After taking some time to process the material from the major texts of this course, I have come to identify three key connections between them. Although this task was somewhat difficult due to the large amount of information we have looked at throughout the semester, I found that this was helpful in bringing together my ideas and making my overall understanding clearer.
Why we disagree about climate change and classic vs. contemporary thought
In his book Why we disagree about climate change, Mike Hulme explores the varying mechanisms that promote disagreement over climate change. In one particular section, Hulme focuses on our varying ideas of development as a source of disagreement. He states that “our belief in the idea of ‘progress’ and our views of development are powerful shapers of our attitudes toward climate change” (Hulme 2009, 251). This idea that varying views on development can act as a powerful source of disagreement directly ties into our discussion on classic versus contemporary thought and can help in understanding the divide between these two viewpoints.
After reading the literature surrounding classic versus contemporary environmental thought (e.g Hardin 1968, Meadows 1974, Phillips 2015, Shellenberger 2011) it has become clear that there is a strong difference in the meaning of development for these two thought groups and in their ideal mechanisms and maneuvers to promote this development. People adhering to classic environmental thought generally hold a conservative view on time and an idealistic view towards the purity of nature. In addition, classic thinkers typically fear technology as a way to promote environmental change. In contrast, contemporary environmental thinkers embrace the future, hold a hybrid view toward nature, and look up to technology as a tool to work towards environmental solutions. Looking at these opposing views, it is clear that classic and contemporary thinkers hold different views towards what constitutes development and how to go about achieving it. Contemporary thinkers would likely view development as using modern technology and innovation to further society while at the same time protecting the environment. However, classic thinkers would view development as establishing a world in which we can live in harmony with nature by reducing human growth and impact. Overall, this divide in thinking relates strongly to Hulme’s idea regarding progress and development as a source of disagreement in the realm of environmental studies.
Who rules the earth and Making the modern world
The key argument in Steinberg’s book Who rules the earth?: how social rules shape our planet and our lives is that social rules can be found in every aspect of life and that they are essential to promoting change in our world (Steinberg 2015). This argument is extremely applicable and relevant to understanding how environmental change must be implemented. I have found many clear connections between this text and Making the modern world: Materials and Dematerialization. Because Smil’s text is largely concerned with explaining the history and processes by which various materials are produced, we are exposed to a large degree of underlying social rules along the way (Smil 2014).
To make his point clear that social rules are embedded in everything, Steinberg describes the act of walking on the beach in terms of the deep embedded social rules involved. We find out that this seemingly simple and free act is in fact regulated and contorted by these rooted social relations. Similar to this example that Steinberg gives of the walk on the beach, we can see in making the modern world that every material and resource is also influenced greatly by social guidelines. For instance, in looking at the the history and current production of paper we can see that every step has been strictly regulated by certain social institutions. The amount of paper produced, the desirability of paper, and the specific uses of paper at a given time are all regulated by social contexts. Overall, it is evident that in looking at the lifecycles and processes involved in material production and consumption, the social rules described in Steinberg’s book are incredibly applicable and apparent within this context.
Who rules the earth and Why we disagree about climate change
After reading both texts, the connection between Who rules the earth and Why we disagree about climate change has become apparent. Although the two texts expose two different end messages, they both examine the same general question throughout: how and in what mechanisms are people influenced? In the case of Why we disagree, Hulme looks into the influences on people in an effort to portray why we disagree so much over the ideas of climate change (Hulme 2009). For Who rules the earth, however, Steinberg looks into this question in order to show how social rules can have a huge influence on people and how these rules can ultimately bring upon change for the face of the environment (Steinberg 2015). Overall, both texts deeply consider the psychological and sociological factors that influence people’s decisions and ideas.
References
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (3859): 1243–48. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leigh Phillips, author. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK ; Washington, USA: Zero Books.
Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens. 1974. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.
Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Nordhaus, eds. 2011. Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Institute.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.