What Does Sustainable Mean to You?

During a recent conversation, I was asked one of the most complex questions I have ever been asked: what does sustainable mean to you?

I wasn't expecting the question and was caught off guard.  However, since I was attempting to impress the one who asked, I thought quickly and came up with what I thought was a decent answer.  At a pasture walk I had attended earlier in the month, a speaker had been talking about grazing systems and had spoken about regenerating the land and ecosystem to the point that it is sustainable and doesn't need outside help.  I talked about that and the person who had asked the question seemed to like my answer and the conversation moved on.

The question, however, stuck with me.  I've been pondering it these past couple of weeks, somehow not fully satisfied with my answer.  Part of the problem is that I used the word "sustainable" in my answer.  That's just embarrassing.  Another part of the problem is that "sustainable" is ridiculously difficult to define due to the complexity of the systems to which the term is generally applied.

For example, let's say I want my farm to be sustainable.  In what way do I want it to be sustainable?  I could say I want it to be financially sustainable so that I don't have to work off the farm.  But that might destroy the environment or break down relationships.  If I want to be environmentally sustainable, I might not be able to make money and the farm will fail.  If I desire relational sustainability, the farm might never grow or be profitable because I am trying to please everyone.  In every case, the farm breaks down.

So, for the farm to be truly sustainable, it must be able to sustain the integral relationships, the environment, profitability, and in all likelihood, a number of other factors, too.  I still haven't really defined "sustainable," though.  All I've done is illustrate it's complexity.

Back to the original question, then: what does sustainability mean to you?  As I said, I've been pondering that question for a couple of weeks now and have begun to form a fuller answer.  I still think that for a system to be sustainable, it should be able to exist without outside inputs.  For example, a farm is not truly sustainable if it requires the owner to have an off-farm job for extra income.  

But more than just existing as it is, I think sustainability means adaptability.  No system exists in a bubble.  The reality is that outside influences can and do easily disrupt the normal existence of a system.  Think about the effects of fires and floods on ecosystems, for example.  For a system to truly be sustainable, it must be able to adapt to changes, whether those changes come from within the system or from outside influences.

I have areas of pasture that flooded this year.  Those areas aren't going to be completely ruined, though, because the soil and ecosystem of the pasture is adaptable.  It is certainly not a fun scenario to deal with, but I know that the pasture will bounce back once the massive puddles dry up.  My bit of pasture is adaptable, and is, therefore, sustainable.  In a different situation, the flooding might devastate an area if the topsoil is thin and easily stripped away, and there is no diversity in the ecosystem to bring the land back to a healthy state.  That portion of land is not adaptable, and therefore, not sustainable.

This does not, of course, apply to any situation in which the change is catastrophic.  For example, I'm not about to call a town destroyed by a catastrophic flood unsustainable if it can't rebuild without help.  That would be ridiculous.

The approach of one of the storms that filled the low spots in my pasture with water. 
I've lost count of the number of times I've filled my boots out there.

I also want to point out that change can be good.  I might change my grazing system for the better, but the pasture is still going to need to adapt to that.  Through the adaptation process, the pasture might even be improved from what it was, so that it will be able to adapt even better the next time I change something.  I am not saying that change is good or bad.  However, it can cause stress on a system and that system must be able to adapt or it will not survive.

This has been a lot of words and explanation.  Allow me now to put my current definition into one sentence.  For a farm (or other system) to be sustainable, it must exist at a point at which it is able to adapt to change without outside aid.  

Edit: August 4, 2019
Since publishing this post, my definition has been slightly revised, thanks to responses.  My current working definition of "sustainable" is as follows: For a farm (or other system to be sustainable, it must continuously and actively maintain a balance of all parts,while being able to adapt to change without outside aid.

I might revise that definition many times throughout my life as I continue to read and learn and experience, but for now, you have my answer to our starting question.  Now, I will turn the question to you, my readers.  What does sustainable mean to you?

Send me your answers in the comments!  I look forward to learning from each of you!