lasting vs. changing vs. the whole

Sustainability implies "lasting." In the context of "the whole". And do that requires "change". But if you change, is the thing that is lasting now different? Did it last?

SO, I'm thinking that in our sustainability plans we should take care to have one discussion about what it is that we want to last, and another discussion about all the different aspects of it that we want to last. The lasting part is usually done with things like net present value analysis. The comprehensive part of it is done with the triple bottom line of social, environmental and economic aspects that we want to keep in front of us, as dimensions of the lasting. The implicit implication is that the thing we want to last is something that has boundaries, that we can define with boundaries. We want our city to last, say. Or our house. And the way that we will ensure that it lasts is to pay attention to all the dimensions of the ways that "it" interacts with the triple bottom line.

So the basic idea of sustainability is that the thing with boundaries that we want to last, won't last unless it keeps at bay all the factors outside of its boundaries, and hopefully adds value to them. So whose plan is it? The plan of the thing to last (the inside plan), or the plan of the overall system to survive with or without the thing (the outside plan)? This reminds me of the quote about "God is the space between the individual and the 'other'." It doesn't make sense to have a sustainability plan for a thing with out the system having a plan (which it doesn't, generally), or for the system to have a plan that ignores the things that want to last. We are left with the "idea" of sustainability as some way to make a connection between what the thing needs in order to last (the self) and what the system needs in order to last (the other), with or without the thing lasting.

Let me know if you could follow this. And what it means. And I'll put it into my sustainability plan. :)