broad audiences. 70 Recent exhibitions such as the State Library of Queensland’s Spoken: Celebrating Queensland Languages have displayed Barlow’s manuscript alongside contemporary Indigenous communities’ use of language sources: Central West Queensland communities describe how ‘[w]ords written on scraps of paper recorded by linguists … are now held in great esteem. [Communities use] collections and word lists to build and preserve their words for future generations’. 71 Such collateral and progressive uses of southern colonial print cultures suggest that new
from a new materialist standpoint. She critiques the standard definition of sustainable development from the 1987 Brundtland Report: development that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission 1987). For Alaimo, this oft-quoted definition reveals an overarching anthropocentric logic, since the ‘generations’ are normally interpreted as human, and the nonhuman world is reduced to a resource for meeting human needs (2012: 562). The prevailing thinking on sustainability, from this
development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission 1987: 41). The sustainability of animal lives and species populations barely warranted mention in the report. The report raised alarms about increasing extinctions, but couched these in the context of narrow declarations of self-interest, stating that 100 Discourses of sustainability we should be concerned about biodiversity loss because ‘Species and natural ecosystems make many important contributions
Environment and Development, led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, published its report, Our Common Future, in 1987, it defined sustainable development, famously, as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission 1987: 43). As Simon Dresner points out in his discussion of Brundtland, sustainability was ‘conceived as an attempt to bring environmentalist ideas into the central area of policy, which in the modern world is The unsustainable aesthetics of sustainability 179
conviction that all bishops must protect the rights and powers of their office for future generations. Again, altercations with the state usually hinged on acrimonious jurisdictional issues, with the episcopate considering its role to be that of defender of the church against the aggressive and unwarranted jurisdictional incursions of the secular realm. Disputes of this sort, whether over the trial of bishops or over appels comme d’abus, served not only to develop cohesion and self-identity within episcopal ranks but also to encourage a sense of episcopal responsibility
at all to future generations. As Henry Guerlac has noted, ‘written history can only be highly selective’, partly because of the sheer mass of data available, but also because of the choice exercised by contemporaries in recording events. Thus we can know only what ‘the participants in events or those who came soon after ... determined that we should know. They placed in the intentional record ... those men and events which appeared to them as exceptional, striking and wholly outside the ordinary dull routine of private existence.’4 202 The ‘public sphere’ and the
organization that is indeed concerned with the ‘triple bottom line’: The US golf industry recognizes sustainability as the integration of environmental stewardship, social responsibility and economic viability as a critical and never-ending goal. The golf industry embraces sustainability as “ meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs ”. ( GCSAA , n.d.b., emphasis in original
excluded from the consumer economy. At the height of the economic miracle, Adenauer converted the principle of ‘burden sharing’ to the principle of ‘wealth sharing’, setting up transfer mechanisms whereby pensioners and the unemployed share the general wealth of the country . . . What Schröder and his people have begun is nothing less than leading the German welfare state from wealth-sharing to poverty-sharing.1 For future generations this welfare state must go back to its original purpose: insurance against the risk of basic hardships.2 There is a widespread view in
between immigration and the Spanish economy during the period 1996–2006. Spain’s immigrant population had quadrupled between 2000 and 2006 from just below one million to four million, with a clearly favourable effect on economic growth: almost one-half of GDP growth between 2002 and 2006 was due to the effects of immigration. Moreover, the report found that the influx of immigrants would decrease the tax burden on future generations of Spaniards, while also contributing towards the sustainability of the welfare state (Oficina Económica del Presidente 2006: ii
unemployment rate. Schröder’s defence of his new policies was that they were an attempt ‘to put justice back on its feet. This is about justice also for future generations . . . The politics of the permanent present . . . must be abolished’ (Schröder 2004). Nevertheless, the SPD struggled with the growing legitimacy gap between programme and policy as the programme debate continued and was influenced by Agenda 2010. In 2003, the SPD’s Secretary General Olaf Scholz maintained that ‘the politics of social justice have never been primarily a question of the quantity of social