Throughout the course of the semester we’ve made connections between several discussions and works we’ve read, this to me has been the most exciting aspect of ENVS 160. I enjoy being able to see how different ideas, even opposing ones, can come together to improve each other and develop new ideas. After reading Why We Disagree About Climate Change and works regarding classic vs. contemporary environmental thought I noticed several connections that could be made between both: the purity and wildness of nature, the cultural values of nature, and the methods of disruptions of the global environment.
The first connection that was evident to me between our primary text and the other articles we read was the idea of purity and wildness of nature. Mike Hulme describes nature as being pure, pristine, and beyond the reach of humans in the first chapter of his book Why We Disagree About Climate Change entitled The Social Meanings of Climate (Hulme, 2009). The natural world is fragile and humans need to do whatever it takes to preserve and protect it. In classic environmental thought, purity expresses the need to not disturb nature’s balance and to revert from ecological invasion (White, 2000). Both WWD and the articles we covered highlight the idea of not making separate categories or boundaries between humans and nature. A solution for climate change is to abandon the idea of fitting everything into pure categories, nature should be connected to social aspects if a positive change wants to be made (White, 2000).
The second connection that I made between WWD and an article from 1973 was using the cultural and spiritual values of nature to make a change. Shallow and deep ecology stuck out to me when learning about classic environmental thought; having the focus on the spirituality of nature and what it means to certain cultures be the way to fix problems fascinated me. Deep ecology highlights this point: the veneration for forms and ways of life through the means of nature and destiny (Naess, 1973). Hulme provides us with several examples of the classic environmental thought about deep ecology. In the African culture of the Ihanzu rain equates to fertility and life, through the practice of rights and rituals keep the rain a major factor in the success of the culture (Hulme, 2009). Both Naess and Hulme express how the use of story-telling and poetic expression about wildlife promotes the care and necessary well-being of the environment is present in cultures around the world.
The third and final connection that I made between WWD and classic environmental thought was that of the methods of disruptions of the environment and how to go about these disruptions. In a 2009 journal, the idea that the the global environment is being disrupted due to the production and usage of technology (White, 2009). A solution offered by White is to be able to rethink and refeel nature. Mike Hulme explains to us how some governmental systems of the world have acknowledged that certain technologies and scientific methods have harmed the environment. An example used by Hulme is the letter sent by The Royal Society sent to ExxonMobil, a situation in which The Royal Society challenged Exxon’s interpretation that warming was due to greenhouse gases adn said that their statements were misleading. ExxonMobil responded by saying that these environmental impacts require action to improve (Hulme, 2009).
Finding connections between all of our readings and discussions has given me a better and deeper understanding of the material that we cover in class, it’s also allowed me to make connections with my other classes in past and current semesters. As for my favorite connections so far, Hulme, Naess, and White all cover topics that are important to me and highlight the values that I have.
Citations:
Hulme, Mike . Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
White, R. 2000. “The Problem with Purity.” Tanner Lectures on Human Values 21: 211–28.
Naess, Arne. 1973. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement.” Inquiry 16: 95–100.