I'm not interested if someone can get rich from the product.
The point is are the resources plentiful, renewable, and biodegradable.
@Empiricism_Reloaded That seems like defeatist logic... if someone cant get rich off the product then the product wont ever be made.. even if something is plentiful and renewable it can still be something people get rich off of.... People literally get rich selling mushrooms and you could grow your own in a showbox with some woodchips.
What I meant is that I don't define sustainability within an economic model that has a primary for-profit directive.
For example, most of the solutions to mitigate climate change such as restoring forests and peatlands are not being implemented on scale because no business can make a profit out of those solutions.
Many people perceive mitigating climate change within an economic paradigm (i.e., money). However, the current economy won't mitigate climate change. Call that "defeatest" if you wish. I call it logical. The profit incentive is the wrong incentive to mitigate climate change.
"and people must want a thing in order for them to be motivated to sustain the thing"
If people don't want to restore nature, they will be motivated to mitigate climate change.
There are other motivations than money.
@Empiricism_Reloaded You seem to really misunderstand ideas like "money" or "wealth". you dont need money to make profits.. if i sell 2 cows to you for 10 sheep, then sell 10 sheep to someone else for 4 cows, even though money doesnt exist I still profited.
Yes you can be motivated by things other than money, but in doing so you have created a venture dealing in profits whether you want it or not.. as long as people need things and provide things you have an economy, and capitalism and economy existed long before money.