John Ehrenfeld proposes a more clear “sustainability-as-flourishing” where all things need to flourish. Should we use words like “restorative” or “regenerative” or something instead? Your argument seems to be that the sign “sustainability” has been given too many meanings; or maybe not really given any meaning — does that mean we need a new sign or just that we need to double down on what we want/need/desire “sustainability” to mean? Maybe more clearly to the point is that sustainability means nothing without the declaration of what one desires to sustain! thus ehrenfeld’s compound word. Most other words or statements have the same issue; environmentalism for example is it about just the environment untouched by humans? is it about humans and nature coexisting? do we value the environment over humans? Sorry for the ramble.