In Hulme’s Why We Disagree about Climate Change, discussion around risk assessment and perception of fear is directly related to the view of the earth’s future as defined by classic and contemporary environmental thought (2015). The grid group theory, derived by Douglas and Wildavsky, emanates the differing views that lie within the range of perceptions within these two differing trains of thought, from apocalyptic, to minimal change, to hopeful, this cultural or grid group theory resonates and exemplifies the differing views of the future and their origins. The views of the future and the apocalyptic collapse of both social and natural concepts is rooted in the concepts presented in Limits to Growth, where fear of the lack of adaptability of nature in supporting the growth of population, promotes the sense of fear of apocalyptic collapse (1974). Characterized by bold language, this text induces a scare tactic to the reader, making them view the future as apocalyptic and dire where the, “stock of reserves is finite and nonrenewable,”(Meadows and Meadows and Rander and Behrens, Limits to Growth, 13). It is no wonder that this spurred up the views that are central to classic environmental thought. Some might argue that this model is too rigid, not accounting for the fact that, “[climate system] is influenced by a multiplicity of factors,” as the fatalists would claim (Hulme, Why We Disagree, 190). Or some could claim that the changes we see can be regulated by science or the government (hirearchists), and others may argue that this theory’s claims are more factual than people want to accept (egalitarians). Although there is much debate and not many answers to the questions of what the future may hold, it is based off this common place, from which many people diverge.
Speaking of divergence, we all come from different backgrounds, cultures, and social constructs. In that sense, we perceive and deem parts of our reality in different ways. For those with religious backgrounds, much of the theories behind environmental thought can either be supported or debunked by religious viewpoints. The approach to action for each of the concerning problems also poses much concern when a consensus is desired. For example, using technology as an aid to conform or change nature can be seeing as interfering with God’s, or any other deity’s, work, which is a controversial concept to many religious people. But as seen in recent studies, “no matter one’s age, education, gender, or income, no matter one’s political or theological orientation…nature is sacred,” (Proctor, Old Growth, 109 ). So there is a unifying concept that can be applied to policy which is seen in the COP 22 statement. The trend of social and moral obligation to reverse the trials of time is a concept that crosses most religions (Hulme 2015). This inspires institutional action across the board. This cross section of responsibly knowing our place in this world is supported by Quaker, Buddhist, Catholic as well as other traditions. This is important in realizing the power religion has and how much it can influence the world institutionally.
The role of technology is grounds for debate in many respects. With advancements in technological approaches and their applications, it is impossible to ignore these as an option. This debate over technology’s role in the earth’s future and how much it should be involved has stirred up the isms of hybridity and purity and which direction is best and most beneficial. In Love Your Monsters there was much discussion about the technology’s helping hand in sealing the gap between humans and the concept of nature (Shellenberger and Nordhaus 2011). Another claim would be to use technology in a manner that does not interfere with the social construct or green movement, thus limited, regulated use of technology. In Ecotopia, the society uses selected use of technology to benefit all the members of the community and the surroundings (Callenbach 1975). There are existing claims that people view the problem to current growth resides in the advancement of technology, but these contemporary claims play a different blame game, claiming that, “we have failed to care for our technological creations,” (Shellenberger and Nordhaus, Love Your Monsters, 274). Placing the blame on humans creates a new perspective through which approaching our current situation changes. It paints a different picture of the situation and portrays us as a helping hand rather than the destructive one. Both of these texts assert the existence of technology and apply it in different ways. Either way, technology and its application must be addressed in the near future. So why not use it to help us in the long run?
When talking about environmental issues, it is dangerous to use umbrella terms. Because there are in fact many aspects to each, all of which are connected to each other, it is counterintuitive to address only one. There are many reasons why people cannot agree on policies, why policies have trouble making a large difference, and the reasoning upon which this is based is constantly changing in its concrete application as well as the actual claims. Environmentalism is an all-encompassing field, in which we are included and affected.
References
Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books, 1974.
Proctor, James D. “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, 2009.