I hadn’t planned to talk again about YAWNs and APLS but Green Bean, arduous, and Iris left such good, meaty comments that I felt I couldn’t do them justice in comment form. Plus, Maggie’s already in bed so I’m on my own tonight for a post.
After thinking about it some more, I think my core problem with the term APLS is the difference in purpose between it and the YAWN acronym. YAWN is supposed to be descriptive and match up with a very specific demographic group. APLS seems like more of a rallying cry encouraging people to change how they see themselves. Both are fine purposes, but it seems weird to replace one with another.
We can continue to discuss specifics (and probably will), but basically it boils down to goals. If the goal is to have a drop-in replacement for YAWN as was stated in arduous’s post, then I think APLS fails. If you want to seed discussion in the green community, it’s working great!
But on to the comment responses! Here are some things I’ve seen people say and why I think they’re misguided. There’s also lots I agree with, but what fun is talking about that?
Comment #1 - Focus on the US and China/India will follow
I agree with Grean Bean that it’s important to realize that we’re a wealthy country, especially when we’re thinking about the sacrifices we’re willing to make for the sake of the environment. I don’t agree that India and China don’t also have a major part to play. In my mind, environmental impact follows a bell curve. The very poorest usually have little impact, especially on a global scale (although large populations can magnify that portion). From there, impact increases very quickly as you start getting to people who can drive, buy imported food, use fertilizers, etc. This doesn’t require a lot of wealth and, again, can be magnified by population size. Once you get rich enough though, your impact levels off and perhaps even decreases. You can afford to eat only local foods and live off the grid without impacting your lifestyle unduly. The “bang for your buck” solutions therefore often target the developing nations at the cusp of the impact curve. To match China reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 1 ton of CO2 per capita, the US would have to reduce emissions by over four times as much!
Comment #2 - Poor people can’t live sustainably
I see this argument in various forms all over the place and don’t really understand it, so maybe I’m missing something. Lots of stuff that we do in the US to live sustainably (like cutting down on consumption) don’t make sense in a developing nation, but that doesn’t mean that the goal isn’t available. Yes, it’s harder for someone making a subsistence living to make changes. But, on the other hand, they have fewer changes to make. The poorest countries already have an environmental footprint of less than 1 Earth (in fact, the first country with an environmental impact above 1 Earth is China).
Maslow’s hierarchy is a great way of thinking about things but it’s not a literal truth. If it were, then fasting could never lead to self-actualization. In a less abstract sense, I agree with arduous that subsistence farmers don’t care that sustainability helps the planet. I just don’t accept that that’s the only value of sustainability. One of the reasons I think sustainability is a great concept is that it provides so many benefits. Not only does farming sustainably help the planet, it provides more food and water to those who need it. That’s one of the reasons I think promoting sustainability in developing countries should be a priority. It’s not just good for the planet, it’s good for them.
Comment #3 - If you’re not trying, it doesn’t count
The argument seems to be that unless you’re working towards sustainability, you don’t belong. I like that better than an arbitrary income (or even wealth) cut-off but it still seems a bit odd. Why shouldn’t people living sustainably be included even if they’re not working particularly hard at it? Does this mean that the Amish don’t count as sustainable because their sustainability is a side-effect of other life choices?
Of course, I’m also a philosopher by training, so edge cases usually bug me.
Comment #3A - It’s all relative
Another take on the inclusion principle is that it depends on the society you live in. It’s not about whether or not your lifestyle is actually sustainable but if it’s more sustainable than your neighbors. There’s some value in looking at relative sustainability, but I don’t think it’s a good long-term view. For one thing, it makes it a little more competitive and a little less communal, since your sustainability depends on others not being sustainable. Primarily, my problem with this is that sustainabilty really doesn’t depend on the people around you. If you’re living sustainably, you’re living sustainably no matter how your neighbors live.
Comment #4 - “Affluent” is good because it sparks debate
It does spark debate and a lot of the debate has been really interesting. If that’s your goal, then you’ve succeeded! On the other hand, if you’re trying to replace YAWN as an acronym, making APLS debatable detracts from that because people like me and Iris won’t feel comfortable with it.
Comment #5 - ‘Persons’ is elitist
Whoops! This one was actually mine, but ‘elitist’ was the wrong word for my concerns and arduous called me on it. I blame the constant low-grade mentions in the media for getting it stuck in my subconscious. I’ve never liked the word ‘persons’ because it doesn’t mean anything to me. I know what a person is, what people are, and what peoples are, but what are persons? What makes persons different from people? It took me a while to get used to peoples too, but now I can see that there’s legitimate need for it. Maybe eventually I’ll feel the same way about ‘persons.’ Until then, I’ll continue my irrational grudge.
Related posts