Talk:Sustainability/History/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

This is an archive of past discussions about Sustainability. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This brief account includes both the evolution of thinking about sustainability and the major historical events that have influenced human global sustainability.

In early human history the energy and resource demands of nomadic hunter-gatherers was small. The use of fire and desire for specific foods may have altered the natural composition of plant and animal communities. Between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago, agriculture emerged in various regions of the world.^[1] Agrarian communities depended largely on their environment and the creation of a "structure of permanence."^[2] Societies outgrowing their local food supply or depleting critical resources either moved on or faced collapse.

Archeological evidence suggests that the first civilizations were Sumer, in southern Mesopotamia (now Iraq) and Egypt, both dating from around 3000 BCE. By 1000 BCE, civilizations became established in India, China, Mexico, Peru and in parts of Europe.^[3][4]

Sumer illustrates issues central to the sustainability of human civilization.^[5] Sumarian cities practiced intensive, year-round agriculture (from ca. 5300 BCE). The surplus of storable food created by this economy allowed the population to settle in one place instead of migrating after wild foods and grazing land. It also allowed for a much greater population density. The development of agriculture in Mesopotamia required significant labour resources to build and maintain an irrigation system. This, in turn, created political hierarchy, bureaucracy, and religious sanction, along with standing armies to protect the emergent civilization. Intensified agriculture allowed for population increase, but also led to deforestation in upstream areas, (which increased flooding), and over-irrigation, which raised soil salinity. Eventually poorly drained irrigated soils, led to the buildup of dissolved salts in the soil. While there was a shift from the cultivation of wheat to the more salt-tolerant barley, this was insufficient yields continually declined. Decreasing agricultural production and other factors, led to the decline of the civilization. During the period from 2100 BC to 1700 BC, it is estimated that the population declined by nearly sixty percent.^[6][5]

Civilisations similarly thought to have eventually fallen because of poor management of resources include the Mayans, Anasazi and Easter Islanders.^[7][8] Cultures of shifting cultivators and horticulturists have existed in New Guinea and South America and larger agrarian communities in China, India and elsewhere have farmed in the same localities for centuries. Polynesian cultures have maintained stable communities for between 1,000 and 3,000 years on small islands with minimal resources, and still practice management systems including rahui and kaitiaki to control human pressure on these resources^[9].

Technological advances over several millennia gave humans increasing control over the environment. But it was the Western industrial revolution of the 17th to 19th centuries that tapped into the vast growth potential of the energy in fossil fuels. Coal was used to power ever more efficient engines and later to generate electricity. Modern sanitation systems and advances in medicine protected large populations from disease^[11]. Such conditions led to a human population explosion and unprecedented industrial, technological and scientific growth that has continued to this day. From 1650 to 1850 the global population doubled from around 500 million to 1 billion people.^[12]

Concerns about the environmental and social impacts of industry were expressed by some Enlightenment political economists and in the Romantic movement of the 1800s. Overpopulation was discussed in an essay by Thomas Malthus (see Malthusian catastrophe), while John Stuart Mill foresaw the desirability of a "stationary state" economy, thus anticipating concerns of the modern discipline of ecological economics.^{[13][14][15][16][17]} In the late 19th century, Danish botanist, Eugenius Warming, was the first to study physiological relations between plants and their environment, heralding the scientific discipline of ecology.^[18]

By the 20th century, the industrial revolution had led to an exponential increase in the human consumption of resources. The increase in health, wealth and population was perceived as a simple path of progress. However, in the 1930s economists began developing models of non-renewable resource management (see Hotelling's Rule) and the sustainability of welfare in an economy that uses non-renewable resources (Hartwick's Rule).

Ecology had now gained acceptance as a scientific discipline and many concepts now fundamental to sustainability were being explored. These included: the interconnectedness of all living systems in a single living planetary system, the biosphere; the importance of natural cycles (of water, nutrients and other chemicals, materials, waste); and the passage of energy through trophic levels of living systems.

Following the deprivations of the great depression and World War II the developed world entered a period of escalating growth. A gathering environmental movement pointed out that there were environmental costs associated with the many material benefits that were now being enjoyed. Innovations in technology (including plastics, synthetic chemicals, nuclear energy) and the increasing use of fossil fuels, were transforming society. Modern industrial agriculture—the "Green Revolution" — was based on the development of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides which had devastating consequences for rural wildlife, as documented in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962).

In 1956, M. King Hubbert's peak oil theory predicted the inevitable peak of oil production, first in the United States (between 1965 and 1970), then in successive regions of the world, with a global peak expected thereafter.^[19] In the 1970's environmentalism's concern with pollution, the population explosion, consumerism and the depletion of finite resources was highlighted through the release of Small Is Beautiful, by E.F. Schumacher, in 1973, and the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth, in 1975.

Increasingly environmental problems were viewed as global in scale.^{[20][21][22][23]} The 1973 and 1979 energy crises demonstrated the extent to which the global community had become dependent on a nonrenewable resource and led to a further increase in public awareness of issues of sustainability.

While the developed world was considering the problems of unchecked development the developing countries, faced with continued poverty and deprivation, regarded development as essential to provide the necessities of life. In 1980 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature had published its influential World Conservation Strategy,^[24] followed in 1982 by its World Charter for Nature,^[25] which drew attention to the decline of the world’s ecosystems.

The United Nation's World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) made suggestions in regard to the conflict between the environment and development. The Commission suggested that development was acceptable, but must be sustainable development that would meet the needs of the poor, but not worsen environmental problems. Humanity’s demand on the planet has more than doubled over the past 45 years as a result of population growth and increasing individual consumption. In 1961, almost all countries in the world had more than enough capacity to meet their own demand; by 2005, the situation had changed radically, with many countries able to meet their needs only by importing resources from other nations.^[27]

A direction toward sustainable living by increasing public awareness and adoption of recycling, and renewable energies begins to occur. The development of renewable sources of energy in the 1970's and 80's, primarily in wind turbines and photovoltaics, and increased use of hydro-electricity, presented some of the first sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear energy generation. These developments led to construction of many of the first large-scale solar and wind power plants during the 1980's and 90's. The 1990's saw the small-scale reintroduction of the electric car. These factors, further raised public awareness of issues of sustainability, and many local and state governments in developed countries began to implement small-scale sustainability policies.

Since the turn of the century, more specific and detailed initiatives have led to widespread understanding and awareness of the importance of sustainability prompted by a sudden global awareness of the threat posed by the human-induced enhanced greenhouse effect produced largely by forest clearing and the burning of fossil fuels.^[29]Some environmentalists look toward an environmental technology or ecological economics perspective, as a more inclusive and ethical model for society, than traditional neoclassical economics.^[30][31] Emerging concepts include: the Car-free movement, Smart Growth (more sustainable urban environments), Life Cycle Assessment (the Cradle to Cradle analysis of resource use and environmental impact over the life cycle of a product or process), the Ecological Footprint, green design, dematerialization (increased recycling of materials), decarbonisation (removing dependence on fossil fuels) and much more.

The work of Bina Agarwal and Vandana Shiva amongst many others, has brought some of the cultural wisdom of traditional, sustainable agrarian societies into the academic discourse on sustainability, and also blended that with modern scientific principles.^[32]

Rapidly advancing technologies mean it is now technically possible to achieve a transition of economies, energy generation, water and waste management, and food production towards sustainable practices using methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology.^[33]

• This version is still over 10KB in size. It seems pretty comprehensive. Do we want to: a) use it as the basis for the "History of Sustainability" article, and further condense it for the main article, or b) add it to the main article?
• We need several additional citations. Of the 36 listed, only 13 are from this section. I've also left markings such as "[1]" so we can transpose those citations. I will mark-up places where we need additional cites. Perhaps each of us could work on that?
• I've left the last paragraph (TP's version) though it wouldn't pass the review. I think it sounds an optimistic note (always a blessing at the end of a history!), but is unencyclopedic in its current form, IMO. I think that the best way to deal with it would be to find a citation that says something similar.

Comments? Sunray (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Extrapolated a little on Vandana Shiva the way she was portrayed was wrong. She is a very famous scientist... a physicist.. anti corporate advocate. and also involved in ecology and environ., to the max. Also removed the overly large section about oil... and peak oil. That is already discussed by the previous info in peak oil or Hubbert peak link.. further up in the article... so that is redundant. Also rephrased the mention of the U.N. as far as framing. This information should not be spot lighted and doted on and bent down to... because of obvious pov here.... and linking every un sourced idea in that direction does not say make for a good article. Also the end line of the history section was lecturing or hectoring... so removed that also. skip sievert (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First comment is well done and thanks Sunray. This must surely be one of the most difficult sections of the article and it reads very well. As this is the first time we have all seen it in this condensed form I would like to suggest that we all have a final check for balance and emphasis - recognising as we do so that we cannot add more things without removing some (i.e. it cannot get longer; and in the interests of the article as a whole would probably be best getting smaller). For example, I agree with TP about Hotelling but might like to briefly add other things. With this section especially, there will be the temptation to never stop editing - but "one" more look is fair I think. Also that we mark our changes now with crossing-out etc. Granitethighs (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. And don't forget those citations! Sunray (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While trying to reduce the repetition of "resources" in the first paragraph, I thought of introducing the notion of stewardship, which is, I think, close to what TP was mentioning on the main talk page. Sunray (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Added very brief mention of : The Wilderness Society,United States Wilderness Society is an environment and science based group established in 1935. - skip sievert (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that reference. Yes, it is an influential organization, but so is Greenpeace, the WWF and so many others that blazed trails in various aspects of conservation and environmental activism.

It is one of the original groups... and T.P. also suggested it be in. That is two against one right now. Because this group was a type of first it should be in the article in early 20th. century. It is more notable as being something that was a new concept at the time and set a precedent.

It is a venerable organization. It also was one of the first major conservation organizations. However, it is very U.S.-focussed and very political. The Sierra Club, by comparison, is much older and much more global in focus. I would also argue that Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy and WWF while younger organizations, have been much more effective globally. However, I don't make these decisions, so let's put it to the others. Sunray (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Sunray on this one - I think it is pretty contentious to try ranking organisations - and we have used too much space already (2-all so far - lucky Nick - the first time this has happened).Granitethighs (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that most of the ref/citation links on this page go to references that can not be gone to... but can only be looked at. This is a mistake. It makes more sense to not have misc. ref links with no attached info... instead of information that people can click on and get more information in a web link... it also brings into question here the huge number of references that point to what could be obscure sources or books... many without isbn numbers.

Most of those types of refs/citations could be removed and quotes of the books or segments of the books or information could be used where the source can at least be looked at and judged, say on an external weblink or google book or website that is hosting the actual information. Now many of the references are useless here because of that and should be removed and better information put in their place.??.. as to books with I.S.B.N.'s at the very least... or links that can be clicked on and looked at for more information, not just someones opinion that a ref. is being made to something, which can not be corroborated. skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. I think that we should try to find more online references. The list, as it appears now, looks pretty intimidating. However, there are actually only 14 citations for this section, not 38 (that is because the "reflist" template picks up all the references on the page, so all the ones for earlier versions are still there). Many are repeats and would be grouped together under one citation (a,b,c,d...) Because we are going for FA, they will want everything nailed down. They like to see citations for almost everything. Looking at recent FAs, I note that they do favour the footnote system we are using. So I think that we are committed to this course. Nevertheless, we can: a) group citations, b) find more online sources, and c) prune some of the ones we have now (though we have to add some before we can start on that). Also, bear in mind that the "History" section will naturally have more offline sources per square inch because of its nature (which is um... "historical"). Sunray (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, I can understand how editing has the potential to become a tedious and time-consuming word by word exercise. I have complete confidence in your editing ability. At this stage, so far as I am concerned, I will make whatever changes I think improve the article and leave the final decision up to you - I will not be offended if you reverse the changes I make (or if you re-edit them). Having said that a couple of suggestions! - I like the idea of environmental stewardship but it somehow sounds strange in the context of ancient cultures (even though it is true), also your reference looks a great one, I have not seen it. I worry that the "structure of permanence" may have clear meaning in the context of teh book but does not mean much to the reader; could it be re-expressed in more direct terms? An extra para seems to have crept in at the end? Finally, do we keep these headings in the article? I suppose it could be just a single text if space and words become critical? I dont mind either way. Granitethighs (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Confession: I did work professionally as an editor in another lifetime. I do see your point about stewardship. I was reacting to the phrase "management of resources," which we used in the last version. That struck my eye even harder. The concept of management was likely very foreign to Indigenous peoples. I was just reading an account by an ethnobotanist who used the term "planting" in referring to a forager culture that planted trees along the paths they travelled. One of the people took issue with the use of that word. He said that scattering wild seeds was not "planting," they only "planted" domestic species... Can we ever really understand this? Stewardship seemed to be the English word that best reflected the respect and Rangatiratanga that Indigenous peoples show for the land. But I'm open to other ideas.

Re: "Structure of permanence." In Clarke's article, he quotes Schumacher, who referred to the "economics of permanence:"

"From an economic point of view, the central concept of wisdom is permanence... The economics of permanence implies a profound reorientation of science and techology, which have to open their doors to wisdom and, in fact, have to incorporate wisdom into their very structure." — Small is Beautiful, pp. 26-27.

Your point is that the term "structure of permanence" is not transparent. I had thought that the following sentence brought the message home: "Societies outgrowing their local food supply or depleting critical resources either moved on or faced collapse." But, methinks I am too close to it. Perhaps a brief descriptor would work. Or we could eliminate the phrase altogether - though I am hesitant to do that, as it is a concept so central to Indigenous peoples (Clarke was writing about the Bomagai-Angoiang swidden farmers of New Guinea), but one that Western culture has all but lost. Sunray (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This can be dickered with... but no history of Sustainability can not mention some aspects of Sumer... this was the invention of large scale farming. Notice I have put a link that actually goes to more information here also.... I am going to add more citations to this also... as to connected information. While it may be a little long... some very important points are made... at the very invention of civilization. Civilization was only invented once... and Sumer or Mesopotamia is the original reference for much of civil society... and contains the essence of economics... religion.. etc... that are currently in use. Here is the new area.

The city states of Sumer developed a trade and market economy based originally on the commodity money of the Shekel which was a certain weight measure of barley, while the Babylonians and their city state neighbors later developed the earliest system of economics using a metric of various commodities. The cities of Sumer were the first to practice intensive, year-round agriculture (from ca. 5300 BC). The surplus of storable food created by this economy allowed the population to settle in one place instead of migrating after crops and grazing land. It also allowed for a much greater population density, and in turn required an extensive labor force and division of labor. Eventually poorly drained irrigated soils, in an arid climate with high levels of evaporation, led to the buildup of dissolved salts in the soil, reducing agricultural yields severely. During the Akkadian and Ur III phases, there was a shift from the cultivation of wheat to the more salt-tolerant barley, but this was insufficient, and during the period from 2100 BC to 1700 BC, it is estimated that the population in this area declined by nearly 3/5ths. Thompson, William R. (2004). "Complexity, Diminishing Marginal Returns and Serial Mesopotamian Fragmentation" (pdf). Journal of World Systems Research.

Skip, I like your points here but they really need to be abbreviated if possible. Also IMO the current prevailing view on the origins of agriculture is that it arose independently in up to 12 centres across the world - it is qualified with "year-round ..." so maybe it is correct on that front. I do not know about money and economies but agree it deserves mention and that Mesopotamia was obviously the major and extremely influential centre in Europe and the major influence from which much of our "civilisation" has come. It is a good paragraph but could it be a bit shorter? Granitethighs (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion... Maybe the other copies of previous large scale edits should be taken off this page now so that the current footnotes can be seen clearly. In other words could an editor here remove all the current footnoted material above the current version Penultimate draft version so that the current most up to date footnotes can be looked at critically now. skip sievert (talk) 05:47, 21

December 2008 (UTC)

I like the principle of the second paragraph of the early 20th century but I'm not sure that ecology at that time was thinking much on a planetary level, whether the word biosphere had been invented etc. - perhaps a word tweak is needed here - I'll have a think. Granitethighs (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

On this topic, James Lovelock wrote in 1979 that "the idea that the earth is alive has existed since anient times. The name Gaia [...] was used two thousand years ago" [there's a Maori equivalient, Papatuanuku, and doubtless analogues in many cultures] "The first scientific expression of a belief that the Earth was alive was from James Hutton in 1785..." But he also notes that his idea was regarded as new (and unscientific) in the late 1970's, implying that thinking on a planetary level had fallen well out of favour when he published "Gaia"--Travelplanner (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry, I was linked in to ecology and plant physiology. Perhaps Lovelock should be in there but where do we stop ...? Granitethighs (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we stop at summaries of the information we have, then collect the more detailed stuff for use in the "History of Sustainability" article. Rather than say all of what Lovelock wrote, we would summarise. Nick carson (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing now... other mock up copies on this page so that the current footnotes can be scrutinized, and not be a maze of unrelated information in the present copy being edited. These footnotes in general are a problem now. They mostly lead no where. An effort to actually connect information to links, sources, web pages etc. is needed. Other wise the information here looks dead... as said before... a footnote is pretty useless unless it goes somewhere. There are exceptions of course... but for the article to be user friendly and easy for people to understand it must corroborate with information that is accessible and expansive. skip sievert (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Skip, please do not remove those citations just yet. I need to go through and see if we have failed to include some of them (I'm sure we have). It is much easier to just take them from above and paste them into the current version. Then I will archive. Meanwhile, if you want to see only the ones that are included in the current version, click on "edit" for the Penultimate draft and then select "Show preview." Voila. Sunray (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry... they are still there to be looked at in the page history. It is way to confusing to leave that information in the most up to date version now. Some else may want to try and figure out what is going on here and try to contribute... right now it is not such a confusing mess. This method may not be perfect but at least we may be able to see what the current article looks like. I am going to start adding some better citation/refs now... and suggest that others follow suit... because as said... right now it is a maze of dead information links. skip sievert (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, really, I'm unhappy that you did that. We need those links now. Sunray (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is pointless to maintain a copy that does not reflect what is going on. The links have to be gone through now. All the old stuff is there if you care to look. It is counter productive to edit war. Pointless. skip sievert (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've returned to the version of the page we were working on. Decisions here are made by consensus. If you wish to proceed along the lines you have outlined, let's make sure that there is consensus for doing that. I for one, am not at all in favour of deleting any passages right now, for the reasons I've given. Sunray (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? I said yesterday that I suggested that the old mock ups be taken off. You did not comment. So forget about using consensus as an excuse. That was 24 hours ago... and no comment from you then. Seems like a pointless exercise in reverting to me. It is now just as confusing as before as to the external links/ref/footnotes. All the information was archived still... so the logic ??? of this? What is the point? Really it is pointless to try to control something to the point of making it more confusing... especially if someone comes here to try and figure out how to participate in the process. Now it is a gobblity gook. At the very least the previous refs could be disabled or could have been disabled as the editing progressed. This is extremely confused editing method being used here. skip sievert (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are, no doubt, referring to the request you made at 5:47 UTC December 21 [2]. I did not comment right away because I was offline. No one commented. As soon as I was back online, I did respond (at 18:02 UTC) [3] I then told you that I wanted to leave them there until we could go through and relocate applicable ones. I intend to do that shortly. Please be patient. Sunray (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved some refs down. Given Skip's sense of urgency to clear out the old versions, if no one disagrees, I will archive as I go. Sunray (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that Sumer is a poor choice for the history of sustainability. Though it was a great civilization, and brought us many things (as did most great civilizations), it has been used as an example of unsustainability. Ronald Wright, in A Short History of Progress compares the Sumerians to Easter Islanders in that they seemed hell-bent on continuing their unsustainable practices, despite the obvious evidence that this was going to drive them into collapse. They couldn’t stop doing what had worked for them for so long. Here’s a quote from the article:

In analysing his four particular cases, Wright notes that Easter Island and Sumer failed due to depletion of natural resources: "their ecologies were unable to regenerate". Whereas the Maya and Rome failed in their heartlands, "where ecological demand was highest," but left remnant populations that survived. He asks: "Why, if civilizations so often destroy themselves, has the overall experiment of civilization done so well?" For the answer, he says, we must look to natural regeneration and human migration (p. 102).

I’m afraid that if we use the example of Sumer in our "History of Sustainability" section, we will seriously undermine our credibility. Sunray (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am happy either way, but in defence of the Sumer section I would say that it is a good example to add to the Easter Islanders etc as a community that didn't work with the natural ecology - huge areas of cropland in Australia are now unusable due to salination brought about by irrigating like the Sumerians i.e. we haven't learned. And I thought the commodity-based currency system was of interest. Anyway ... Granitethighs (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with adding it as an example of unsustainability, but propose to edit out the info about Sumerian advances. Otherwise, we could get into an interminable catalogue of civilizations and their advances/ills. Sunray (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll be offline now until the New Year. It is lengthy work but we are progressing well together. My best wishes to all over the Christmas period and happy editing in 2009!Granitethighs (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes for a joyous holiday season, GT! Sunray (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Christmas and all. I've been busy the last 3 days but still checking in and commenting. Sourcing references was never my strong point so no use in me slowing people down. I've been meditating on doing a first run rewrite of the 'Description' section, so hopefully we'll carry momentum into the new year. Nick carson (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortened version The cities of Sumer practiced intensive, year-round agriculture (from ca. 5300 BC). The surplus of storable food created by this economy allowed the population to settle in one place instead of migrating after crops and grazing land. It also allowed for a much greater population density, and in turn required an extensive labor force and division of labor. Eventually poorly drained irrigated soils, in an arid climate with high levels of evaporation, led to the buildup of dissolved salts in the soil, reducing agricultural yields severely. http://www.historylink101.com/lessons/farm-city/mes1.htm historylink101 Farming In Mesopotamia - During the Akkadian and Ur III phases, there was a shift from the cultivation of wheat to the more salt-tolerant barley, but this was insufficient, and during the period from 2100 BC to 1700 BC, it is estimated that the population in this area declined by nearly 3/5ths.Thompson, William R. (2004). "Complexity, Diminishing Marginal Returns and Serial Mesopotamian Fragmentation" (pdf). Journal of World Systems Research. end

To say that adding Sumer destroys credibility is kind of pointless. They existed and sustained themselves for thousands of years while inventing civil society, plus they were the first ones to document their farming and labor methods and canal building etc. Using that framework of criteria the Diamond books would not make sense because they highlight un sustainability... so the logic does not add up. Also it is well known and documented what happened there. They invented writing, the wheel, domesticated animals for energy conversion... etc. -- I have shortened the info a bit and added another ref/citation.

On another repeated note... I think ref/footnotes should be starting to be replaced or removed from dead looking citations. If the article is going to be viable it has to source info... with some exceptions.. to some information.. for people to understand ideas... and not depend on the wisdom of non notable editors to explain what something means. skip sievert (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are saying. Would you be able to give examples of "dead looking citations"? Sunray (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Like this just remade one...> cf. concluding chapters in Part Four of Diamond, Jared M., Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed ISBN 1-586-63863-7, (2005). ---------- Compared with the older version: Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking Books. ISBN 1-586-63863-7.

The general point made is to make links connect to other information, which can be looked at for further understanding, which is the purpose of refs/citations. skip sievert (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the content of the first paragraph here needs reworking. While the basic idea is good the structure of permanence thing does not seem like a mainstream or well known concept from google searching it http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS306US306&q=%27%27The+Structure+of+Permanence%27%27&start=0&sa=N It does not show any thing much for the search. Also It appears the book it is sourced from may be out of print or not well known http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS306US306&q=Subsistence+and+Survival,&start=0&sa=N The writer and scientist involved is well known http://www.google.com/search?q=%27%27Clarke%2C+William+C.%27%27&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS306US306 but not so much for this concept... I assume this is the same guy that is here http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=469 - His email is listed there so maybe he could be asked about that particular concept?

The premise of the idea is good ... but maybe it could be rephrased and resourced to connect with something more mainstream and known. Right now that phrase does not seem quoted in general and seems... as phrases go obscure to perhaps the book ref, and unknown in general outside of a ref in a book... which may not be notable enough for inclusion. skip sievert (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The notion of permanence is crucial to sustainability. As I mentioned above, Schumacher refers to the "economics of permanence." This is what Clarke is talking about in his article. BTW, while the original book may be out of print, the article also appears in Contemporary Anthropology by Bates and Lees (1981). In any case, it is an important concept that ecologists and cultural ecologists have picked up on and is integral to permaculture and many other disciplines that focus on permanence. Why it is so important, IMO, is that it is not part of mainstream thinking. If there is one thing that the history of sustainability teaches us (and this is very much a theme of this section) is that mainstream approaches only shuffle the deck chairs. Satish Kumar's article "Five Elements of Ecology" links several of our themes. Check out what he says about permanence (paras 10 & 11). Sunray (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree... just wondering if it can be presented a little better with some ajoining links or citations or a way to further the information along to some other more expansive way of connecting it to the subject. Maybe connect it more directly to what you are just saying it by phrasing it toward that... and citing it toward that.

I am glad that we are thinking along the same lines on this. I will adjust the wording to reflect what you have been saying. I must add that I've been impressed with the work you have been doing on this page and I am feeling optimistic that we will be able to work together more effectively. Sunray (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Late 20th. cent.

It was during the 1980s that human consumption exceeded the Earth's natural capacity to rejenerate.[4] World Wildlife Fund 2008. Living Planet Report 2008.

This sounds extremely questionable. I have heard much different info to this... that we went over the limit decades before the 1980's. This source and sentence could probably be removed as being iffy or questionable in the late 20th. century segment, or redone. skip sievert (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Rephrased this information toward more clarity of the issues and made a ref/citation to the site, that goes to the Pdf.

New version In 1961, almost all countries in the world had more than enough capacity to meet their own demand; by 2005, the situation had changed radically, with many countries able to meet their needs only by importing resources from other nations. http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/living_planet_report/index.cfm Living Planet Report W.W.F. 2008.

I am going to move the history section to the main article now. It may make sense to dissolve this page now and make further edits there. How about this whole sandbox talk page thing is stopped in general now and a section at a time is taken on in the Sustainability talk page? Also the section scope/definition page looks truly confused and awful. Also the article in that section is looking like a U.N. promo advert and that has been a consistent negative aspect about the editing in various sections. Credibility and neutrality are not maintained that way. skip sievert (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not yet ready to upload anything to the main article. We have agreed to work on a consensus basis and the team has not yet agreed to upload any of the subpages. This page is not finished, and we had decided to leave the lead page. The definition/scope page is still under construction. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to undo the uploads separately, so I've had to revert them (along with other edits you had made). I will reinstate the others. With the holiday season upon us, I doubt that we will get team decisions on the subpages. Sunray (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I still have concerns about the "Sumer" example. This is a section about the history of sustainability. There is still too much detail on Sumer. I will give it a further edit. Then, I suggest we wait to hear from the others before uploading. Sunray (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you do not own the article... and the so called team which is not something I have signed on to... and if there is one, is just part of the editing process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEMOCRACY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy - Please no longer revert/edit war on the main page. It is pointless.

I have made improvements in the article. You can make them also. That is how wikipedia works. I am not a part of a team except I follow guidelines to my best ability. The Sumerians sustained themselves for several thousand years and created society as we know it with large scale farming and hydrology. Does that say something? I cut the material already. I suggest that if you have a problem with editing here, request for comment... instead of edit warring as you have recently done... since many eyes are following it and you seem to have a case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN - No comments on getting rid of the unneeded definition/scope section.?.. that I can see here. skip sievert (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorial decisions are made by consensus. We have initiated a project to upgrade this article. We have not yet made a decision to upload this page. Please respect the consensus. Sunray (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are referring to. Who is we? Do you know how wikipedia works???... Consensus is not one person saying something. That is over controlling material. Ownership of articles... understand? Your not supposed to do that. skip sievert (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear: I am talking about the editors who are currently editing this article, most of whom have agreed to work as a team on upgrading the article. We are making decisions by consensus. You have elected not to be a member of the team, although you are a part of the consensus, in accordance with WP policy. I am saying that decisions are not made unilaterally, they are made by consensus. You should know this. Now, once again, you have a choice: you may either respect the consensus process, or you may edit elsewhere. Would you please advise us of your decision on this? Sunray (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions Sorry but I find that you are trying to unduly control the article. Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia. I do request that you stop edit warring and stop making personal attacks by implying that I am not worthy to be an editor. Previously you have name called. You can get blocked for calling people trolls. I am respecting wiki guidelines... not a single editor that is giving me a hard time. Understand that? You are making a threat... understand that? It is not a good idea to make threats on Wikipedia... this is not contractual editing. So please stop the lame edit warring. skip sievert (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not "many questions," I am asking, just one. Nor is it a loaded question: Will you abide by consensus? I make no threat. I want to know what choice you will make. In turn, I may have to make a choice. This is important to me. Sunray (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a bit of time between christmas & new years now and I've read through the newest version and reckon it's fantastic! it's great to see how well this section has grown and developed from my initial rewrite. Nick carson (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you back, Nick. I also agree that the current version is great. I actually think that if we deal with the question I've raised about Sumer (summarized above and re-stated on the main talk page), we should be done. Then we can put a final draft below for GT and TP to take a last last look at. Sunray (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I cut a part of a sentence out of the Early civilizations area of Sumer material. A time frame is established in the history by giving notable epochs in general and consequences of behavior in them. That area if shortened too much will lose some of its punch. Now it contains some good timeline info and some basic connections to sustainability and unsustainability issues that that culture was involved in (some good ref/note/citations there also). This may be an interesting thing to look at for any interested parties http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU99XEwQhAQ&feature=PlayList&p=9C95DE8754AE61FB&index=48 skip sievert (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Put in a connector picture to multiple related oil articles in the 'peak oil area. Also made the previous link to -- name="Goodland (1975)">Goodland, R.J. (1975) The tropical origin of ecology: Eugen Warming’s jubilee. Oikos, 26, 240-245. [5] - to a connector link that describes the material a little further. Also this ref/note for the last section in the history area to reference industrial ecology Kay, J.J. "On Complexity Theory, Exergy and Industrial Ecology: Some Implications for Construction Ecology.",Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buildings,edited by Kibert, C., Sendzimir, J., Guy, B., pp 72-107, Spon Press, 2002

Made a new ref/cit/note to complete copy of this An updated version of the World Conservation Strategy, http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/caring/caring.html so that people can click on it and read it. skip sievert (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to make the Sumer example more relevant to a History of Sustainability. In doing so I have relied on Thompson and Wright. Unfortunately the other reference formerly used, [6] is not one that we can use as it is a set of research notes, rather than a publication. Let me know your thoughts. Sunray (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work I reckon - it links together the ideas both within the Early Civn section and the overall historical discussion. I think we are now down to very minor tweaking ... and at present I cant see a tweak anywhere! Granitethighs (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely good, well done to all. But with a fresh pair of eyes I've seen a couple more tweaks - in purple. Also added more references - we still have a few unreferenced claims.

I think the pictures are great. I'm not sure if there's a place for the "history of CO2" graph I posted on this page, after all - if there is, I can't see it, but the graph may find a home somewhere else. As I've said elsewhere, I don't personally think the "three circles" diagram reflects reality, but it certainly does reflect current mainstream understanding, so I've no objection to it being in a history section.

My reasons behind the change to the Early Civilisation section are on the main discussion page as there was quite a conversation already happening there. There's a nice opportunity for a picture, but I'll wait to see if people like the text first.

I'm still slightly uneasy with the prominence given to the "decade of education for sustainable development" - to date, the difference this has made in my life was the inexplicable arrival of a box of "resources" - diaries and calendars full of pictures of smiling African children - which sat on my desk for a couple of months before I could persuade someone to take it off my hands. Perhaps I should be generous as the decade still has 6 years left to run :-). But there are a lot of other sustainability initiatives in the early 21st century, and I think it's risky to pick one. However I've left the text as is and am happy to go with the majority on this.--Travelplanner (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I further tweaked some areas for language and clarity. I also think the decade of education for sustainable development should be dropped because once again the U.N. is over weighted here and elsewhere, which I see as a continuing problem in general for the article. skip sievert (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A few points. Skip, it would help enormously to know what edits you have made - otherwise it means re-reading the whole section again. TP has made her changes in purple so it is immediately apparent what she has done and it can be quickly assessed to see whether it fits in etc. The team decided to use colour. You may not like that but some device to make your changes clear would help a lot. At this stage I think TP and GT and maybe Sunray would prefer some form of 3 rings within the overall environment, not the one indicated above. Agree with TPs comment on the "decade". There is definitely a place for the CO2 diagram TP but my view would be later on in the energy section. Granitethighs (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the editing markers (strikeouts and colours) were removed in Skipsievert's edits. It makes it more difficult to follow who has added what. TP made a number of additions and many are no longer evident. Also, many of my edits were eliminated. Some additional concerns:

• The reinsertion of the statement: "The surplus of storable food created by this economy allowed the population to settle in one place instead of migrating after wild foods and grazing land. It also allowed for a much greater population density." This is problematic, since neither of the sources say that. Of course food storage is a factor in population increase and allowing a population to settle. However, from the sources I've read, it is not a causal factor in Mesopotamia. Both Wright and Thompson identify a number of factors in the rise of civilization in Sumer. One of the most significant was water control. For some reason Skipsievert eliminated that. I will try to re-word this.
• "Sumaria": This was used at one time, but is a misnomer. "Sumer" is the correct English.
• The elimination of the factors leading to the decline of Sumer. I believe that this is central to the theme of the History section because it links up with our own global problems of sustainability. The way it is worded now, salination is the only factor listed in the decline of Sumer. This is overly simplistic.
• The elimination of dates for the various civilizations. I think that these are valuable as historical reference points.
• The use of BC vs BCE. Most of the sources I've looked at use BCE. Since this was a pre-Christian civilization, BCE seems more appropriate.

I don't want to simply revert Skipsievert's changes. I would rather address the points I've raised via editing. Comments? Sunray (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing in all these suggestions makes sense to me. Granitethighs (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When the Mesopotamians invented the wheel technology, the biggest thing beside carts pulled by ass's, was to use it in the potter wheel. This was an invention also where the wheel was employed. The places where herders, fishermen and farmers met were the first markets, where goods were traded by barter. This abundance of goods for some... led to the creation of the mother of all savings accounts: pottery. Pottery was mass produced for the first time... and exporting/trade in pottery vessels occurred on a mass scale. Huge temple buildings were used to store grain also... a kind of common granary controlled by kings and or temple priests. Barley was used as a common currency in a metric of other commodities... by the average citizen.

Once there were pots in which to store agricultural goods, food science was born. Because agricultural productivity is seasonal, but need is perennial, barley became beer, grapes became wine, wheat became flour and bread... milk became yogurt and cheese. This is how the original commodity money of barley came about. It all looks pretty good currently up above. Probably time to move on to another section? BCE seems more appropriate. Yes. skip sievert (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A minor point perhaps but wasn't Sumer one of several empires within Mesopotamia? Our text doesn't suggest that (does it?) ... Granitethighs (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sumer was a collection of city states around the Lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now southern Iraq. Each of these cities had individual rulers. The history of Sumer tends to be divided into five periods. They are the Uruk period, which saw the dominance of the city of that same name, the Jemdat Nasr period, the Early Dynastic periods, the Agade period, and the Ur III period - the entire span lasting from 3800 BCE to around 2000 BCE. In addition, there is evidence of the Sumerians in the area both prior to the Uruk period and after the Ur III Dynastic period, but relatively little is known about the former age and the latter time period is most heavily dominated by the Babylonians. The word 'Mesopotamia' is Greek for... between the rivers. skip sievert (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What I was meaning was that Sumer and Mesopotamia were not, as it were, separate entities (empires/civilisations/city-states like Akkadia), wasn't Sumer part of a larger and more encompassing Mesopotamia? Our text reads as though they were two separate places (doesn't it?) - perhaps its OK, I'm not sure. Granitethighs (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that Mesopotamia is the region (now Iraq). Sumer, Akkad, Babylonia and Assyria were empires that arose in the region. Sunray (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was driving at. A very minor point but if that is so then perhaps we could save words by referring only to Mesopotamia (or only the fertile crescent) in the sentence. "Archeological evidence suggests the first large scale city states were located in Sumer, in Mesopotamia and the fertile crescent area. Settled cultures became established in India, China, Mexico, Peru and in parts of Europe." It is a really minor point - I think we can probably move on to the next topic to stop me getting over picky - anyway, reduction might lose some of the sense. Granitethighs (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Now I can sleep! Granitethighs (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Couple of points... /* Early civilizations */ No forests,woods, or trees in Mesopotamia, Also no evidence that war destroyed them.. it was purely food production. So... removed the reference to tree destruction causing erosion. They truly did not have trees in this area... or if they did they were far and few between, and never an issues except in literature. Lumber was scarce... and required export from far away, and was used sparingly. Also... there is no evidence to my knowledge that war has any connection to the demise there... apparently from the evidence it was purely the relative collapse of food production... as to the actual situation in Sumeria. Actual food production seems to be the corollary as to collapse. I think this can be seen here in this chart. They warred in Mesopotamia from the start... all the way through their history... so that can not be directly document as to their demise. Food production on the other hand can. Changed things slightly accordingly. Also adding a ref/note... to the later part of the article Costanza R. (2003). Early History of Ecological Economics and ISEE. Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics. skip sievert (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to see what you edited in and out please Skip? Granitethighs (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Click on the page history above here... it is very simple, and it will show exactly what is done and what has not been done. That is the method of determining the page history as to edits. I have made a general synopsis for the sake of continuity though... and to inform in general and keep people up to date with extra reasons and rationale for said edits. skip sievert (talk)

Skipsievert: Re: Deforestation, Wright says:

"A small civilization such as Sumer, dependent on a single ecosystem and without high ground, was especially vulnerable to flood and drought... Like us, the Sumerians were only dimly aware that human activity was also to blame. Floodplains will always flood, sooner or later, but deforestation of the great watersheds upstream made inundations much fiercer and more deadly than they would otherwise have been" (Wright, 2004, p. 102).

As summarized in the current draft, there was a complex of factors leading to the downfall of Sumerian civilization and chronic warfare was certainly one of these. With respect to war, Wright says:

"After the mid-third millennium, there was no new land to be had. Population was then at a peak, the ruling class top-heavy, and chronic warfare required the support of standing armies—nearly always a sign, and a cause, of trouble. Like the Easter Islanders, the Sumerians failed to reform their society to reduce its environmental impact. On the contrary, they tried to intensify production, especially during the Akkadian empire (c. 2350-2150 BC) and their swan song under the Third Dynasty of Ur, which fell in 2000 BC" (Wright, p. 106) [emphasis mine].

Thompson's findings are not inconsistent with those of Wright. His study is more complex, focussing as it does on the interrelationship between complexity, diminishing marginal returns and fragmentation in Mesopotamia. Nevertheless, both Wright and Thompson refer to Tainter’s theory in The Collapse of Complex Societies. One of the factors that Thompson considers is "hinterland incursions." Clearly barbarian invasions from the hinterland (i.e., "chronic warfare") are correlated with Sumer's decline. Thompson states that the best developed explanations for Mesopotamian decline relate to agricultural intensification: "agricultural intensification, especially when abetted by political centralization, led to over-irrigation, soil salinity, a decline in agricultural productivity, and political-economic instability..." Another theme, he says, relates to political fragmentation. However, he also finds a number of other factors complementary to these two arguments:

"Seemingly complementary to both arguments are emphases for and against various kinds of environmental shocks—a slight shift in rainfall (Postgate 1992), river water scarcity (Butzer 1995; Gasche et al. 1998), catastrophic natural disasters (Weiss and Courty 1993; Weiss et al. 1993; Weiss 2000; Butzer 1997; Matthews 2003), barbarian intrusions (Speiser 1952; Buccellati 1966; Edzard 1967a, 1967b; Diakonoff 1969; Oates 1979; Yoffee 1988; Lupton 1996)⁴; defeat in warfare (Edzard 1967b; Postgate 1977), or a loss of trade networks (Ekholm 1980; Potts 1994)..." (Thompson, 1988, p. 615).

[Edit conflict] Now, I've tried very hard to summarize this information in a form that would be both readable and focused on the main themes of the history section. In doing so, I've tended to rely on Wright because he does a very good job of synthesizing a great deal of complex information. I am inclined to tinker with the wording to more strongly emphasize the ecological factors. However, that can wait for later. For now, I think we are very close to having a draft that can go into the article. If others agree, I will upload it. GT, Nick, TP: comments? Sunray (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We can put the pics to the test later. Granitethighs (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup I vote for loading it up. There's a bit more about Sumer than I would expect to find in a history of sustainability, but it's well written and does indeed bring out some themes that have more general meaning (but please don't make this bit any longer).

Can we please also load up the improved (but not 100% complete) lead? I am made nervous by the knowledge that over 1,000 people a day look at the old version, which isn't quite correct on some important points. Also, when we upload, can we create a clean talk page with the uploaded version to discuss any more revisions needed as the article progresses?--Travelplanner (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is somewhat longer than I would have hoped. However, we will get a chance to do some trimming when we do a final edit of the article. I also agree that the interim version of the lead should go in. Sunray (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thompson states that the best developed explanations for Mesopotamian decline relate to agricultural intensification: Best not to get into the war business in this part of the article... because as said... humans have been warring... and they warred on a large scale all through out Sumer history. Also... the way of phrasing of erosion previously implied erosion in Sumer... flooding yes... but it was the upstream flooding that gave Sumer its rich land which came down from up river in the floods. More than any thing in this scenario... food was the thing that collapsed them... and that came about because they tried to get too much out of the land. skip sievert (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also tweaked the "Definition" section and think it could go in now. What do others think? On re-reading the edited lead I think it still has a way to go on several fronts, but am happy for it to go up. IMO it has now been over-edited, probably because we all have slightly different takes on appropriate words etc. I actually prefer a number of the statements that have been in there at various times in the past (not on the current main page). And we need to make it more of an overview of what is to come - but that can all be done later. Also Skip, no offence intended, but I think you made quite a lot of changes to the lead. That is fine but I cannot see what you deleted and what you added - and that is important. I tried going to the history page and checking through as you suggested. I might be doing it wrongly but that seemed an inordinately lengthy and difficult way of viewing changes and I eventually lost patience. Like the rest of us please could you select a colour for additions, and strike out things you edit out? Granitethighs (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the "Definition" subpage? If so, I am unclear as to why we are discussing that here. Sunray (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was responding to TPs proposal to upload the lead and suggesting we upload the definition too. Way off track. It is all on the Definition page anyway. Granitethighs (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability/History&diff=next&oldid=262179717 As to diffs.

This created the situation ... but not require it. Word change. Language changes add to clarity if more accurate.

This is less specific and more accurate... Decreasing agricultural production and other factors, led to the decline of the civilization as opposed to ----------- the collapse of the civilization. It declined over centuries... and sped up... but never overtly collapsed.

During this period which was referred to as the collapse period in the former edit... 2100 BC to 1700 BC a huge number of things was going on... and there was no overt collapse... this was in fact the very height of the Babylonian empire... then the bottom fell out.. but even that happened by attrition. skip sievert (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I can live with your changes. However, I would like you to know that I was reflecting the views of the source. Wright did say "required." He also was unequivocal about the collapse of Sumer. He says (p 110) "Easter Island and Sumer wrecked their environments so thoroughly, and fell so hard, that they became effectively extinct. But Rome and the Maya managed to linger in simplified "mediaeval" forms after their collapses..." If we are to edit together in future, you need to bear in mind that when I am citing material, I try to stay very close to the source. Tinkering with wording to reflect our own points of view is not useful, IMO. By the way, the phrase "and other factors" is vague and I will replace it with something more cogent in future. But not right now, I'm burned out on this. Sunray (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I put other factors was to keep the length and breadth down... and I could list 5 factors easily... but highlighting war in particular is too specific and leaves too much out, of a lot of other things. Curious people can click on the Fertile crescent area for more info. -

Keep in mind that the Marsh Arabs in that area are some of the original Mesopotamians, and they survived up until Saddams time... when he nearly killed them off by draining the swamps... so it is inaccurate to say they completely collapsed, and Wright probably did not know about genetic tests of who the people there now are descended from... so I would say that while he may be noted and notable... he is not an end all and be all. There are many historians of that area. He can say required as he likes... but created is probably more accurate..history can go in various directions. It does not change the overall meaning a great deal in context either way... but it may be more descriptively accurate. Tinkering with wording usually is appropriate unless giving a direct quote on something... and then it can be shown as a quote. My favorite historian of that area is Donald Redford... and I particularly like Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton Press, and two other books by James B Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, texts . - skip sievert (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Always remembering that we are writing an article on sustainability, not on the history of Mesopotamia! Sunray (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree... but this history is vitally important of course and yes, I am picky about presentation...

More info as to this According to the UNEP, an indigenous group of people known as Marsh Arabs—who trace their culture to ancient Sumerians and Babylonians—has been displaced by the loss of the marshlands. About a fifth of the group's estimated population of half a million reportedly have settled in refugee camps in Iran, while the rest live in Iraq. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/0518_crescent.html

The second page of this article is particularly interesting also The dams have substantially reduced the water available for downstream ecosystems and eliminated the floodwaters that nourished the marshlands. skip sievert (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)