I am not so sure that "sustainable" is what I would place at the top of my hierarchy of values. Is it even an achievable, or desirable, aim? I don't think so. The only things that are sustainable are those that are over, dead, devoid of energy or at their lowest possible energy state. The running down of a clock at exactly 2:00 o'clock is a sustainable state. But if you want the clock to be a useful tool for telling time you must keep adding energy to the mechanism.
For me personally a more meaningful attitude would be to choose an aim - and then give energy to anything that moves me towards the aim, which is"good", and try to withdraw my energy from anything that leads me away from from the aim, or stuck in place, ie. what is "bad" from the point of view of my "aim". .
To my benefit, I did change the meaning of the word to be:
We need certain fundamentals that will be adopted or chosen by the mainstream population just to have a functional and sustainable environment, so the majority doesn't war and feel displaced. (History teach us that overthrowing and war, is the inevitable conclusion during turmoil of competing societies and countries).
But I like the idea of the "aim" you propose. :)