Not sure if you are in bad faith or genuinely don't know how words work. Here is some help:

1. Go back to the parent, and understand the context in which "sustainable" is used here.

2. Convince yourself that the discussion is about "sustainable development": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development

Edit: I am concerned that you may not find the origin of the thread, so let me copy it here for you:

> Those wristbands are a great example of manufacturing non recyclable garbage.

They're non recyclable, but they seem very repairable and reusable? As long as people return them after the show the actual waste and churn is lower than something like plastic packaging, and might beat similar concert light sticks that don't have a removable battery. At minimum can't the batteries from these be taken out for recycling?

I was answering to the comment that said:

> I disagree. I expect industrial civilization will continue indefinitely, meaning, we will continue manufacturing cute special-effect gizmos, and having fancy concerts with millions of dollars in special-purpose manufactured goods, and people will continue to have fun. > > That's what sustainable means.

But yes, I agree that it's better if they are actually repaired and reused. But being repairable and reusable is not enough: recycling, in general, doesn't really do what people expect (which is something like "it does no harm because it was recycled"). It's actually surprisingly hard to meaningfully recycle anything at all.

In this case, if it's more profitable to get new ones every time, that's probably the only incentive they need to not repair and reuse any of those.