Taking Back Sustainability: A Common Buzzword Among the Affluent, But They Really Don’t Understand It.

In my academic thesis: Reviewing the Interdisciplinarity of Professors at Colleges and Universities Globally Through a Meta-Analysis of Current Literature, I observed the concept of natural sustainability and what sustainability actually means in the world of education. I connected epistemology and the role of sustainability in education by reverse-engineering the phrase outside of its left-wing activist mindset. From there I took the definition into a more Lockean Liberal justification for sustainability in maintaining access to knowledge in different ways.

“According to Leef, sustainable education is a common buzzword within the education sector, given the recent growth of sustainable initiatives outside of the field in areas such as science, government, and sociology in the vein of Marxist principles of anti-capitalism and left-wing activism. In an attempt to reverse engineer sustainability, neoliberal concepts attempt to deregulate bureaucracy of sustainable education in order to maximize epistemological freedom for the benefit of individuals.

“Sustainable education attempts to provide more freedom to access education across many different geographical locations. With the continual growth of the internet, new knowledge will be readily accessed to more people in the world than ever before.”

Sustainability is a word that essentially means “the process of sustaining”, and allows different ideas of thought for the objective of conserving a norm or a justification for decision-making. For knowledge attainment, the thought that different areas of knowledge can be observed and obtained is found – but through ‘tried and true’ standards of classical concepts such as interdisciplinarity, enlightenment virtues, and empiricism creates a workable or ‘sustainable’ focus. As stated in my thesis, sustainability is a common word used by academicians, politicians, and businesspeople – but they really do not have a deep grasp on the word. For example, the World Economic Forum (WEF) uses ‘sustainable development’ in their framework of different objectives toward a norm – but it is workable? Most definitions – like the WEF – are vague and do not encompass a workable plan toward a justification.

The WEF uses phrases like “New Economic Thinking” or “Transforming Markets” without a justification why this is needed instead of the workable, sustainable, or original models of economic markets. Unless they feel the current markets are not workable or sustainable, then the question is asked: ‘is this justification workable through empirical, rational, and virtuous outcomes?’

One might argue, a massive overhaul of an economic system and markets is very unsustainable considering the irrational and non-empirical methods that are accompanied.

The WEF seem to fit into this box of saying sustainability, and implementing their sustainability, but not actually understanding what sustainability really is leading to the irony sustainability through unsustainable actions. Another example are politicians like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Justin Trudeau, or Joe Biden using the phrase sustainability in odd ways to downright incorrect ways.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez: “sustainability, is improving the health and well-being of individuals through meaningful solutions.”

For Ocasio Cortez, sustainability is just improving through solutions – without offering any actions to problems that lead to the solutions. She sees sustainability is the outcome instead of the process of what it is.

Justin Trudeau: [Humber Sustainable Development] has shown real leadership on not just learning about climate change, but solving the challenges that are related to it in a way that leaves us all better off as we protect the environment.”

Again, what does he mean by showing leadership being sustainable? What are the actionable and empirical solutions of strong leadership inside of the process of sustainability toward an outcome?

Joe Biden: “A plan to build sustainable infrastructure”. Bonus John Kerry (Biden’s climate envoy): “environmental regulations toward sustainability”

All infrastructure should be sustainable; thus, this phrase is a moot statement. All infrastructure (roads and bridges) should be sustainable in the sense the objective should be sustainable (building proper roads and bridges) and the outcome in a literal sense should be sustainable. Also, the stifling through regulation is to remove strength in something (i.e. unsustainable)

With most government leaders, discussions on sustainability usually involve empty platitudes and ambiguation about the actual word. Moreover, the word sustainability – even in upper echelon conversations – are plainly buzzwords that have caught on to ‘sound good’ for voters or investors in the case of the companies attached with the WEF.

In a recent podcast by James Lindsay, sustainability is at the forefront of the discussion, and he best describes the mind of the elite in how they see this concept. He dissects and thoroughly criticizes Marcuse’s idea of labor and material possessions being unsustainable found in New Sensibility. Sustainability – in the elite Marcusian sense – is about less, which is myopic considering it is about diminishing or lessening via the revolutionary concept. However, sustainability is actually to strengthen or support; thus, sustainability is the competent process to sustain or support through strong factors and convictions. Of course, this reflects that the ‘sustainability’ of elites follows a Marcusian/Marxist analysis of historical materialism, rather than a rationalist concept of ‘sustainability’ toward competency.

This is a definition of sustainability we need to follow if we want to accept the rational definition of it without obscure deconstruction. This does not have to be a loss, just a ‘taking back’ of the word sustainability. This can be done by asking questions to leaders about sustainability, such as:

1. What are the problems, actions, and solutions using a sustainable model (think analytical philosophy: problem + action = solution)
2. What are the returns on investment using a sustainable plan to achieve goals?
3. How will this strengthen and support our efforts to achieve goals?
4. Is this sustainable plan rational, empirical, and effective? If so, why?