I'm not interested if someone can get rich from the product.
The point is are the resources plentiful, renewable, and biodegradable.
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.
🇳🇱
@Empiricism_Reloaded Just because you may not define it as such doesnt change that its impossible to have something be sustainable without it being profitable. Anything people want is profitable (see my earlier example), and people must want a thing in order for them to be motivated to sustain the thing.
"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.
@Empiricism_Reloaded haha you sure could, yet that implies demand and thus something that can be profited from.
Can you imagine an economy that had a different primary directive than a profit agenda? For example, what about not-for-profit organizations? The UK's national health service was founded on a health primary directive. "Profit" is merely one idea out of many.
@Empiricism_Reloaded not for profits still profit , its a misleading term I know... It means it doesnt have owners or people that profit through the ownership.. the people in a non profit still walk away with money (sometimes a lot of it), and the company itself still accrues profit and grows.
I suppose you could build a company that never grows, but if it does good by its very nature why would not want it to grow and spread the good thing it does to more people?
By "grow" you mean expand. Do you believe that all industries can continue to expand? i.e., economic "growth" - requiring more resources and power. As that is their agenda.
It would seem that the current economic paradigm is based on many unsustainable ideologies.
@Empiricism_Reloaded no industry, for profit or otherwise, grows infinitely. MArkets have limits. The point is, more important, that even if your motivation is ecological you are still part of economy and profiting (as a company) and that profit is intentional, you just refuse to call it profit when it is.
@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.