You are missing the point. If I say that "poisoning birds of prey on your farm is unsustainable," that is not a claim. The meaning of the term is not "cannot go on."
"Can go on" is another definition of sustainable. This why dictionaries have multiple definitions, wikipedia has disambiguation pages, etc.
The archaic definition is relatively rare, and easy to discern from context. Environmental sustainability has a wikipedia entry. Ability to sustain does not. Also news articles, book titles, legislative literature, academic literature. etc.
I don't know what more I can say. Words mean what they mean, and that evolves over time.
Insisting that the modern usage is wrong and the archaic usage is correct is basically using a "loaded" term. No one writing or speaking about sustainability in an intellectually honest way expects the narrow, archaic usage.
Environmental sustainability almost always has a wider definition. If we are having a discussion about environmental sustainability and someone insists that a practice is sustainable "really" means "can go on" regardless of environmental harm.... then they are loading the term.
It's an attempt to change the meaning of the term, as it is commonly used, while keeping the moral connotations. Why would anyone care about environmental sustainability in the narrow sense?
Inexpensive rhetoric. Disingenuous.
It's disingenuous even if it is semantically correct. In this case (and often) the argument is factually wrong. This is what makes it good red herring. It's effective at rallying even if factually incorrect.
"Can go on" is another definition of sustainable. This why dictionaries have multiple definitions, wikipedia has disambiguation pages, etc.
The archaic definition is relatively rare, and easy to discern from context. Environmental sustainability has a wikipedia entry. Ability to sustain does not. Also news articles, book titles, legislative literature, academic literature. etc.
I don't know what more I can say. Words mean what they mean, and that evolves over time.
Insisting that the modern usage is wrong and the archaic usage is correct is basically using a "loaded" term. No one writing or speaking about sustainability in an intellectually honest way expects the narrow, archaic usage.
Environmental sustainability almost always has a wider definition. If we are having a discussion about environmental sustainability and someone insists that a practice is sustainable "really" means "can go on" regardless of environmental harm.... then they are loading the term.
It's an attempt to change the meaning of the term, as it is commonly used, while keeping the moral connotations. Why would anyone care about environmental sustainability in the narrow sense?
Inexpensive rhetoric. Disingenuous.
It's disingenuous even if it is semantically correct. In this case (and often) the argument is factually wrong. This is what makes it good red herring. It's effective at rallying even if factually incorrect.