>Anyone else notice that the model for sustainability is what existed
>with family farms in the past and they were not sustainable? The market
>decided that.

The whole reason anyone is talking about sustainability is because 
what "the market decided" is so obviously destructive of the communities 
and ecosystems that sustain our quality of life.  The basic concept is hard 
to argue with: there exist opportunities to make relatively small short-
term gains at the expense of long-term productivity.  The modern pattern is 
to blindly decide to have faith in the capitalist doctrine that indulging 
in short-sighted greed, gluttony, and vanity will somehow ultimately 
promote the general welfare.  Alternatively, we can recognize opportunites 
to exercise restraint and then act responsibly.

This ties in with the recent discussion on commodity honey.  To call 
anything a commodity is to blind ourselves to the particulars of how that 
thing was produced.  As such I believe the concept of a commodity is 
directly at odds with the concept of sustainability.  No matter how 
narrowly we define our commodities (including organic designation), the 
concept of a commodity requires equating all products with a given least 
common denominator.  Not wanting to look at honey as a commodity is not to 
say that Brian's honey is empirically any better than Bob's.  I haven't 
heard anything substantive to suggest that.  But I don't see any hope for a 
thorough exercise of responsibility on the part of the consumer apart from 
a real personal connection to the producer.

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************