Post 1 was simply a poke at the vast ocean of connections and ideas that can come up in ENVS 160 and was a portrayal of how important those key topics can be. In this post, a synthesis can be made about those key topics learned and can be linked to texts used to create more depth in our understandings of the issues of environmental studies and how these ideas might be applied in the future.
My previous post highlighted the two important theories to keep in mind when going about talking and learning about environmental studies: empirical theories and conceptual theories. When referring to conceptual theories, or “isms”, it is important that there is productive conversation on the subject at hand so that parties discussing the matter can be objective. In chapter 7 of “Why We Disagree About Climate Change” the author Mike Hulme critiques the deficit model, which says that public skepticism of science is due to a lack of understanding or information, and mentions that if people had the proper information, portrayed in the right way, they might start to care about climate change. Hulme notes that, “public and policy discourses of climate change are certainly influenced by how scientific risks associated with with climate change are communicated…the different audiences targeted, the different language, stories and visual imagery adopted” (Page 215, Hulme). This means that in order to efficiently go about solving the current and pressing issues that come up when talking about environmental studies, we need to preface and define what we are talking about so we can have a set definition and understanding to come to a conclusive decision. This notion of being on the same page goes along with understanding where someone’s views come from and if they lean more contemporary or more classic, defined here. One’s classic or contemporary views can provide key insight into how to portray information and receive understanding so both parties can empirically discuss issues without feeling at a loss for information or without feeling like they aren’t being recognized for their views.
Classic and contemporary environmentalism looks at a variety of issues including consumption of commodities. In Austerity Ecology, the author questions our views of modernity and wonders why we don’t question capitalism as the problem rather than modernity. There is a problem when we say, “we should consume less” because of the “we” in the statement; this implies that there is a consensus view of society that we shouldn’t hold (Page 13, Phillips). This means that we should question when exactly the time was when we should’ve consumed less and how will this impact the future of consumption and having less? In my previous post, I talked about dematerialization and the different implications and definitions that come with its progressive ideals. These differences in dematerialization are found in the book “Making the Modern World” by Vaclav Smil. In the Preface of the book, Smil talks about and ponders if we will reach dematerialization by looking at how industrialization and our want of stuff came to be. He talks about this by mentioning two unequal periods, “first was the very slow rise that extended from pre-history to the beginnings of rapid economic modernization, that is, until the eighteenth century in most of Europe, until the nineteenth century in the USA, Canada, Japan and until the latter half of the twentieth century in Latin America, the Middle East, and China” (Page IX, Smil). Smil notes that the only way to cut back on our increased industrialization and constant development is by not only considering what might be the efficient option but to, “reconcile our wants with the preservation of the biosphere’s integrity…and thereby redefine the very notion of modern societies whose very existence is predicted on incessant and massive material flows” (Page XI, Smil).
Lastly, when talking about the future and a shift towards sustainability we must realize that the world requires a modification of the rules that define human behavior and the ways we interact with the earth. Achieving sustainability isn’t just a personal issue, but is a global and political issue that is a current event happening among us. In chapter 3 of “Who Rules the Earth?” by Paul Steinberg, there are two kinds of worlds that are talked about: the imaginable and the feasible worlds. The imaginable is generally an utopian idea with low levels of consumption and are hidden in broad terms like sustainability and peace. The feasible world seems out of our reach even if it’s not; they key is not to take baby steps but to take fairly large steps that are economically, technologically, etc. feasible within the near future. In order to reach a feasible world, we need to learn the steps to get there, “this perspective seriously underestimates the possibilities for significant shifts in how societies go about their business” (Page 37, Steinberg). This means that there needs to be a balance between the ideal and the feasible that we as humans can achieve as a collective for the future.
Sources
Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Phillips, Leigh. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: a Defence of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK: Zero Books, 2015.
Smil, Vaclav. Making the Modern world: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley, 2014.
Steinberg, Paul F. Who Rules the Earth: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 2015.