Talk:Sustainable living

Environment: Sustainability High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sustainability task force.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 18 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kfeldman2022 (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 18 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kfeldman2022.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luddites

Just a tangential point about Luddites... based on this sentence:

"Luddites are those opposed to mechanization and technology for any reason."

I understand that there are people who are opposed to technology for any reason, and that ideas of sustainable living must be distinguished from that. However, I'm not convinced the Luddites (historical or recent) fit that definition. See the body of the "Luddite" article. Originally, they seemed to have been opposed to destructive technology -- that is, technology that decreased their standard of living or worsened their working conditions. Many of the original Luddites were weavers and knitters -- trades that were already mechanized by the early 1800s. Luddites strike me as early advocates of sustainability (although more in a labour movement sense than an ecological sense) -- not antithetical to it at all.

I've changed to "Some people are opposed..."

Thoughts? Wordie 16:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) 16:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

re entry of external link

I've (re) included SCA wiki. This was here for quite a while then some one deleted it along with several others as spam. It is not for example a site about 'green shopping' as some of the other deletions were, and it is not obvious why it should be deleted yet some of the others kept. If it seems inappropriate, it would be good to have a better explanation than just 'spam' Philralph 09:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of external link

Green wiki link deleted as doesn't seem to be there (I've checked on other occassions previously and think it hasn't been there for some time) Philralph 16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a random blog link that was obvious advertising HaLoGuY007 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of link

"Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters" is not a sustainability site but a vegetarian one. The topics may be related, but the link is not appropriate for this page. I'm removing it. Patrick Sewell 03:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

I've added this link under "External Links." Basically, it's a blog of an attempt to live without having a direct impact on the environment or natural resources. I realize that blogs are generally frowned upon , but I'm feeling that this is one of those wp:IAR "Ignore All Rules" moments.

Your mileage may vary, and I'll understand if someone yanks it. However, this guy seems to be conducting a pioneering experiment, and that's what I thought made it worth including. His experiment has been noted far and wide in mainstream media, so we're OK on WP:RS.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I add a link?

Hello-

May I add a link to www.lowimpactliving.com?

Many thanks, (1greenbean (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ecological living - merge?

It's unclear to me why Ecological living deserves a separate page from Sustainable living. Merge?

Sustainable living is the term I'm more familiar with, and seems more accurate to describe a low-impact sifestyle - ecological seems to suggest the science of ecology, or connectedness and interdependence. (That may be a part of sustainable living, but is a different, more philosophical question.)

(Green living currently redirects to Ecological living.) --Chriswaterguy talk 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to other wikis

I notice the only wiki in the external links is the Sustainable Community Action Wiki, a good wiki, but which is focused on activism.

For the nitty-gritty of sustainable living I'd like to suggest:

Greenlivingpedia
Appropedia: see especially Appropedia:Category:Green living and (still under construction) Appropedia:Portal:Green living. --Chriswaterguy talk 09:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological Living Distinct From Sustainable Living

As actually practiced, Ecological Living (EL) emphasizes Green development, while Sustainable Living (SL) takes a perhaps more balanced view considering social and economic factors. EL considers human population control among its fundamental assumptions--in effect, there are too many people. SL considers resource management, cultural / sociologic and other such human factors and is profoundly less idealistic the EL in my opinion. It assumes far less understanding of the gross environment and typically either subordinates environmental concerns to human needs or at a minium idealizes both into a single harmonious construct. SL also acknowledges basic realities of social psychology, something no amount of idealism is going to change.

Calling SL synonomous with EL would be a lot like claiming that creationism embodies evolutionism or vice versa, when in fact they represent diametrically opposed viewpoints. It's unfortunate that no Wiki editor has been able to make such a distinction clear.

I wonder if this mioght not be an effect induced by the influence of the collectively atheist, socialist and environmentalist agenda of Wikipedia's Administrative technocracy. (Which denies supression while simultaneously doing it under the guise of "dealing with disruptive editors.") Thus, if administrators are removing the more right-wing aspects of SL--such as Self-sufficiency and Survivalism--I would imagine that SL would appear a lot more like EL than it really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.175.240.201 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the duration of time since this has been brought up, and the general feeling that it should not be merged with eco-living, I have removed the tag. In its stead, I have added a sentence, which says: "For similar concepts, see eco-living" to the lead. cronin x 04:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could sustainable living be activism?

I feel that there is significant evidence especially in the UK and Australia to merit the addition of a new section on the social movement/activism side of this issue. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts? Psynought (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute

There is a dispute regarding NPOV for the following article [1]. I had put it as an external link and it was removed by user Themfromspace. This article on simplifying life is a small essay on my experiments with sustainable living. I feel such experiments help people understand how one can try living a sustainable life and can help people compare their energy footprints. The user Themfromspace probably has not understood the significance of this essay and is insisting on NPOV.

Any comments? 218.248.79.4 (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been spamming his corporation's website across different Wikipedia pages and I have tried to remove the links. The link is clearly NPOV, even the IP himself is claiming "the significance" of it. The link clearly doesn't belong per WP:EL Themfromspace (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take issues with user Themfromspace. He has been vandalising my attempts to put an essay on sustainable and simple living [2]. Since the user Themfromspace is a young student he does not understand the issues that are being discussed in this essay. Also this is not an advertisement of any corporation but a simple matter of fact about my experiments on simple living in rural India. I think it will be appropriate if we debate about the whole issue of some immature young person hijacking and vandalising legitimate essays. Will somebody higher up in Wiki please take note of this.218.248.79.4 (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-promotion nor a place to "get noticed". Please read over WP:COI before trying to place your link back. Them From Space 13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason" but also "Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged." I would have to side against the spamming of the corporation's website, but I think the article itself deserves community consideration. I see no evidence of it being given a fair evaluation, and regret that it apparently won't be. ~jscpowser 0:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

I'm taking the initiative to begin expanding this article to meet higher standards of quality. I've commenced research and have outlined a more encyclopedic approach to the topic. Also, the external links section was recently deleted, but I restored the links that were most relevant. If I find better ones to fill each niche, they will be replaced as appropriate. I ask that external links involving "green", "ecology", "environment" or anything to that effect not be included, and ONLY post links relating SPECIFICALLY to the topic of sustainability. Jscpowser (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero impact living?

Should there be an article titled zero impact living? Comments on the talk page would be appreciated. nirvana2013 (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been nominated for deletion. nirvana2013 (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoreau didn't write about sustainability, did he?

"1854 Henry David Thoreau published Walden, which is the earliest piece of literature to specifically address the issue of sustainable living." The reference is: "The Walden Woods Projects Thoreau Institute The Thoreau Institute at Walden Woods 2007."

AFAICT, Walden doesn't address sustainability, but rather modes of living and what is beneficial to people. Has anyone read it, or do you have sources that confirm or negate this reference to Walden? --Chriswaterguy talk 11:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sustainable living. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080820060819/http://www.cellonline.org/about/philosophy.htm to http://www.cellonline.org/about/philosophy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Water section

Has it been fixed? Adlihtam (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are out of Date.

In the definition paragraph of this article, the sources attached to the sentence stating "One conception of sustainable living expresses what it means in triple-bottom-line terms as meeting present ecological, societal, and economical needs without compromising these factors for future generations." are claimed to be an article from the US Environmental Protection Agency called "What is sustainability" as well as an article from the United Nations General Assembly are both very out of date and cannot be accessed. Kyrsten13 (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyrsten13You have run across wp:link rot where over time documents have been moved from their original location. The usual action is to either find the new location and update the reference or add a ^{[dead link‍]} tag after the reference. Welcome to Wikipedia! Dougmcdonell (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book by Diane McDilda from 2007

I've just tidied up the the references a bit as the book by McDilda appeared several times in the reference list; it should be there only once. The book is now cited 15 times. As it's from 2007 and is not available online, I wonder if we could supplement it with a more recent, more accessible source where readers can more easily verify the content? I don't have one at my fingertips so this is just a suggestion. The book is called: "McDilda, Diane Gow. The Everything Green Living Book: Easy Ways to Conserve Energy, Protect Your Family's Health, and Help save the Environment. Avon, MA: Adams Media, 2007." EMsmile (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]