To me, sustainability means not only our own healthy lives but also maintain other lives or environment health too. Without destroying nature or resources, we should be able to survive. Solow’s definition seemed mainly focusing only on human’s need but to me, sustainability should include nature or earth perspective too. I don’t think it is possible for us to leave nature 100% untouched but there should be the way that we can be part of the ecosystem without destroying or giving too much impact on other organisms. And if we can do that, I think that is the sustainable society I would like to see.
Solow mentioned that we have to consider not only resources, but also environment, technological knowledge and productive capacity to leave behind for the future generations. I agree with that but I can’t agree with the idea that sustainability is depends on availability of substitute. We have advanced technology which is developing in fast speed and we can create almost everything. But still, I think we are losing some value. It is true that substitute can decrease the pressure on wild salmon, but that doesn’t make wild salmon sustainable. Aquaculture probably helps wild salmon sustainability by shifting people’s demand to substitute. When demand for wild salmon decrease, their population might recover little bit but people still destroying wild salmon’s habitat, and many other things that might affect wild salmon’s population. Human already have done so much on nature and it is so difficult to expect all the consequences. Aquaculture might be one way to help slow down decrease of wild salmon population, but I don’t think it solve the problem.
I love your idea of how sustainability incorporates our duty to the earth just as it is our duty to our fellow man. If we as humans don’t consider our impact on the earth when it comes to the topic of sustainability then do a degree we’ll just be living a healthy life on a dying planet.