"Sustainability" has been a buzz word for some time now, being used in association with any subject.
How can I sustain my weight?
How can I sustain my wealth?
How can I sustain my way of life?
How can we sustain life on this planet?
How can our company sustain profitability?
I've always had an issue with that word, or to me more precise, the way it is used. For example, if someone were to ask me "How do we sustain mankind?", I would ask them to explain to me what they think mankind is. Most people use this word to speak of sustaining the "status quo", as in maintaining their vision of normal existence, therefore only scratching the surface of the true account of sustainability.
If something is to be sustained, it needs to be deserving, have a positive purpose, and the ability to grow. Sustaining something that is stagnant is not "sustaining", it is just prolonging its demise. To sustain something is to support it, to encourage it, to give it it's resources to thrive, excel and IMPROVE. What can we do to require less to sustain and provide more to the universe? If we can sustain it now, what can we do to thrive off of current resources and create positive equity?
Sustainability is synced with efficiency for consumers "In this example we are using mankind", and should be addressed as how can "I" or "We" require less to thrive instead of how much more we need to get to sustain our "status quo".
This obviously refers to finite resources, and not to other resources such as currency or intangibles such as knowledge, wisdom, inspiration, in which we should aspire to accumulate and use in manners that benefits in what we see fit.
I appreciate the choice for this assignment,and look forward to networking with the group.
Respectfully yours,
Jacob A. Billett, M.B.A
CEO Billett Enterprises, Inc.
