Why “sustainable” dampens my mood and “regenerative” builds me up

In an interesting article about Patagonia, which just called itself an unsustainable brand, it says in the last paragraph:

Patagonia’s rejection of the label “sustainable” is rooted in a deep understanding of human psychology. The concept of being “done” implies a static state, a finish line that suggests there is nothing more to achieve. Patagonia recognizes that this mindset can lead to complacency and stagnation. By acknowledging that it is not a sustainable brand, it embraces a perpetual sense of growth and improvement. This psychological shift fuels its determination to consistently raise the bar and make a greater impact.

It’s a collective style of growth mindset that rallies people around the idea that humans — and the organizations they build — can always improve.

This is to me that total difference between “sustainable agriculture” and “regenerative agriculture” (although in a german term, I call it “resource building agriculture”; the term doesn’t translate well into english) – the one turns me down, doesn’t really get me going – the other stirs me up and motivates me.

Leave a Reply