When thinking broadly about the environment, it is easy to rely on certain ideals. From nostalgia or dismissal of a long gone nature of the past to a utopian or dystopian view of the future, environmentalists often work in extremes. Throughout environmental history, we see this again and again. However, boiling down the complexities of a multifaceted world into an easy to grasp idea to champion is reductionist, especially when looking at something so broad as the past or future or any environmental issue. It ignores many subtle factors that do play an important role. Yet, it can be easy to get bogged down in these complexities as well and feel fatigued to any changes that can be made. Individuals who tend to be environmentally idealistic use their bold ideas to depict the human and natural worlds and enact technological, political, and social changes in greater society.
Idealism certainly plays out in Mike Davis’s Who Will Build the Ark?, an article referenced by the title of this essay, that focuses on the pessimism and optimism that is pervasive when talking about humanity’s future, especially concerned with making an impact on climate change. As a Marxist, Davis believes in the power of societal ideals, which is evident throughout this article. In his section on the Optimism of the Imagination, Davis writes, “The inner crisis in environmental politics today is precisely the lack of bold concepts that address the challenges of poverty, energy, biodiversity, and climate change within an integrated vision of human progress” (44). This idea of bold concepts is striking, and he backs this claim up with the lack of equity in current climate policies. He continues, “If this sound like a sentimental call to the barricades, an echo from the classrooms, streets and studios of forty years ago, then so be it; because on the basis of the evidence before us, taking a ‘realist’ view of the human prospect, like seeing Medusa’s head, would simply turn us into stone” (46). Davis addresses that he does seem overly optimistic and that one sacrifices a more neutral realism for opinionated idealism. Yet, it is only through this blatant optimism that people are motivated and mobilized to create change. Granted, these changes that come out of idealism may not lead to ideal improvements, but it is through idealism that we understand and enact change concerning the nonhuman world. This is evident in many primary sources throughout environmental histories in technological, political, and social manners.
One way in which environmental idealism is useful is in creating technological advancements. For example, Francis Bacon is certainly very bold and optimistic when he describes his fantasy utopia in The New Atlantis. He describes the grand biological and artistic modifications that his imagined society makes to plants when he writes, “We make them also by art greater much than their nature; and their fruit greater and sweeter and of differing taste, smell, colour, and figure, from their nature” (54). Bacon makes a bold claim of vast human improvement over nature, showing a utopian view of the future. As an incredibly important thinker during the scientific revolution and founding practitioner of the scientific method, Bacon’s ideas were very influential, showing that bold environmental claims can lead to important scientific ideas. This is also evident in Bacon’s view on the compatibility of religion and science through using science to identify true illusions and miracles. He claims, “Surely you will easily believe that we that have so many things truly natural which induce admiration, could in a world of particulars deceive the senses, if we would disguise those things and labour to make them seem more miraculous” (61). This passage shows the way Bacon idealistically views the strict differences between the natural and human construction of deception. Throughout the novel, Bacon regularly ignores the complex political and social realities that provide barriers to his idealistic ideas. In spite of, or perhaps because of this lack of complexity, Bacon’s ideas on environment are very technologically influential.
Another individual who is both environmentally idealistic and technologically influential is the former US Secretary of Agriculture, Orville Freeman. In Freeman’s book, World Without Hunger, he outlines his optimistic dream of feeding the whole world through widespread deployment of technology and information. He writes, “[America has] emphasized the training of engineers for the space race. We must now emphasize the training of agricultural scientists for the world-wide race in which technical assistance is pitted against starvation” (81). While it is certainly reductionist to boil down complex political and economic food systems to simply technical assistance and starvation, Freeman does have deployable plans for how to help make changes within this huge, global issue. And these are influential ideas that can be implemented, as shown through Freeman’s powerful position in the US government and the success of one of his other ideas, food stamps. While Freeman’s idealism may not fix the world’s problems, it does result in technologically influential actions that can be taken and make changes in the world.
French political philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau is also environmentally idealistic. In his paper, A Dissertation on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality of Mankind, he bemoans society’s ills and paints a dystopian view of the future. He writes, “It is thus with man also: as he becomes sociable and a slave, he grows weak, timid, and servile; his effeminate way of life totally enervates his strength and courage” (75). Yet, despite his negative view towards society, Rousseau’s holds overwhelming optimism that we can overcome such societal ills. This is obvious in the response to Voltaire’s poem on the Lisbon earthquake, which Rousseau writes, “For me, I see everywhere that the misfortunes nature imposes upon us are less cruel than those which we add to them… you revel but I hope, and hope beautifies everything”. In contrast to Voltaire bringing god into question following the disaster, Rousseau’s idealism paints a different view of the earthquake, one that values god and the natural world much more than society. This optimism did not go unnoticed by the public either and actually helped inspire the French Revolution. Rousseau’s bold and optimistic ideas about environment led to radical political changes.
Another example of idealism in the natural world resulting in political change is Rachel Carson and her famous book, Silent Spring. Right from the beginning, Carson idealizes the small, harmonious, American every-town and how chilling it would be for it to fall silent due to the death of its animal ecosystem. Carson presents idealism through a nostalgic past and a dystopian future if DDT pesticide continues to be used, killing insects and destroying ecosystems. Carson shows this dystopian view in her hypothetical American town and when she writes, “Some would-be architects of our future look forward to a time when it will be possible to alter the human germ plasm by design. But we may easily be doing so now by inadvertence, for many chemicals, like radiation, bring about gene mutations. It is ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray” (453). This environmental dystopian narrative proved to be very powerful for creating political change and shifting ideas of the natural world. For example, these ideas popularized ideas of ecology and established hope for a better future if DDT were to be banned. Furthermore, the EPA, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act were all instituted in American environmental politics following and resulting from Silent Spring. In fact, one of the first actions by the EPA was to ban DDT after the commotion that Carson caused with her idealistic ideas. Carson’s idealistic views of natural world were very influential and led to large political change.
Another way we see environmental idealism drive change is through social relationships. This is demonstrated in the dueling expeditions to the North Pole by Frederick Cook and Robert Peary. Reaching the North Pole is an incredibly bold and idealistic task, as demonstrated by Cook claiming that the pole “[had] aroused the ambition of man for so many ages”, or Peary stating, “The pole at last! The prize of three centuries. My dream and goal for twenty years! Mine at last!”. This is further emphasized by the “bleak” and “cheerless” spot they find that is pretty much scientifically and politically useless outside of seeing all directions point south. This sense of idealism is, however, wrapped up in ideas of the American frontier, class, and race. The role of race, in particular, shows how social relationships developed through bold, environmental ideas. For instance, Inuit people had reached the pole, or least close to it, long before Cook or Peary. Several Inuit individuals even helped the expeditions navigate the difficult terrain and reach the pole. And controversially, Matthew Henson, an African-American on Peary’s expedition, may have even reached the pole first. Yet, Cook and Peary, white Americans, take all the credit for reaching the pole first due to their belief in their own superiority, tied closely to race, class, and other factors. These ideas of superiority are certainly not unique to Cook and Peary at this point in American history, yet it is through their bold environmental ideas of conquering the unexplored that these social relationships are propagated as demonstrated in the variety of works published following the expeditions. Environmental idealism is responsible for proliferating social ideas.
An additional example of a bold environmental idea translating to complex social relationships is Wangari Maathai’s idea of an African greenbelt. This idea of creating a belts of trees that line the entire continent is idealistic in Maathai’s absolute dedication that this idea will fix many of Africa’s environmental and social problems. Especially relevant is the way in which the movement is so closely related with Kenya’s women’s rights movement. Maathai writes, “[The cabinet minister] wanted to Green Belt Movement to focus on the environment and the NCWK on women’s issues, not seeing (or wanting to see) that they were intertwined. My reading of the situation was that the government wanted to reduce the attention the Green Belt Movement was getting in the press and its support from donors” (179). The politics of women’s rights in Kenya were reflected by Maathai’s environmental ideals. And through Maathai staying optimistic and sticking to her ideals, her ideas become very influential, eventually leading to improved conditions for women in Kenya and other African countries.
In conclusion, there is merit to Mike Davis’s statement that one needs to be idealistic rather than strictly realistic when discussing problem-solving actions in large, environmental issues. Throughout history, various important individuals have expressed their environmental influence through depictions of technology, politics, and social relationships. However, this is not to say that there is no place for the realistic, pessimistic, and sometimes paralyzing views of intellect. Not everyone can spend their time creating new or repurposed influential ideas that change environmental attitudes. Critique and complexification of these ideas is also essential in order to ensure that ideas are not blindly accepted and deployed without careful consideration of potential implications. That being said, environmentalism’s penchant for utopian and dystopian ideas is, in fact, quite useful for motivating people through narratives and spreading influential ideas.