Why ENVS 160?
I’m taking this environmental studies course to improve my communication and application of biology and conservation material learned throughout my studies as part of the biology major. I have progressed through this course with the specific goal of relating the material towards my future career in conservation biology. In order to answer a broad question like how ENVS 160 has changed me so far, I’ve chosen to break down how three key lessons learned will impact my future in conservation biology. As such, I am defining nature as wild areas devoid of human impact, and environmental problems as the debates and policy issues regarding the use of such areas.
The first lesson relates to how a person’s background and natural disposition will impact their interpretation of a variety of environmental problems, the second recognizes the effects of intentional language on validating or devaluing environmental movements. The final lesson is that the classic environmentalism I was raised to admire is often not productive, and doesn’t significantly impact the greater world.
- My disposition and background impact how I perceive environmental problems. These are necessarily different from those of people equally invested in the natural world.
My background in an American middle class outdoorsy family has significant impacts on how I value the natural world. Growing up hiking, skiing and spending time recreating outdoors has instilled in me a desire to maintain areas to allow for others (including myself) to do the same. My passion for conservation biology stems from the aesthetic and abstract value I have for wildlife. Recognizing the biases these experiences have left me with is crucial if I am to work in the field of land conservation.
Because I am scientifically and mathematically inclined, I perceive environmental problems differently than many of my peers in ENVS 160. By taking the ecotypes axis survey (Jim Proctor, “Ecotypes; Exploring Environmental Ideas”, accessed 2/24/17), my opinions regarding environmental problems were quantified to show the extremely strong emphasis I place on nature as pure rather than hybrid. Because I was raised an atheist and study biology, I’ve got an entirely secular interpretation of the natural world rather than a spiritual one. My past experiences result in my own unique interpretation of nature, necessarily different than other people’s I will undoubtedly work with throughout my career.
2. Language has a massive impact on how an environmental group is perceived.
For our Interrogating Isms assignment, my group studied the ecoterrorism movement. This movement provides a concrete case study for understanding the effects of labeling on the perception of environmental movements. Whereas those within the movement would likely label their actions as a form of ecojustice, the ecoterrorism label imposed by media and government agencies provides a very negative connotation to the movement. Because movements depend on the public’s perception of them, such a negative moniker greatly invalidates the ecoterrorism movement to a wide range of people.
This relates to our study of different frames of questioning when investigating environmental problems. It can often be difficult to avoid qualitative and opinionated thoughts even when describing environmental problems. Studying ecoterrorism as a movement taught me to more critically analyze the rhetoric given to certain environmental movements, and how they impact the success and failure of the group.
3. Classic environmentalism doesn’t have the answers to all of our problems. It often treats symptoms as opposed to diseases.
A recurring theme throughout the course has been the importance of the evolution of environmental thought and action to reflect the convoluted state of environmental problems of the world today. No longer can the words of experts such as Garrett Hardin be taken as absolute truth. In his Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin, 1968), Hardin famously argued that the earth was doomed if population continued to increase at the current rate. Although overpopulation does present significant environmental issues, modern environmentalists are recognizing the fallacy in Hardin’s argument. The modern environmentalist movement is integrating the use of technology into the solving of age old environmental problems, and reanalyzing our most basic assumptions of them.
Whereas classic environmentalism is focused on visible, primarily localized targets (think of Redwoods saving activists chaining themselves to trees), modern environmentalism seeks to engage with the roots of environmental issues, and is much more critical of the shallowness of classic environmental thought. In our most recent text, Steinberg demonstrates the importance of having strong governmental organizations and market economies with promoting environmentally friendly habits (Steinberg, 2015). Modern environmentalism seeks to cure the diseases superficially contained my classic environmentalism.
Works Cited
- Hardin, Garrett James. (1968), John A. Baden, Douglas S. Noonan, and Grace Carswell.The Tragedy of the Commons.
- Steinberg, Paul (2015), Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY.