By Maxwell Lorenze
ENVS 160: Intro to ENVS spring semester 2017, has been a fascinating exploration into environmental theory and philosophy. It has been a introductory examination of overarching ideas and themes that are facets of Environmental studies. A seemingly large aspect of the course is dedicated to introducing students to the debated between classical and contemporary environmentalism. We have also discussed the role of big words or word whose definitions are so broad and out of focus. Along with an underlying examination of where we fit through ecotypes and other such categorizations. Other aspects of the course have been examining why people disagree about climate change, about material usage, and about what can and needs to be done now. For increased explanation on any of these topics I implore reading “Why We Disagree About Climate Change” by Mike Hulme, “Making the Modern World” by Vaclav Smil and “Who Rules the Earth?” by Paul F. Steinberg. Along with those published academic works I also encourage the reading any of the team or individual blog post. Specifically ones that I wrote or co-wrote are:
Situating Minearls Team Post #2 /2017/02/27/mining-copper-fr…entury-tech-boom/,Integrating Isms Team Post #3 /2017/03/24/reductionism-can…resent-the-whole/,
Reflection & SynthesisPost#1 /2017/03/24/reductionism-can…resent-the-whole/, Reflection & Sythesis Post#2 /2017/04/11/the-underlying-themes-of-envs-160/, and Reflection & Synthesis Post #3 /2017/04/18/steinbergs-overarching-constraints/.
A large underlying theme of the course was the debate between in classical and contemporary environmentalism. We spent multiple weeks specifically reading articles and essays from both camps of thought. The readings were heavily focused on the classical texts of Peter Singer, Garett Hardin, along with excerpts from Ernest Callenbach’s “Ecotopia.” Many of these readings were to simply show that area of thought that differs from the encouraged views depicted in ENVS 16o that leaned much more contemporary. That can be depicted through any of the major works we read this year. ENVS 160 shifted me from more of a centrist who solidly believed in aspect of both into a much more contemporary perspective.
Another main aspect of the course focused on the use of big words. These are isms or generally words that are vague, lack focus, and/or very charged. By charged I meant that they are often an insult or are demeaning in some way. But mainly we focused on the aspects of how the nature of these isms can make work either disjointed or non academic. As linked earlier, the group I worked with on the Integrating Isms tema post focused on reductionism. This idea is a narrow minded image that a singular part can fix or be representative of a whole.
Lastly the other main theme of the course was the focus on the categories that we all fit into. The first time that came up in the course was through the “four ways of life” on page 186 of “Why We Disagree About Climate Change.” It explained that people fall into one of four categories: Individualists, Fatalists, Hierarchists, and Egalitarians. The other way people were categorized was through their ecotypes which examined where on the spectrum we all far for certain beliefs.
Works Cited:
Hulme, M. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.