I am little satisfied with journal articles that use as a bandwagon for income redistribution schemes. The review of a recently submitted manuscript promoting more-fair sustainability, and little else, triggered a memory of faded newspaper accounts of a 19th-century communal settlement on the Dakota plains. Excluding the local historian, few people now residing in the area retain any knowledge of the once-brave dream of Russian Jewish immigrants to farm with distributional fairness. If the sustainability research model is constrained by distributional fairness it will likely enjoy an academic permanence similar to that of the forgotten immigrant commune. Just as early socialists and social scientists favored utopian communal experiments, economists, sociologists, and planners still tend to view sustainable systems as subject to social engineering or abstract economic maximization. For example, a classic economic social welfare model taught to mid-level students, Pareto optimality, requires that policy change make no person worse off: the simple assumption is made that only if all individuals are made better (worse) off can we definitely state that a given movement is good (bad) (Samuelson, 1965, p. 236). A policy-action accompanied by a definitionally true Pareto optimum outcome has probably never been recorded. Weber's ideal type, like Pareto optimality, was a construct meant to point out characteristic features of a system that would provide insight in furthering our understanding of complex phenomena like sustainable systems. The ideal typical concept will help to develop our skill in imputation in research: ... it (Ideal Type) is no 'hypothesis' but it offers guidance to the construction of hypotheses.... In its conceptual purity, this mental construct (Gedankenbild) cannot be found empirically anywhere in reality. It is a utopia (Weber, 1949, p. 90, emphases in text). When a manuscript posits that to be sustainable a system must enhance not only inter-generational but also intra-generational income distribution equity (e.g., see Farrell & Hart, 1998), the ideal-type is transformed into a non-Weberian hypothesis. To use social science to advocate Pareto optimality, a more ideal-type social system, or sustainability that has zero negative impacts on people, plant/animal species, or water systems is to fabricate not objective science but utopian fiction. For example, if we define organic agriculture as non-use of all man-made chemicals, fertilizers, and laboratory genetics, then sustainable organic agriculture on a scale larger than a micro-environment will not exist for long before vanishing, like the 19th-century Russian immigrant commune. A natural agriculture, thus defined, will achieve little success because of the failure to incorporate benefits of production processes derived from technological innovations. This failure is abetted by intellectual blindness to complex inter-linkages that characterize human-based production systems. Ongoing changes in technology, economic organization, and societal institutions compromise sustainability processes. We are a species that is too changeful to achieve sustainability as a utopian ideal type. Economic and social systems will by definition change or fail before systemic sustainability is achieved. Strict sustainability can only be defined in that it does not exist in the past, does not exist now, and most likely never will. (1) In this light the equity of development processes between more and less developed economies are no more empirically transparent than income redistribution processes among communities within one region of a country. AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF DAIRY SUSTAINABILITY An integrated modeling approach now in development illustrates the complexity of sustainable dairy production in the Susquehanna watershed that flows into the Chesapeake Bay, an area of much environmental interest at this time. …