4 ms·

> Environmental sustainability doesn't "scope creep" for the same reason as other morality terms (eg justice). It scope creeps because of the nature of environm

> Environmental sustainability doesn't "scope creep" for the same reason as other morality terms (eg justice). It scope creeps because of the nature of environmental sustainability. Affecting non-target species (bycatch etc.) tends to have unpredictable effects on target species... and longer time horizons yield more complexity. That's what ecosystems are, interdependent sets of population dynamics. But even under this interpretation, the article doesn't attempt to argue that the bycatch is causing the mammal populations to collapse. Instead, it focuses on the damage inflicted on _individuals_. Incidentally, this is the kind of advocacy that often pits animal rights activists against conservationists, for instance when the latter resort to culling or even simply let a large percentage of a population die of hunger.

netcan 6y ago
It's not really an interpretation. This is what the word "sustainable" means. This is the way the author is using the term sustainable. When she says "a key independent labeler of sustainable seafood..." she's referring to a stamp using the term this way. It's even used this way in legislation, diplomacy, etc. Past a point, I find the semantic discussion boring. This is just how language works. Words have multiple, often related meanings. It changes over time. You are not encountering it for the first time. I was just pointing out that the evolution of the term has a logical etymology to it. There's a logic to "environmental harm" having acquired the near synonym "environmentally unsustainable." That has nothing to do with the author though. The word just means what it means. Why does the author need to argue that the bycatch is causing target fish populations to collapse? That's not what she's writing an article about. She's just using the english language how it is spoken, especially in the context she's writing within. She didn't invent it. Anyway... I kind of feel this is going in a silly direction. The article is about something important. The top comments are me and you having a stupid conversation about the history of words. If you disagree with the author, you should have argued with what she has to say.. as opposed to the semantics. I'd say that onus applies more than the other way around.

netcan 6y ago

It's not really an interpretation. This is what the word "sustainable" means. This is the way the author is using the term sustainable. When she says "a key independent labeler of sustainable seafood..." she's referring to a stamp using the term this way. It's even used this way in legislation, diplomacy, etc. Past a point, I find the semantic discussion boring. This is just how language works. Words have multiple, often related meanings. It changes over time. You are not encountering it for the first time. I was just pointing out that the evolution of the term has a logical etymology to it. There's a logic to "environmental harm" having acquired the near synonym "environmentally unsustainable." That has nothing to do with the author though. The word just means what it means. Why does the author need to argue that the bycatch is causing target fish populations to collapse? That's not what she's writing an article about. She's just using the english language how it is spoken, especially in the context she's writing within. She didn't invent it. Anyway... I kind of feel this is going in a silly direction. The article is about something important. The top comments are me and you having a stupid conversation about the history of words. If you disagree with the author, you should have argued with what she has to say.. as opposed to the semantics. I'd say that onus applies more than the other way around.