My pounding on the fundamental fallacy of sustainability with evolutionary logic appears to be having an impact. Sustainability does not exist anywhere in the universe, and should therefore not be used as the basis for finance programs determining the expansion of humanity.
The feeble defense I now see creep in is how institutional investors are no longer calling their investment strategies sustainable but “more sustainable.” Meaning, less sustainable than their original reference to sustainability’s absolutism inferred.
We have won some evolutionary ground here.
Humanity must come to terms with how sustainability cannot be achieved in a world subjugated to nature’s entropy. The guaranteed decline of available energy on “our” planet, carved out by our mindless presupposition of sustainability, causes humanity to be on a serious collision course with nature.
Indeed, a proxy of sustainability as a consequence can only be achieved by the quality of renewal at its cause. And since the first-principles of renewal, as dictated by nature, are fundamentally different from the hollow presuppositions of sustainability, no proxy of sustainability can be achieved without fundamentally rewriting the investment thesis.
The first-principles of nature, dictating the excellence of renewal, are straightforward. Now is the time to change not just to change the vernacular, but the meaning and relativity of sustainability to meet nature’s rule.