Introduction
The Ecotypes survey can provide reasonable groundwork for the synthesis of a wide range of material in Environmental Studies. Various sections of the course can be easily grouped under the broad headings of Nature, Spirituality, and Time. As defined by Jim Proctor these terms can be used to analyze the political and scientific beliefs of prominent authors in this field. These parallels are useful because they allow for more in-depth investigation of public opinion from survey results in terms of the course’s assigned readings.
Nature: “Is the nonhuman realm typified by its own order and harmony, or is it now interwoven with humanity?” (Proctor)
It has been made abundantly clear that this term has incredibly vague and nebulous qualities. However, due to its wide usage in work, scholarly or otherwise, it should not be looked down upon as entirely fruitless. This axis evaluates the degree to which humans interacting with their relative surroundings is necessary or even permitted. Ned Hettinger’s piece “Valuing Naturalness in the ‘Anthropocene’: Now More than Ever” easily conforms to notions of Pure Nature. In short, he critiques the anthropocene as threatening to “the key environmental values of ‘naturalness’ (by which I mean the degree to which nature is not influenced by humans) and respect for nature” (Hettinger 2014, 2). Throughout his essay it is clear that he values those settings completely untouched by human hands. He further critiques the anthropocene “arguing not only that it seriously exaggerates human influence on nature but also that it draws inappropriate metaphysical, moral, and environmental policy conclusions about humanity’s role on the planet” (Hettinger 2014, 2). Although he addresses the fact that nature could be interwoven with humanity, he ultimately critiques those who propagate the concept of the anthropocene, thus placing him far on the pure side of the nature axis.
In opposition to the incredibly blatant view of Hettinger, DeFries et al. (2012) criticize classic environmentalist views of Nature in the inspirational all encompassing sense. They state that “although Earth’s life-support systems set the broad envelope for human survival, societies evolve, adapt to, and sometimes alter this broad envelope to overcome many biophysical constraints and to correct negative environmental consequences” (DeFries et al. 2012, 604). As they push for inevitable human involvement in order to ensure success and survival they distance themselves from previous opinions on the anthropocene landing this publication strictly on the Hybrid Nature side of this axis. Although these publications are from similar time periods and focus on similar issues this does not detract from their usefulness in describing the views of those participating in the ecotypes survey and, through the lens of this axis, these publications can be seen as conforming to viewpoints of pure nature (classic environmentalism) and hybrid nature (contemporary environmentalism) respectively.
Spirituality: “Is nature sacred, or does this distract us from rational environmental action?” (Proctor)
This next axis is much easier to discuss because there is a greater quantity of easily accessible literature present pertaining to the subject. The Spirituality axis gauges the extent to which individuals believe their surroundings should be viewed in conjunction with their religion or whether they think of them as separate. Lynn White (1967) blames a dynamic technology and science for the present “disruption of the global environment” (White 1967, 1207). He states that these originated in the Western Medieval World and proposes that we must reform the religion present in both technology and science. In doing so we would be following the failed work of St. Francis “as a patron saint for ecologists” (White 1967, 1207). Even though White advocates specifically for the reform of religion he still promotes religion as the ultimate solution to the aforementioned disruption placing these views on the Sacred pole of the Spirituality axis.
In theoretical support of this view Jim Proctor in his 2009 essay “Old Growth and a New Nature:The Ambivalence of Science and Religion” evaluates a compilation of data regarding the degree of spiritual interest in environmentalism. These data confirmed that “there is a highly powerful factor we can use to predict the level of environmental selfidentifcation, concern, and (reported) practice among Americans, and it is the belief that nature is sacred” (Proctor 2009, 109). This belief in Sacred Nature is shared among scholarship from these two separate time periods and it is evident that this subject dates back much further. However, in order to achieve a deeper level of analysis in terms of these axis poles it is necessary to assume an evaluative standpoint on these scholarly views.
It is imperative that one realize the inherent danger that lies within supporting action that adheres specifically to views of Sacred Nature. These tend to give precedent to the protection of landscapes that are considered beautiful or spiritually valuable. In response to this Proctor asks what “we should do about all the more ordinary landscapes, those we cannot set aside, those of rather plain ecological qualities?” (Proctor 2009, 111). There is no definitive answer to this question but it is of course necessary to focus not only on the spiritual or aesthetic value of landscapes and organisms but also on their value to humans and entire ecosystems.
Time: “Should we go back to a more harmonious ecological period in time, or is it best to move forward?” (Proctor)
The axis of Time can be seen as a question of when the period in which humans lived sustainably on the earth really was? Did our species ever really live in harmony with the earth or were we doomed from the start? An attempt to answer these questions is posed by Leigh Phillips when he discusses issues of overpopulation. He and many others propose that overpopulation and the massive consumption of goods at alarmingly unsustainable rates is the driving cause of anthropogenic climate change. He specifically argues that “if progress and growth are the problem, then we must return to a time when there was no growth or progress” (Phillips 2015, 47). He then moves on to analyze the views of others in his field regarding their answers to these questions. These statements provide a confused but overall Conservative placement on the axis of Time stating that it would be best to return to a certain period in the distant past in which the human existence was less of a burden on the planet.
A much more contemporary and Progressive attitude is taken on by the Trump administration’s various cuts in funding for concerns and legislation regarding the effects of climate-change. In addition to these cuts in funding there seems to be an overall sense of deregulation in chemical use, such as pesticides. It seems as though the Trump administration’s solution to this question of time is to create their own epoch characterized by unregulated human impact and widespread deregulation and cuts funding to the things that matter most. Perhaps we should call this new epoch the Anthropocene?
Works Cited
- DeFries, Ruth S. et al. 2012. “Planetary Opportunities: A Social Contract for Global Change Science to Contribute to a Sustainable Future.” BioScience 62 (6): 603–6.
- Hettinger, Ned. “Valuing Naturalness in the ‘Anthropocene’: Now More than Ever” in Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of Earth, ed. G. Wuerthner, E. Crist, and T. Butler (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2014), 174–179.
- Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity ecology & the collapse-porn addicts: a defence of growth, progress, industry and stuff. Winchester, UK: Zero Books.
- Proctor, James D. 2009. “Old Growth and a New Nature: The Ambivalence of Science and Religion.” In Old Growth in a New World: A Pacific Northwest Icon Reexamined, edited by Thomas Allen Spies and Sally L. Duncan, 104–15. Island Press.
- White, Lynn. 1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155 (3767): 1203–7.