“Sustainability”, from Lexicon for an Anthropocene Yet Unseen explores how language barriers between different cultures has affected the current environmental dilemma. The United Nations has dedicated time to concoct plans for sustainability regarding the natural world, however this has caused some unintentional issues; an example being that the word “sustainability” does not directly translate to Spanish. In Spanish, it could potentially possess two different definitions: “to be maintained over time” or “a sense of being reasonable” (Maldonado, Meza, Yates-Doerr).

One of the problems that arises has to do with people assuming that the rest of the world understands the same words but, in reality, they do not. This results in the problem that if a group of people – a large population due to approximately 5.85% of the world’s population speaks Spanish (https://www.listsworld.com/top-10-languages-most-spoken-worldwide/) – does not understand a goal set forth by the United Nations. If this occurs, then the human race cannot cohesively work together towards the common outcome of restoring and sustaining the environment. It creates a split and is therefore more of a burden if everyone wanting to save the planet is not on the same page. Another issue this miscommunication causes as a result of the first is that this leads them to find different solutions to their common problem, which works against each other because of their different interpretations of the term “sustainability”. Opposing solutions become problems because the populations would not be working together to power one large fix to the obstacle, they instead, formulate smaller solutions and do not have a shared mindset.

However, if this hurdle were to be overcome, then we would still have to deal with consequences of modernity and its negative affluences it has had on the environment. Perhaps the question is not: what should we invent that could help sustain the environment? But instead, “what sustainable strategies could we find and repurpose for the current time period?” Advancing technology, while it can be extremely beneficial, can also be detrimental and why not find clean and renewable resources in the past that can also be used in the present day, as a woman named Doña Marta was able to utilize goat feces as fertilizer and their urine as an insecticide (Maldonado, Meza, Yates-Doerr).

Fixing the environmental deterioration needs to be a combination of teamwork between countries and therefore an understanding of possible roadblocks that could come with translation. In addition, being aware that the future is not always the best place to look to for solutions to this dilemma, we need to recognize the past as being a possibility too.

“Sustainability,” from the series Lexicon for an Anthropocene Yet Unseen, uncovers the issue of how the United Nations, and more specifically the United States, is handling the ideas of sustainable living during the Anthropocene in order to mitigate climate change as well as general harm we have done to the environment. 

While climate change mitigation specifically is a relatively recent issue for a major western organization like the United Nations to handle, the methods of which they are managing the issue is one which is as old as western civilization itself. These methods come from an imperialist and particularly western mindset, which is to say that the nations and individuals at the helm of an organization like the United Nations eschew as much responsibility as possible for their actions by using other countries (particularly ones in which the majority of citizens are not white) as some sort of scapegoat for environmental disaster, as we’ve seen in all of the previous readings from this class. 

The major powers within the United Nations have taken it upon themselves to spread a gospel of sustainability to nations in Latin America, much in the same way that major western groups and powers have dubiously spread democracy or Christianity throughout history. These Latin American countries don’t play even close to as big a role in the escalation of carbon emissions as a country like the United States does, but their citizens are being told to practice a sustainable lifestyle on our behalf. This is strange and bad for heaps of reasons. The United States has no intent on imposing these same ideals onto its own citizens, and it’s likely that they never will. I don’t even know what the United States is trying to get out of this, besides maybe just the joy of exerting power and force over people who don’t matter, in their eyes. Most of the people involved in high politics within the US and the UN hardly care or believe in climate change to begin with, so what’s their motive, if not doing it “just because”? Maybe the answer is right in front of me and I can’t see it. But I can’t say I’m surprised that any of this is happening.

In “Sustainability”, from the series: Lexicon for an Anthropocene Yet Unseen, the publication brings up the valid point that “Sustainability is an English Word.” And with that in mind, its clear to see that not only is “Stustainability” a word derived from the English language, but more importantly, the fact that it is western in nature and ideals. This is exactly what the publication discusses.

There is an irony to the word Sustainability. It is an ideal from a culture that most defies it. We preach ideals of Sustainability to the point that we almost force it upon others, others who often meet those ideals better than ourselves. This is what I saw in Marta’s story, the far reaching effects of the western ideals of Sustainability. From her giant silver solos, to her U.S. supplied nutrients, western society had manifested this ideal, forcing it upon others.

However, the problem with this ideal is not in its own nature. In fact, its much more about the hypocrisy of our actions with it. We agree that the world needs to be more sustainable as we see the issues it causes everyday in western society, but instead of forcing ourselves to change it, we’ve decided other parts of the world must do it first.
Of course, in the western world this kind of assimilation is not a new idea. Most prominently, this idea was formed in the eyes of religion, in this case mostly Christianity. However, this kind of assimilation is much different, not just in nature, but rather in the fact that we assimilate others to what we don’t do ourselves so they can delay the problem for us.

We agree that there is a need for change so much to the point that we fund a massive amount of resources in order to advocate for it, yet we hold ourselves to a double standard. To me, this is the real kicker. We force others to change so we don’t have to, and I see no other word for that than hypocrisy.

Picture from the book, “the giving tree”

Once again the western world is attempting to dictate the actions of the whole world, this time through a lens of sustainability. Western culture began its crusade for world domination with religion and the propagation of Judeo-Christian values to all corners of the planet. It has continued through the spreading of western scientific discovery, industrial technology, and more recently social and cultural norms portrayed through the media. Our newest method of western proliferation is sustainability. 

As the article points out, sustainability is an English word (duh). However, the implications of this are impactful for understanding how the idea of sustainability is translated into actions across cultures, especially those that do not speak Indo-European languages. The example given by Maldonado et. al. takes place in Guatemala in a Mam-dominated village. There, western ideas of sustainability are not sustainable; they are destroying local ways of life and disrupting systems that have been built up over hundreds of years. 

The most unsettling aspect of this argument is that until reading this article I had never considered that sustainability (the word and the idea) would not translate across boundaries. I had always thought that sustainable practices should be implemented across the world (with changes to adapt to local cultures, of course) as a global solution to climate change. Using a different word, especially one from a non-English language, had never crossed my mind. It is time we step outside of our western way of thinking and look to other cultures around the world for sustainable practices instead of trying to fight western practices of capitalism and consumerism (and their associated negative impacts) with a western idea of sustainability.

Activists, philosophers, scientists, and other environmental scholars say we need a “World War II scale mobilization” or to “adopt a spiritual ecology” to fight climate change, but in a way is that not what we have already? Sustainability is the religion of western environmentalists, and we (western environmentalists) are the missionaries, spreading the practices and ideas of sustainable living to improve the health of the global citizens and the planet itself. However, as Maldonado et. al. discuss, the benefits of sustainability are not, in fact, beneficial for everyone. From this perspective, is the propagation of sustainability any better than the spreading of Judeo-Christian beliefs?

In “Sustainability” from the series: Lexicon for an Anthropocene Yet Unseen by Emily Yates-Doerr, Maria Garcia Maldonado, and Rosario Garcia Meza, Doerr and co. talk about the importance of a reference frame when addressing global topics, in this case the way in which sustainability is presented globally, and particularly the way in which the United States and the western world in general approach sustainability. While the western world has progressed rapidly in terms of technology and mass production, it tends to assume that it has many if not all solutions. When addressing the concept of sustainability, it goes to follow that the western development of this practice will be the ideal manifestation of sustainability, an example that should be used as a model for the rest of the world. Like science, religion, and philosophy, the western world now seems to be pushing it’s approach to sustainability on the rest of the world.

While Doerr and co. spend some time pointing out the ways in which western world’s approaches to sustainability do not apply ideally to the entire world, what I feel this article is really getting at is that each culture, each natural environment, each society has a form of sustainability that suits them best. There is no end all be all approach. Something that shows this well is the variation in dialect surrounding the concept of sustainability. While we have our terms, other cultures and languages have words which fit their styles of life, their approach to land use, their resources in ways that describe the practices which they employ. Sustainability is not a universal end all be all concept, it is an approach to the world around us which varies in practice from place to place. That said, it may not be our place, as the western world, to implement our views of sustainability onto other cultures and countries.

Our approach is shaped by large communities, big businesses, big agriculture, national and international commerce. It is far removed from the small scale practice of sustainability; ideas such as horticulture, local resource reliance, community gardens, and other small scale practices that we have historically dismissed, discouraged, and now no longer what shape our view of sustainability (for example look at the alteration of Hawaiian culture through the destruction of it’s local and sustainable practices during the time before the United States decided to invade). Our concept of sustainability is created to continue our way of life, and given the impact of our capitalist and consumerist mind state, it might be time that we think about learning from less developed countries for once.

“Sustainability” from the series Lexicon for an Anthropocene Yet Unseen, brought to my mind a concept I had never before considered: the translation of sustainability. Though I had been introduced to the idea of a completely western-dominated lexicon before, where western words get brought into other languages, I had not considered the areas it did, or did not, cover. Before, I assumed that it was only western brand names that were carried over (ie Nike, Adidas, etc) or western inventions (ie the TV or WiFi). Until the reading mentioned that sustainability had two translations–“sostenible and sustentable”–I had not considered that sustainability was a western idea. The language(s) spoken by an individual influences their ideas by limiting the words available to describe an idea.  The fact that some languages may not have a direct translation for sustainability adds another layer into the complexity of the issues surrounding sustainability.

Not only does the article point out this issue, it also alludes to the idea that rural communities already practice sustainability, even though they do not have the vocabulary to properly define it. In the second half of the article, Marta’s community is described as one which works with the earth to both sustain it and themselves. Already sustainable practices had been put into use, like the storage bins or the use of feces instead of chemicals. Even though Marta’s community does not have a direct translation for sustainability, they are still concerned about it. Concern for the future of the planet transcends language and cultural barriers, affecting all humans. This gives me hope for the future, that we–as a species–can collectively make a change for the better.

In their essay “Sustainability”, Doerr & co. seek to challenge the idea of a universal concept for “sustainability”. This reminds me of Yusoff’s book we read a few weeks ago. Both tries to challenge a universal conception of the Anthropocene, and both demonstrate the unequal distribution of harm and suffering caused by the ecological crisis that disproportionately affect black and brown folks across the world. Unlike Yusoff’s book which was much more abstract, this article uses a specific and concrete example of Doña Marta to illustrate the problem. Doerr & co.’s description of “U.S corn came rushing in to feed them, family after family returned this gift with their sons and daughters”, reminded me of the wave of Mexican immigrants coming to the United States in the 1990s. After NAFTA was signed, many farmers struggled to survive due to the privatization of communal land and competition from larger U.S corn producers. As such, many sold their land and moved into the cities or up north across the border to find work. However, I do find myself disagreeing with Doerr & co. on some points. Although they present a more nuanced understanding of sustainability, they present Western conception of progress as one dimensional. For instance, they contrast Marta’s understanding of sustainability with “the destination-oriented future of modernity’s progress or the never-satisfied longing of industrial capitalism” (Doerr et al. par. 4). However, progress in modernity have not always looked the same. The classical enlightenment notion of progress is not one that is “destination-oriented”. On the contrary, it is precisely the lack of destination that makes freedom possible. This was what caused the philosopher Immanuel Kant to write “when we ask, Are we now living in an enlightened age? the answer is, No, but we live in an age of enlightenment” (par. 9). I am also perplexed as to what Doerr & co. might mean when they write “the objective is rather to care for the stratified reproductions between not-so-global global languages and the various strategies of world making”. If it is to mean that we should take the world making strategies of people like Marta as against the “global” language of sustainability, then I would disagree. From the description of Marta’s world view, it appears to me that her concern was surviving the ravages of ecological degradation and as such contains no better guide for tackling the ecological crisis than the “global” language of sustainability. This is to repeat the false dichotomy between Main Street and Wall Street. As the philosopher Slavoj Zizek once wrote “the solution is neither Main Street nor Wall Street, but to change the system where Main Street cannot function without Wall Street” (par. 5).

1. Kant, Immanuel. What Is Enlightenment. Columbia University, http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html.

2. Žižek, Slavoj. “Occupy Wall Street: What Is to Be Done next? .” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 24 Apr. 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/24/occupy-wall-street-what-is-to-be-done-next.

Climate change is a major problem we as a society are having to face. But it is something that is and will continue to affect people at disproportionate rates. As of right now the way we have been going about discussing and trying to tackle climate change seems to leave several important voices out. In the article Sustainability, it highlights the importance of acknowledging and learning about different cultures and people’s way of life in the context of sustainability. 

Like we have discussed in class, climate change is going to affect the most vulnerable first and yet we as a society continue to leave them out of our conversations. Major nations are talking to each other about climate change, but they are leaving out some of the smaller nations who are already feeling the disastrous effects of climate change. These nations are making life altering decisions assuming that their views and ideas will match up with everyone else’s. It is so easy to forget or ignore things that are not in our day to day lives, but like the article states “we might also pay attention to whose practices of time and space dominate the discussions and whose go ignored”. We miss valuable insight when we fail to include everyone in the conversations. How are we possibly going to limit the devastating effects of climate change if we fail to acknowledge everyone around us? 

Image from Creative Commons

Creator: Hey!Cheese Photography

“Sustainability,” an article included in the series “Lexicon for an Anthropocene Yet Unseen,” details the relationship between those responsible for climate change, and those who are going to be most impacted by it. “Sustainability” is written in part almost as an anecdote, detailing the effects of climate and health policy on Doña Marta’s life (as a resident of Guatemala). Climate policy at a national level has impacted her life personally, exemplified by the presence of “silver silos,” “goats for milk,” and “surplus corn flour, red beans, and a nutrient powder that came with a recipe for pancakes” brought by US Agency for International Development. This example brings up two major issues with climate policy: it is developed and written by those responsible for the majority of effects of climate change, and is simply pushed on those who are going to be hit the hardest. Additionally, climate and health policy is global (as led by the United Nations). In this capacity, climate and health policy is written as a one size fits all goal, when it is not. 

It would be illogical to assume that all countries follow the western ways of life, and speak the same language(s) found in the countries that do. While English may be the Lingua Franca, it is not the language of a large portion of the global population. By writing our policies in English, and by adapting them to fix what western living individuals do wrong, we are ignoring the languages and cultures of the world. We are ignoring the way other individuals live; how they sustain themselves, how they raise their children, and the values that they hold dear. We need to become a unified world, that has knowledge about cultures, and have respect and regard for every human. We need to take into consideration the opinions and possible solutions presented by the people who don’t have the western way of thinking, who have ideas to help their own communities and countries. One line in “Sustainability” reads, “Sustainability (and, we might add, becoming and emerging, since these terms often go hand-in-hand) may too easily connote the progressive transition of a singular, causal system, leading us toward the project of developing a better future that has long been modernity’s destructive lure.” We need to be inclusive, because one solution isn’t going to fix the variety of problems that have arisen due to climate change. And we need to help those who are going to be affected the most, the most. Because they have less time (they will feel the effects sooner) than we do.

The reading “Sustainability,” from Lexicon for an Anthropocene Yet Unseen, reinforces a line of thought from many classes I have taken: we must engage everyone in discussion in order to create true solutions. And in order to engage all parties in discussion, we must be willing to learn the words and ways of other cultures. Cultures are not easily translated. It is something we have to continue to work at in order to grasp any sort of an understanding, and yet time and time again decisions that impact others are made by those who have not put any effort into understanding global and local cultures.

One line from the reading really stuck out to me, “Meanwhile, we might also pay attention to whose practices of time and space dominate the discussions and whose go ignored.” We have mentioned a few times in past classes how certain groups of people are disproportionately affected by climate change. Despite this, they are often the ones whose voices go ignored in discussions of sustainability. It is extremely important to listen to these groups and learn from what they are doing to maintain their lives. We must include the voices of those with first-hand experience in order to learn the true effects of the Anthropocene, as well as what solutions are feasible for them. I have seen so many band aid type solutions when it comes to climate change that are problematic in essence, but also fail to take into account the culture of an area. Just because something sounds great on paper does not mean it will be truly helpful for residents.

Not everyone shares the same experiences, nor do we all have the same ideas. This is where the issue of language comes in. In order to truly listen, we must work harder to understand the connotations and nuances surrounding language to better prepare for a future that we are fearful for.

Allen Thompson’s article “Radical Hope for Living Well in a Warmer World”, explores the causes and possible solutions to our current ecological crisis. His main points rely heavily on Jonathan Lear’s opinions about consumerism and cultural change as well as his thoughts about Plenty Coups, the final chief of the Crow Nation he writes about in his book, The Radical Hope. Thompson utilizes these this information in order to further his claim about how the future needs to be supported by humans possessing resolve in living with lower standards of living to support the changes necessary to assist in solving our current ecological issues.

Lear places a lot of blame of the current damage on our ecosystem on the Industrial Revolution, and in turn, consumerism. The Industrial Revolution gave way to people expecting more from life and raising the standard of living through the advancement of technology which resulted in people’s need for more products increasing due to consumerism. This leads to Lear’s point that “Homo sapiens have been exploiting carbon-based form of energy throughout history, as relentlessly as existing technologies would permit” (Thompson 3) and have therefore largely increased the world’s carbon footprint over the years. An increased carbon-footprint has caused damage to the atmosphere that, without any solution, will cause irreversible damage. This can be solved however, by future generations creating new ways of creating clean sources of renewable energy. This new way of thinking is critical but will create cultural changes and new ways of thinking.

Lear also brings up Plenty Coups, who was the last chief of Crow Nation. He praises him for the leadership strategies he enacted through the Crow Tribe’s time of cultural devastation. The Crow tribe’s way of life became out of the question. These people were not only threatened by nearby tribes, but more severely, the European settlers. According to Lear, Plenty Coups illustrated a radical hope of overcoming these setbacks through encouraging his people to be more courageous and prideful to be who they were and to ultimately have hope to a better future.

Thompson combines both aforementioned ideas and concludes that we need to recognize the impending destruction that could be wrought on our environment in order to not end up devastated like the Crows. In order to do that, we need to develop a different mindset; one that does not rely so heavily on consumerism and more so on reducing our standards of living in order to make the reductions necessary to decrease our carbon-footprint. With both points in mind, Thompson hopes that humans can find the resolve they so desperately need to prevent further damage to the ecosystem and to themselves.

In Allen Thompson’s “A World They Don’t Deserve: Moral failure and deep adaptation”, he discusses two key assumptions. The first one being that the next few hundred years of both the natural and social world are deeply uncertain, and the second being that members of the present generation have a moral responsibility to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference”. However, the point that Thompson brings up that truly resonates with me is the fact that he calls any failure to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference “moral failure”.
This detail of his second assumption I find both true, and burdening. It doesn’t matter what world the current generation was given. As long as there is still time to change it, it is on them to do so. It is always the burden of the current generation to lay the groundwork for the next one, but it has never been more burdening to do so.
Failing to do this aspect can come in a number of ways. Of course, the main point and seemingly the most pressing one is that of climate change. While there is not a full consensus of when irreversible damage will occur from the effects of climate change, it is agreed that such things will happen soon.
Personally, I think that the biggest responsibility this puts on the worlds current generation is to change the world we live in. It is a fact that the way we live right now is not sustainable and it is our moral responsibility to change the systems we find ourselves in. However, there is also the matter of shaping how this and future generations think. Currently most of the world that produces carbon emissions and majority of the worlds garbage are run in systems that prioritize yourself first. The strange thing is that this form of thinking has only been so dominant in recent history. This means transforming this way of thinking would be world changing. We need to change our ways of thinking to become more sustainable and instead of looking out for our own gain of material wealth, we need to look out for the natural wealth of the generations to come.

Picture: https://sevengenerationsahead.org/