This is great: “There’s a big difference between the task of trying to sustain “civilisation” in its current form – supermarkets and all – which is what “sustainability” has largely come to mean, and the task of holding open a space for the things which make life worth living. I’d suggest that it’s this second task, in its many forms, which remains, after we’ve given up on false hopes. (Note that this doesn’t mean organising a campaign against supermarkets, which is the default mode of a lot of what’s called activism.)”
That resonated a very great deal with me!

One thought on “TBTM20100201

  1. Yes, very annoying that what most opponents of the status quo mean by ‘sustainability’ has been both consciously (by some) and ignorantly (by others) co-opted to mean the endless continuation of business-as-usual, which is of course the one thing that is absolutely NOT sustainable…

    I fear the battle for the word is lost and we must find another weapon to stick between the cracks in the great beast’s armour. Not that there’s any hope of bringing it crashing down – only inevitability self-destruction can do that – but by poking it occasionally we draw attention to the space between the monster’s feet, wherein we sing and dance and love.

Comments are closed.