Before this course, I had limited knowledge of the environmental issues plaguing the world today. I have always been deemed an outdoorsy person, playing outside, enjoying natural gifts that are free of charge. But this was all a foreign land to me, and exploration of different lands lead to many changes in my thought, which is a rare outcome of an introductory course.
Classic vs Contemporary: Since When?
The whole discussion we have had concerning the divide between classic and contemporary environmental thought is intriguing to me. I did not know that these lines of thought existed, but these two different perspectives start to explain the struggles within environmental thought. On each side of the ecotypes platforms, there are contradicting views. These differing views concern nature, technology, scale, and eight others. These outlines of perspectives and their applications differ immensely and their correlations between each other show the many obstacles towards a cohesive movement toward change. In theory this survey objectively summarizes the subjectivity within each axis. This survey and its information gave me a dynamic lens through which I can understand how time can yield significant changes to people’s plan of action to preventing and/or counteracting the progression of current environmental issues. This has changed me because it has given me a wider perspective on the approaches and the concepts behind the field. Concerning scale specifically, the ecotypes taught me how individual efforts are less impactful than institutional change. This stems from contemporary thought where individuality is not the correct approach in solving our problems. It claims that in the large world scope, only institutional involvement will create change. This was an eye opener for me because it eradicated my thoughts that this issue can be solved from my individual efforts. What about “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!”? Ok, but many large companies larger than I do not take heed to this advice as strongly as I do. This issue is much bigger than we can conceptualize and requires a much bigger effort than individual contributions. Of course, individual efforts do have some impact, but to make a larger, more significant impact institutional action is a must. This gave me a reality shock and showed me that my approach is outdated and needs modification. It changed my perspective and grounded it in the modern world, which is a crucial turning point.
This brings me to the predictions of the world’s near future. The contemporary approach is hopeful, using a modified sense of surroundings to portray a future of cohesion between people and the surrounding world. This approach contradicts the classic approach, which predicts the future as apocalyptic, ending in ruins where catastrophes cause humans to spiral into chaos. This view stems from the theory of limits to growth which is in fact only a theory. This theory concerns how population growth is growing exponentially while natural resources decline, causing a future collapse for which no one is prepared. This advocates the classic thought in which people perceived this theory as a fact and used it as a base for all claims that supported the ultimate fall of the world. This explained where my previous perception of the future was rooted. In the past, I viewed the environmental issues plaguing the earth as ones that will destroy it and ultimately lead to human and world ruin. Which is clearly a pessimistic view of the near future, but this course showed me that the current view is not as such. This gave me hope for humanity and the world, it gives me confidence in knowing that not all people have the same view when it comes to the futuristic application of environmental issues. I like to be an optimistic person which I previously found hard to do in this regard. However, I am confident in having a positive view because of the evidence backing the claims that the view of the future does not have to be rooted in dismal, pessimistic reasoning. In short, it makes me feel more secure, and makes me feel as if this isn’t a lost cause.
Numbers, numbers, numbers, my old friend.
I, personally, am a numbers person by nature. I enjoy math and science and how it can yield explanations as to how the world works. Numbers were a central concept in Making the Modern World, explaining the use of materials and how attempts at dematerialization did more harm than could have been anticipated. Jevons paradox applies to this concept where individual reduction of substances in products can actually result in an increase in usage overall, thus no dematerialization. This was shown by the numbers, meaning the total amount of material increased while substances in each unit of product decreased which can be directly corroborated by the weight measurements and other properties. This concrete info resonated with me and showed me that this concept and its downfalls can be directly communicated through the use of numbers. It also gave me a clear cut view of what this approach is capable of, both negatively and positively. This information showed me that reducing the amount of materials people consume is not as simple as taking stuff out of the product. This changed my whole view of how companies such as Arrowhead and Crystal Geyser promote their reductions of plastic usage in each individual bottle of water they produce, claiming it as a new start to the change we all have been looking for. It causes me to doubt their claim and makes me skeptical about the aggregate numbers concerning overall consumption. The facts presented in Smil’s book make me curious and inclined to research into this claim that these companies are dematerializing while asking: does this really result in dematerialization? These numbers changed my view of the whole concept of dematerialization, and gave me some concrete grounding, which, I have learned, is not always the case with environmental studies. This definitely taught me that skepticism is good when checking the validity of claims, which is a lesson that is applicable in multiple respects.
References
Smil, Vaclav. Making the modern world: materials and dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley, 2014.