Environmental thought, I thought, could not have possibly been so vast. I came to ENVS 160 assuming I would be looking at different graphs, images, systems, and global wind patterns. I did not realize how in depth we would be considering the many different styles of thinking available to humans under an environmental studies lens.
One of the three big points I have come to understand in this course stems from Why We disagree about Climate Change. In this book, Mike Hulme opened up to me a way of understanding religion as something that is not only unifying but also can distinguish different peoples from one another. Although the Cop 22 Interfaith Climate Statement stands to unify all religions in order to further advance environmentally friendly ways of life, quotes from various religious leaders of different faiths show slight differences in how each religion interacts with climate change and its causes. Although the amalgamation of religious thought is supportive of a universal statement on abating climate change, when thoroughly dissected, one can find variations that may cause bigger issues. This helps me understand more in depth how humans work in relation to each other, and leads me to my next ENVS 160 realization.
In ENVS 160, I have learned that most arguments can open up a space for another argument to shine in. Although this is clear in many other academic disciplines, environmental studies, I learned, creates a platform for multiple arguments to be valid. I have learned that even if there is a “correct” way to think, it cannot be manifested into a universal system effectively. For instance, those who believe that humans should “save the earth” cannot claim that those who think economic fruition (which harms the planet) are less correct. Strong theories can be presented against destroying the earth, but if a religion existed that believed in a relatively high use of carbon pollution, than it would be quite difficult to abolish that religion systematically. Even though Leigh Phillips is an anti-capitalist (Phillips 2015), one who is pro-capitalism is not necessarily on a lower moral ground; and even if one was on a lower moral ground, ENVS 160 incorporates the ambiguity of the word “morality” into its dialogue. So what is morality? ENVS says it depends on who is preaching it. Furthermore, a neo-Malthusianist that is pro reducing human population to a smaller number may not be akin to a farmer in a developing country who must produce children in order to work on the family farm. The farmer in this case is creating more people to survive and the neo-Malthusianist is reducing human population to have the planet survive: Both are valid.
What is the “Planet” that the neo-Malthusianist is trying to save? A final point that I have found myself reflecting on is the usage of “big words.” Since engaging in environmental academic topics, I have been hypersensitive to the use of “big words” in all of my conversations and writings. Although it has been a challenge to work around saying words such as ‘environment’ and ‘nature’, I have been more precise and therefore able to convey my arguments more intelligibly. Not only have my arguments become more precise, but I found that I have been able to read, critique, and understand what I read with a more academic rigor. The hypersensitivity of “big words” constantly reminds me that environmental studies is a topic with an extremely wide range of focus, and can be siphoned into many a stream of thought. One aspect that the “big word” challenge reminds of is the abolishment of the assumption that every person is under equal circumstances. Like in the farmer/neo-Malthusianist example above, one can define “morality” differently in different circumstances. Because the use of the word “morality” is not universal, I am constantly reminded that that thought, as a noun, is one of human’s most challenging aspects to grapple with and curb in regards to changing social and economic variants that may lead to abating climate change.