A few months ago, the editors of Orion issued a challenge: what words and terminology does the environmental movement need to adopt in order to bring everyone, not just concerned environmentalists but everyone who lives on the planet, into its fold to become active stewards of the earth?

We need terminology that invites everyone into the effort to transform the way we live on the planet—people of all economic means, all political persuasions, all ethnicities, and all nationalities.

I would expand that challenge to not just protecting the environment but also freeing the people from the poverty, conflict, and misery brought about by the same forces — capitalism, greed, inequality, exploitation, and general thoughtlessness — that harm the planet. I think it’s an interesting idea, because sustainability and environmentalism, and social justice, are everyone’s concern, but the concepts themselves have been successfully marginalized in the mainstream as issues that only bleeding hearts and malcontents care about.

But I have to say I disagree with how the editors of Orion framed the issue:

More and more, morality is what the work of saving the planet is all about. For many of us, human morality and the survival of the planet are now one and the same. The only way to transcend the morass is through love of nature, love of our neighbors, love of family, and the recognition that the needs of all are one and the same. The fact is, we are only going to get serious about the challenges that lie ahead when each of us arrives at a deep and abiding understanding that to do anything else is downright wrong. And everyone needs to be invited to participate in that process.

I don’t think it’s a moral issue when human survival depends on it: it’s a practical issue that affects everyone. And as a practical issue, people are not going to be persuaded by being told their actions aren’t morally correct. You don’t have to have gone to Catholic school to bristle when some moral authority wags its finger at you. And if we have to rely on people’s love… yeah, the cynic in me says that pretty much gets trumped by hate, pettiness and selfishness every time.

I say frame the issue as a selfish one. Sustainability starts in one’s own pocketbook. Living unsustainably is not just bad for the environment and for the people of the world who support lifestyles in the developed world with their cheap labor and subtracted resources, it’s expensive.

The idea of living simply has been out there for a long time, but I agree with Orion that it has become too closely tied to terms and notions that people are suspicious of. The trend of shopping at eco-friendly boutiques is not the answer. Neither is seeking out technologies that are inconvenient to adopt or only available to the affluent. And neither is adopting the kind of moral dogma or enforced spirituality that runs through the voluntary simplicity movement. None of these have a universal appeal, because too many people either just can’t afford to take part or don’t see themselves in those terms and don’t want to.

There needs to be a recognized way of living simply that is something you can do without even thinking about it and that doesn’t require you to fly a flag. Living more sustainably in our culture is as simple as not buying or consuming what you don’t need to survive or reasonably enjoy your life. It doesn’t have to be a credo or moral philosophy. Yes, it also has to do with picking and choosing to some extent — buying items with less plastic and less packaging, or foregoing meat for vegetables, for instance — but for the most part it’s about refraining from consuming beyond what is needed, which is not only better for the environment and for social justice but better for our own strained pocketbooks as well. If the argument can be framed in terms of what’s better for you, not just better for the earth, then there doesn’t need to be a convincing moral thesis attached.

I’m not suggesting that everyone in the US or the rest of the developed world has a lavish lifestyle. The reality is far from that, of course. Most people live on a very modest income and many have trouble making ends meet. But in spite of that, the average lifestyle is unsustainable, partly because, as a result of globalization, the prices of consumer goods have fallen dramatically, which has increased unsustainable practices.

Between 1996 and 2002 the number of pieces of imported apparel purchased by each American consumer rose 83 percent and the average American bought 48 new items of clothing that year. The average American child is now acquiring 69 new toys per year. In 2001, 22.76 million computers were consumed domestically, just about 3 million more than were discarded three years earlier. Estimates are that next year a staggering 63 million personal computers will be “retired.” The trends are similar for other electronics, such as televisions and cell phones.

The issue has to be addressed from a public policy perspective and not just in terms of individual choices, of course, but individual choices are within our more immediate control, so I think they’re worth talking about.

The editors of Orion are right that there need to be terms to describe what it means to be an environmentalist — and, I would add a social egalitarian — so that the idea of living more sustainably can formulated in some way, even just as a means to talk about it, but it’s not an easy challenge.