combinesdesired change and desired continuity -for example we might change exploitation,unhappiness, poverty, destructiveness, etc.and sustain the rest of nature, trust, tolerance, honesty, happiness, health, etc.Treated in this waysustainable development doesnt have to be an oxymoron (a combination of conflicting terms). While theory says that sustainable development does not have to be an oxymoron, it can sometimes take quite a bit of negotiation before a whole society can be comfortable with a shared definition of what should be maintained and what should be changed. Developing a preferred definition of environmental sustainability The meanings of words gain their legitimacy from shared use, so in the final analysis there are no independently correct meanings, just meanings that are well understood by many people But words also help to shape our understandings and then our. actions, so the key question is not what is the correct definition? but what do we want environmental sustainability to mean, what would be most desirable? How we choose to answer this questiondepends critically on our preference for treating environmental sustainability as either a practical goal or a utopian concept. The historian Arnold Joseph Toynbee wrote in A study of history () that: The twentieth century will be chiefly remembered by future generations not as an era of political conflicts or technical inventions, but as an age in which human society dared to think of the welfare of the whole human race as a practical objective. Sometimes the meaning of words can evolve into almost their opposite.For example terrific used to mean to c ause extreme terror now it most often means extraordinarily good.The linking meaning was probably exciting eg. the roller coaster ride was terrific†. The quote by English historian Arnold J. Toynbee was used in Lester B. Pearsons Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in . (Pearson won for introducing the concept of peacekeeping through the United Nations.)From: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates//pearson-lecture.html This could be extended so that we think of our present era as being distinguished as the age in which human society dared to think of the welfare of both the whole human race and the whole planet as a practical objective. If this is so then we can perhaps put aside the idea of seeingenvironmental sustainability as a utopian concept and, instead, opt for seeing it as a practical objective, that is, something to be both aspired to and achieved. But we should be doubly practical. We want to be able to use a definition of environmental sustainability that: makes it easier for us to get things done (the first practicality) and we want the definition to help us focus our minds on getting the most important or relevant things done (the second practicality). To help in getting things done a definition of environmental sustainability will need to: facilitate communication between all the people who need to be involved in the issue make it easier to identify actions that need to be taken in order to achieve environmental sustainability Before exploring how thechoice of definition ofenvironmental sustainabilitycan help us be doubly practical we need to identify some definitional choices that we can apply our choice-criteria to. Some of the basic types of definitions of environmental and sustainability that are used currently are: environmental. referring to just the biological environment referring to all possible environments(contexts) eg. social, economic, physical,intellectual referring to the physical environment including thebiological, the geomorphological environment and theconstructed and cultural physical environments sustainability.. meaning the integration or balancing of social, environmental and economic issues,or programs or actions based on stakeholder or community consultation meaning sustainable development or making people better off in an ethically sound way meaning the ability to sustain something. How should we select among these options if we want to facilitate communication? There is really no sectorof the economy or group of people in the community that should be uninvolved in efforts to achieveenvironmental sustainability.Soifitis possible to use simple definitions that are in common usage throughout the whole community there is a good chance that most people will be able to understand each0 other.Also definitions that are widely spread in the community are likely to be more stable because drifts in meaning that emerge in small groups are not likely to be taken up by the whole population. The compound-concept ofenvironmental sustainability is not widely used in the community, nor is the word sustainability.But the core concept to sustain is widely used, and the term environmentor environmental is widely used.In common usage to sustain means tokeep something going or maintain something.Environment means, incommon usage, either the context or surroundings of something, or itmeans, more specifically, the physical environment.Clearly the Parliament of Victoria, when it passed the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 00, was using the word environment in the sense of the physical environment rather than more universal meaning of the context for anything. How can our choice of definition make it easier to identify actions to take to achieve environmental sustainability? Having an action focus, especially where the aim is actually to achieve desired outcomes, means that it is not helpful touse definitions that are fuzzy or based on logical confusion.So treating sustainability and sustainable development as synonyms (ie. as having the same meaning) is not likely to be a good idea.Adding the word sustainable to development must change the type of development we are talking about otherwise why would we bother talking about sustainable development if we could more conveniently just use the word development?So if we say that sustainability has the same meaning as sustainable development what we saying in logical terms is: Concept A= Concept A + Concept B In other words it doesnt make any logical sense at all! This sort of definitional fuzziness and confusion can only persist where people are not trying to be clear about what they are talking about.And indeed some people argue that sustainability is anunattainable goal so they are not greatly fussed about the details of the definition that they use. (That is, they treat environmental sustainability as a Utopian concept rather than a practical goal.) However, if we want to use a definition ofenvironmental sustainability that makes action easier then we should avoid confusions like defining sustainability as sustainable development. How can our choice of definition help us focus our minds on gettingthe most important or relevant things done? We can only answer this by going back to what motivated societys interest in environmental sustainability in the first place.The historical record makes it clear that people became concerned aboutenvironmental sustainability when they discovered tha t aspects of the environment that they loved or depended on for survival or quality of life were threatened with extinction or serious degradation.There was an urgent concern about loss that made people think about sustainability.Were they originally thinking about integrating environmental, social and economic issues?Not at all.They were worrying about maintaining or keeping going something that they valued.How then did the ‘integration or ‘balance definition emerge?After some years of trying to achieve environmental sustainability people realised that unless they also dealt with the interacting social and economic issues they would simply not succeed in achieving their environmental goals.But did this practical/pragmatic (and perhaps ethical) realisation, change peoples environmental goals? Not really. So why did some people then change the definition of environmental sustainability to mean the integration of environmental, socialand economic issues? It was most likely because their practical focus of attention had shifted to the integration issue and they inadvertently made a classic mistake of confusing means with ends (ie. methods with goals) There is another issue that bears on thequestion of getting the most important or relevant things done.Andthat is, in what way does environmental qualify the notion of sustainability when they are compounded?Doesenvironmental sustainabilityimply the sustainability of thewhole physical environment?Or just parts of it?From a practical point of view the physical environment is so inclusive that no real-lifeenvironmental sustainabilityprogram would everset out to sustain and maintain every aspect.If we tried to do that we would, for example, freeze in place or maintain the distribution and abundance of pest plants and animals, the reduced distribution and abundance of native species, coal-fired power stations and an excessive allocation of land and resourcesto road-based transport, dangerous and resource inef ficient buildings, over-built flood plains, etc. Societys are always selective about what they want to sustain even if the agenda for action is still a huge one (eg. maintaining life support systems, maintaining quality of life, keeping native species going, maintaining the resource-base for the economy, etc.). Finally, if we are concerned to get the most important or relevant things done, what definitions should we rule out? Definitions of sustainability such as the integration or balancing of social, environmental and economic issues, or programs or actions based on stakeholder or community consultation no longer seem appropriate and definingenvironmental sustainability as applying to absolutely everything in the physical environment no longer seems useful. Pulling all these issues together, it is now possible to propose a preferred definition for environmental sustainability as follows: environmental sustainability is the ability to maintain things or qualities that arevalued in the physical environment . This happens because people have a way of expressing themselves that goes like this: environmental sustainability is all about .(insert the practical action or implication of their choice).Then people forget that this is not a definitional statement and they go on to treat it as one. A compatible suite of sustainability terms This suite of words has been developed to distinguish: between what is doing the sustaining and what it is being sustained ie. between means and ends the scope of what is being sustained Word (form) Meaning Suggested usage Incompatible usage sustain (verb) means to maintain something through time; to keep it going; to extend its duration eg. communities are working to sustain ecosystem services, or quality of life or other species sustainability (noun) means the ability or capability to sustain (maintain) something eg. will this community ach ieve sustainability for the things that it wants to persist through time (adjective) means related to or having to do with sustainability eg. a sustainability action plan is an action plan about sustainability not an action plan that can be kept in operation over an extended period sustainable (adjective) means able to be sustained, durable or able to be maintained (note: in this meaning the noun that the word is attached to is the thing that is sustained) eg. a sustainable policy is a policy that is kept in force over an extended period not a policy about sustainability sustaining (adjective) means having the propensity or tend

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee :: To Kill a Mockingbird Essays

The book To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee contain a very engaging family who are the Cunninghams. The Cunninghams are very poor; they are people who live in the woods. They are a family who depend highly on crops. Walter Cunningham, the 'father' of the family has to work hard on the cultivation of crops because crops is the only form of wages for them. The Cunninghams have no money. Their only way to survive is through paying others with their crops. The Cunninghams are not main characters in the book, but they are characters who 'brought out' other characters' personality. Harper Lee displays that there is a lot of prejudice going on in Maycomb by putting the Cunninghams in the book. "The Cunninghams [were] country folks, farmers"(21) who are very honest people in Maycomb, they "never took anything they [could not] pay back"(23), but they are unfairly mistreated by part of the society in Maycomb. The Cunninghams are very poor people, but very honest as well. The Cunninghams have no money at all, as Scout was describing them, "[they] have probably never seen three quarters together at the same time in [their] life"(23). It is certain that the Cunninghams live a poor life, but that does not stop them from being honest. The Cunninghams do not take anything from anyone if they do not have a way to repay them. In the class when Ms.Caroline was giving Walter a coin, Walter did not take it because he knew that it was impossible to reimburse her. I judged that it is really mature for a child to act that way. I also admired how the Cunninghams were able to endure by giving crops to people as a form of payment. When Atticus helps Sr.Walter with his entailment, Walter does not pay him back with money, but with crops. The Cunninghams are mistreated by part of the society in Maycomb. Aunt Alexandra, who mistreats them the most, is prejudiced toward the Cunninghams, she does not like them. She thinks that her reputation, and social status are going to be stained if Scout plays with Walter Jr.. Scout wants to invite Walter over, but Aunt Alexandra does not like Walter, she says that they are folks from different class. She thinks it is best if they do not see each other. She once talks to Scout about how different they are, "Because - he - is - trash, that's why you can't play with him.

Women Who Commit Crimes

French Novelist Albert Camus wrote, â€Å"We all carry within us our places of exile, our crimes, and our ravages. But our task is not to unleash them on the world; it is to fight them in ourselves†. Crimes are crimes and should not be differentiated on the basis of gender motivations since they are different for each. It was God who made the woman by nature mild, sober, soft, lovely and to be loved with little exception. Even though women are believed to be less violent than men, there are still a percentage of violent acts committed by women. This is in part to the overwhelming beliefs by society that crimes are the domain of men and women are viewed to be more nurturing in that regard. Our lives are already different at birth, as our genders determines who we are and how we are will be viewed by society. In every society our gender constructs these differences. Men have always been associated with power and wealth and women hardly a role at all. Other causes that have been affected are race, class, and sometimes-physical ability. So people believe there is an unequal distribution of wealth, power and standing in the world. Men have always been regarded as the persons most likely to commit a violent crime. Over the past few decades we have seen this thinking change and more women have found themselves in the rising numbers of these cases. Dr. Andrew Chishom, Professor Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina wrote that in 1970 there was 6,000 women incarcerated and in the 90’s that number increased to 75,000. What are the causes of the increases in crimes being committed by women? Dr Chishom also reports that crimes historically were predominately committed by men and that women involved themselves in many kinds of crimes with them, â€Å"Women became more daring†. In the movie Thelma & Louise, we saw varying incidents where women were treated in manners that were considered demeaning. Not to say that this would be a reason to commit a crime, but it does open the way for some women to question who they are and why they find themselves taking such abuse. Thelma and Louse reminded me that not only are women looked at differently than men, but also even when a crime is committed, they are still not considered smart. Thelma, a sensitive, naive and somewhat goofy woman, lives in a loveless marriage to a man that is overpowering and loves practicing control over her. Louise, a strong and independent woman who knows that she wants more out of life than what she has been dealt. Going away for a weekend would have been an opportunity for the both of them to find out what they really wanted to do with their lives, Crimes are not always planned, but can make people appear that they were built this way from the start. Louise found herself in a situation that was irreversible. Having experienced the same act of violence that was being perpetrated on Thelma in the parking lot of the bar brought back such horrible memories and at that point Louise was not going to relive it and let it go again. Thelma and Louise, found themselves in such a horrible and unthinkable situation they could only resort to a life of continued crime, since they were now considered suspects in a the shooting and death of Harlan. Crimes such as rape, murder, robbery, and brutality are not easily seen as acts that Women would find themselves involved in. However, there are many circumstances that have placed many women in those situations. Women were widely considered not to be capable of the ferocity or deep-seated evil as men. After all, in eighteenth century patriarchal society, they were widely seen as demure, submissive creatures. True, some had fallen on the wrong side of the tracks and had become petty thieves or whores, but a common contemporary conception seemed to exist that women were pretty much incapable of malice. Some women commit crimes because of pressures that otherwise would be not an issue if they didn’t find themselves in a situation that seemed impossible to get out of, so their actions become devious. Both men and women sometime defer from normal societal cares when confronting conflict. In Thelma and Louise case, men created the spontaneous devious acts that changed their view of the law as well as men in positions of authority. Certainly, you can argue that men are viewed to be stronger and their physical strengths totally outweigh that of women. It has been thought constantly that men were and are prone to violence, and women would only commit a crime as a result due to some kind of force, or because the authority over them was too severe. As Beth Richie discussed in her women and crime book, â€Å"Compelled to Crime† The Gender Entrapment, many of those women were in previous abusive relationships. When a woman is abused she can only take it for so long before she breaks. So many women are oppressed that when they do get a chance to fight back, they fight with all of their might. In the film Thelma and Louise, they fought against a rapist, because Louise had been raped in Texas, and the man got away. Louise did not want to let another rapist walk the street. She was defending herself, Thelma, and in a sense making an example out of that man by showing society that men will not always be able to walk away from their victim. Some women do fight back, and they will fight to the death if necessary. Thelma had been oppressed her entire life by her husband, who would not let her do anything. In fact Thelma stated once they left town, that she was going to let her hair down once and for all! That shows how oppressed she really was. Men are viewed very differently than women are when a similar crime has been committed. This is because over the decades men have proven themselves worthy of this title. Men have been more aggressive in all areas of crime and thus are given sentences that are harsher than women. This does not exclude women from their crimes, however because in many cases women have acted in defense of themselves giving them more reason for justification when they take a life. However, society will probably always have a little more mercy on women when they commit a crime, sighting many opticals that could have caused them to act in such a manner. Both genders are left with frightening realities that face them, and that is that a life has been taken and punishment will be inevitable. Scott, Ridley. Thelma & Louise. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1991 Nicole Walker â€Å"Why Women Are Committing Crimes†. Jet Find Articles. com. 15 Mar 2010. Http://findarticles. com Beth E. Richie. â€Å"Why Do Women Commit† Crimes PhD. University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of African American Studies http://www. ojp. usdoj. gov/bjs/homicide/gender. htm. Greenfeld, Lawrence A. and Tracy L. Snell, Women Offenders, December 1999, pp. 1, 2, 4

First Amendment Is the Cornerstone of the United States Essay

On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed freeing the thirteen American colonies from Great Britain, creating what would become the most powerful democratic country in history. The United States of America’s path to success is filled with trial, error, and countless sacrifices. The founding fathers envisioned a nation that was governed by the people not by a tyrannical king. On December 15, 1791 a very significant document was added to the Constitution of the United States known as the Bill of Rights. Most Americans are vaguely familiar with the Amendments that construct the Bill of Rights. Nonetheless, the Amendments were created to protect the â€Å"people† from future government tyranny. This Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, is a fluid document that was meant to always be adapted to the times of the country. The Bill of Rights included the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. I believe the ever evolving First Amendment to be the most important because it protects our freedom of speech and the press, religion, the right to assemble or petition the government. These individual rights are the cornerstone of our country and facilitate a nation free of oppression. Read more: How does the constitution prevent tyranny essay Freedom of speech defined as the right to speak without censorship or restraint by the government.[1] Even though United States is considered to be a successful democratic nation, however there are moments in our history that defined us through freedom of speech. There are several examples throughout history where the use of freedom of speech allowed our nation to evolve socially. August 1963, Martin Luther King on the footsteps on Lincoln Memorial gave one of the most important speeches of the 20th century, â€Å"I have a dream†. It is considered by many scholars to be responsible for pressuring President John F Kennedy to continue his fight for civil rights, which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under President Lyndon B. Johnson[2]. Without freedom of speech I believe that our nation would have slipped into a socialistic style government long ago. What has caused the majority of conflicts throughout the world in history? The most prevalent reason for conflicts throughout history is religion. In many countries around the world, religion is influential and plays a vital role in the political system. However, in the United States be free of religious establishment and having religious diversity have not allowed for religious conflicts to escalate. I would have to imagine if the founding forefathers had not included the freedom of religion in the first amendment that our nation would have not survived. The right to assemble is defined as the right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government[3]. The right to assemble covers a variety of venues that most Americans take for granted. The right to assemble allows us to meet in public to discuss a variety of topics, take part in protest, belong to groups or associations, and practice religion openly in public. There are multiple examples throughout our nations young history were the right to assemble has accomplished positive and negative advances in our society. Without the right to assemble African Americans would not been able to protest prompting the Civil Rights Act, employees would not have been able to protest unsafe working conditions and unfair wages, and more recently the tea party forming to bring to light political concerns. However, there are instances of negative assembles such as the Ku Klux Klan which was against the civil rights; more recently the Westboro Baptist Church who protest funerals of military veterans and are anti-homosexuality rights. Even though there are negative with the right to assemble the positive will always outshine the negative. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances gives citizens the right to lobbying, letter-writing, e-mail campaigns, testifying before tribunals, filing lawsuits, supporting referenda, collecting signatures for ballot initiatives, peaceful protests and picketing: all public articulation of issues, complaints and interests designed to spur government action qualifies[4]. The right to petition to me is one of the main reasons the colonies went to war with England. The colonies felt oppressed and had no say in what direction the country was headed. The forefathers wanted to ensure that the people had the right to check an over grasping government. The right to petition allows the people to have a voice in choosing what direction our nation takes. I believe First Amendment to be the most important because it protects our freedom of speech and the press, religion, the right to assemble or petition the government. We as American citizens often take these individual rights for granted. We are born into a free democratic nation and have never experienced socialistic or communist oppression. Without the First Amendment, our nation would have not survived, and I believe that we would have conformed into the exact thing that we were fighting against in the Revolutionary War. In order for our nation to continue to be prosperous, the First Amendment must be protected and never taken for granted. Bibliography C.Herman, Jacob,†Famous Speeches That Changed the Nation†. Voice Nation Going Beyond the Call. 2009. http://www.voicenation.com/resources/article-library/famous-speeches-that-changed-the-nation.shtml (accessed January 1, 2013). Newton, Adam, and â€Å"Petition† Ronald K.L Collins. The Five Freedoms Project. 2012. http://www.fivefreedoms.org/5freedoms/peition (accessed January 1, 2013). The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Dictionary.com. 2005. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom of speech (accessed December 31, 2012).

10 Tips on How to Write a Professional Email

10 Tips on How to Write a Professional Email Despite the popularity of texting and social media, email remains the most common form of written communication in the business world- and the most commonly abused.  Too often, email messages snap, growl, and bark- as if being concise meant that you had to sound bossy. Not so. Consider this email message recently sent to all staff members on a large university campus: It is time to renew your faculty/staff parking decals. New decals are required by Nov. 1. Parking Rules and Regulations require that all vehicles driven on campus must display the current decal. Slapping a Hi! in front of this message doesnt solve the problem. It only adds a false air of chumminess. Instead, consider how much nicer and shorter- and probably more effective- the email would be if we simply added a please and addressed the reader directly: Please renew your faculty/staff parking decals by November 1. Of course, if the author of the email had truly kept readers in mind, they might have included another useful tidbit: a clue as to how and where to renew the decals. Using the email about the parking decals as an example, try incorporating these tips into your own writing for better, clearer, more effective emails: Always fill in the subject line with a topic that means something to your reader. Not Decals or Important! but Deadline for New Parking Decals.Put your main point in the opening sentence. Most readers wont stick around for a surprise ending.Never begin a message with a vague This- as in This needs to be done by 5:00. Always specify what youre writing about.Dont use ALL CAPITALS (no shouting!), or all lowercase letters either (unless youre the poet E. E. Cummings).As a general rule, PLZ avoid textspeak (abbreviations and acronyms): You may be ROFLOL (rolling on the floor laughing out loud), but your reader may be left wondering WUWT (whats up with that).Be brief and polite. If your message runs longer than two or three short paragraphs, consider (a) reducing the message or (b) providing an attachment. But in any case, dont snap, growl, or bark.Remember to say please and thank you. And mean it. For example, Thank you for understanding why afternoon breaks have been eliminated is prissy and petty. Its not polite. Add a signature block with appropriate contact information (in most cases, your name, business address, and phone number, along with a legal disclaimer if required by your company). Do you need to clutter the signature block with a clever quotation and artwork? Probably not.Edit and proofread before hitting send. You may think youre too busy to sweat the small stuff, but unfortunately, your reader may think youre a careless dolt.Finally, reply promptly to serious messages. If you need more than 24 hours to collect information or make a decision, send a brief response explaining the delay.

Liberal Democratic Model in the USA Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Liberal Democratic Model in the USA - Essay Example Liberal Democratic Model - USA There exist different versions of liberal democracy adopted by countries. Using case study, this paper will address the concept of liberal democracy in the United States of America. Freedom of speech, elections, and separation of power, are components of democracy, which will be analyzed using the liberal democratic model to determine how USA embraces liberal democracy. The concept of democracy dates back to Aristotle’s era. He was the first Greek philosopher to explore this concept. Later, Christian thinkers related democracy with the worship of God, that all human beings are equal before God. The American Revolution was first to introduce components of liberal democracy. Slavery and other discriminatory practices were abandoned, as Americans embraced a more popular rule. This marked a new beginning of liberal democracy in America. Today, liberal democracy is associated with the American political philosophy (Vanberg, 2011). Components of libera l democracy are dynamic. For instance, in the 18th Century, liberalism protected citizens from the government. However, in 20th Century people started to consider governments as source of protection from social crimes. In the USA, the human rights activists rely on government authority to develop programs that enhance human rights. The government is no longer a threat to its citizen’s freedom, but a positive force (Neal, Douglas, Simon, and Joseph, 2012). The liberal democratic model encompasses three views, political pluralism, the elitist theory, and the Marxist view of power. As we shall see, political pluralism is deeply rooted in American politics. Pluralism theory holds that multiple groups, and not few individuals, run a country. These groups are; trade unions, environmental groups, and civil rights bodies, among others, which influence a country’s policymaking process. In pluralism, political power is distributed differently among the groups. For example, the C ongress addresses tax issues, the president sends the USA army on missions, the Supreme Court passes the death penalty, and a police officer stops a motorist for over speeding. In the USA, of all the multiple groups, no single elite group dominates. Some of these groups are well funded, organized, and have more influence, while others are not. They also vary in size, are politically autonomous, and exercise their right to participate in the politics. Freedom of speech is an element of democracy, which characterizes a pluralist society. In democratic states, freedom of speech ranks above all liberties. In the US, freedom of speech is provided in the constitution’s First Amendment of the Bills of Rights, and in different state and federal laws. Individuals and organized groups, including the media, are free to air their opinions on political decisions, thus indirectly controlling political leaders. Individuals have the right to gather information and hold meetings. However, in the US, restrictions are put on child pornography, obscenity, and lawless acts, among others. Separation of power is another element of democracy present in a politically pluralist society. In the US, state power is divided into three parts. These are: 1. The legislative power (the Congress) 2. The executive power (the president) 3. The judiciary power (Courts) The US constitution authorizes the legislative to makes law, the executive to enforce law, and the judiciary to interpret law.

Case study questions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Case study questions - Essay Example The recommendation for this business can be expand its business to many other countries of the world and make new business strategies for having greater competitive advantages. 1b. the biggest step taken by Tesco in its strategic planning is becoming an International operator. The advantageous strategic position of the company has made it a multinational operator. The company has the ability to retain and acquire more customers in the new market environment. Tesco’s expansion in the US market is also an important strategic decision. This strategy has contributed in the success of the firm in USA. The strategy of Tesco’s store operation of small format has positioned the brand in such a way that it threatens other retail firms. To hold its position in the competitive environment of the retail industry Tesco can make alliance with different international business for its business expansion. 2. The main strategic evaluation criteria are involved in understanding the goal of the company, its mission and vision. The growth of the business by implementing those strategies helps to evaluate the effectiveness of the business strategies. Tesco has set up different evaluation criteria for its different business strategies. The strategic decision of the company to expand in USA and South Korea helped to achieve huge success in its business. In this case the main strategic evaluation criteria are to generate a certain amount of revenue from those places which will help to generate a huge amount of profit. Tesco has a strategy of selling its product at a very low price. This strategy is evaluated on the basis of the amount of goods sold in its stores. The main objective of the company is to become the largest retail company of the world. The company’s strategy of offering value added services and products in its business operation helps to increase the growth of the busine ss. The firm has introduced