apparently rests on the presumption of 'sustainable development'
returning to our first working definition
the one that seems to ignore the wider ecology
this is surely an oxymoron
a crass cognitive dissonance
an orwellian doublethink
which echoes pretty much all government- and media-speak
not to mention the world of academia
like talking about 'humane slaughter' or 'sensitive culling'
but looking at our revised definition
it actually makes perfect sense
for repair, nurture and healing are surely necessary
to sustain the remaining life on this planet