So far we have explored a wide array of new and old ideas dealing with the concept of the environment through scientific, political, value-based, classic, and contemporary mindsets. Covering so much in such a little amount of time resulted not with getting a good grasp on modern issues, but rather an expanded toolkit in which to examine further issues. With so many ideas thrown at us, many of them being contradictory, this post will look into what is important to keep with us moving forward.
Right from the beginning we learned that environmental issues are not as simple as they seem with trying to define ‘the environment’ and seeing the complexities outlined in Darwin’s nightmare. There is no black and white distinction on what constitutes the environment with ecological, political, and social issues all intertwined as shown by the introduction of the nile perch in Lake Victoria. Also this shows how nothing is in complete isolation, we have to be aware of unintended consequences in how we affect the world around us.
This awareness provided a solid base for understanding the similarly complex relations of science, politics, and values in environmental issues. As introduced above, none of these 3 fields can be understood in isolation, all must work together in order to progress. Science provides a factual understanding, values provide a moral understanding, and politic provide a means in which to execute change and growth. This means that no one person can do everything, but rather a network of different perspectives and specialities is required for lasting change to occur.
Finally we come to classic vs. contemporary environmental thought. Initially I was so intrigued by contemporary thought that I was eager to reject classic thought entirely in favor of this more progressive and complex world view. In particular, the complexities we explored in the first two weeks help provide evidence for classic thought being too simplistic in its ideas of limits to growth, tragedy of the commons, sustainability, and ecospirituality. However, I think classic thought still provides a valid and useful, yet dated, perspective on environmental issues. Diversified view points are definitely positive when it comes to finding solutions to complex issues of environment, even if overly simple and idealistic. Perhaps most importantly though, this teaches that perceptions change. Our views will continue to be challenged and shaped, and that is okay. Maybe in 15 years contemporary environmental thought will seem as dated as classic enviro thought is now. We will just have to adapt to the ever changing future.
I agree with what you are saying here. Almost everything we have learned so far in ENVS is not mutually exclusive. This is highlighted in our discussions of environmental issues, which can involve contemporary and classic environmental thought, in addition to a mix of science, politics, and ethics.
I find it particularly profound that a negative connotation (and the farming issue) may have managed to eliminate nearly all wolves from the continental United States. It’s interesting to me that it took centuries for humans to realize that wolves have an actual ecological role, though this is possibly explained by our apathy towards most things nonhuman until the early twentieth century. With regards to wolves as a “tamer of the wild”, it turns out that wolves actually play a role in limiting deer populations, which helps keep landscapes from going barren (deers eat plants).