Civil Eats recent list of recommendations for moving green forward this year listed “define sustainability” second. This reminded me of a recent twitter experience (twi-xperience?). I use a service called Tweet Later that lets me define keywords or phrases that I want to know when people use on twitter. One of these is sustainable agriculture.
Over the holidays I noticed one day some skeptical twits about sustainable agriculture. The twitter-ers though sustainable agriculture assuredly would benefit only the wealth and do nothing about poverty or improving the world.
To be honest I was kind of shocked. I replied to the conversation with a question about where they were coming from. The two twits (as in twitter-ers) were silicon valley tech guys from what I could glean in their profile. We went back and forth a bit and I linked to an article from Food First for them (). They checked out the blog and were interested saying they really didn’t know much about it.
The thing that amazed me is how words lose their meaning. How is it even possible that someone could think that “sustainable” agriculture would only benefit the wealthy and not help the poor. What part of “sustainable” do we not understand?