ENVS 160: Introduction to Environmental Studies

Lewis & Clark College | Fall 2020

Classic vs. Contemporary Environmental Thought and Conservation

, , |
Filed Under: Classic and Contemporary Environmental Thought

Table Of Contents

Introduction

In this publication, we will be examining the differences between classic and contemporary environmental theory as it pertains to conservation. We will go into detail to describe how these different schools of thought relate to specific ecotypes within the broader scope of conservation. By providing a real world example of how classic and contemporary ideologies can be applied to a specific issue, we will lend a better understanding of the key differences in the theories. Finally, we will share our own personal views, beliefs, and understandings of the two philosophies.

Definition of Classic and Contemporary Thought

In order to understand the different ways in which we approach conservation, we must first have a clear understanding of the differences and similarities that classical and contemporary environmental thought have. While classical thought has been the standard in environmentalism for decades, many have begun to recognize the value of contemporary thought.

Classic thought is an approach to environmental protection rooted in stability and “solid-clear truths” (Proctor 2020). It uses facts to create solutions that are not tech oriented. However classic thought can be quite pessimistic in comparison to contemporary, this pessimism is displayed when earth is regarded as having a “planetary boundary” (Steffen 2015), or tipping point in which there is no return. One example of this is the World3 model, found in Limits to Growth The 30-Year Update, which was designed to run through possibilities of our future in terms of climate change. The outcomes it produced almost all ended in the mass extinction of the human population and other species, and the model is only meant to represent “the uppermost possibilities for the “real” world.” (Latour 2011).

Contemporary thought is a much more optimistic, holistic approach to the environmental issues the planet faces. It often involves blending current technologies with nature, in an attempt to “harmo-nize agricultural production with biodiversity” (Defries 2012). Therefore contemporary thought relies heavily on technology as a means to solve environmental problems. It’s optimism is rooted in believing that technology and future innovations are going to be the means to the end of the worsening state of the planet. The ideology is that “The goal of political ecology must not be to stop innovating, inventing, creating, and intervening.” (Meadows 2004). Innovation is important to this frame of thought due to its belief that humans “create miraculous advances even while tolerating incomprehensible failures.” (Smil 2005)

Classic and Contemporary Thought and EcoTypes

Launched in early 2017, The EcoTypes Initiative was a joint research and educational effort focusing primarily on students enrolled in undergraduate environmental courses in US institutions of higher education. Given that classic and contemporary thoughts can have different concepts and can have many ways to think about environmental issues, the same idea can be applied to ecotypes. These ecotypes were designed for participants to explore the fundamental ideas that shape how they approach environmental issues. There are three ecotype themes and 15 different ecotype axes. Each axis represents important differences or debates related to environmental ideas, and is defined in terms of opposing poles. These Ecotypes are: Aesthetics, Change, Diversity, Domain, Ecosystems, Ethics, Future, Nature, Science, Social Scale, Society, Spatial Scale, Spirituality, Technology, and Time. These 15 axes have been bundled together into three categories or “Themes”: Place, knowledge, and Action.

“The scope of environmental ideas is bigger than “environment” as commonly understood; thus, EcoTypes includes predictable axes such as Ecosystems and Nature alongside less expected axes such as Change, Society, and Time. Environmental ideas are perhaps best approached as ideologies, social ideas that circulate in practice and power relations (Zizek 2012; Eagleton 2014), suggesting again their considerable breadth”. They are used to suggest key differences between classic and contemporary environmental thought. 

There is a tendency for the left pole to reflect classic thought, and the right contemporary thought. For example, the poles for the Ecosystems axis are stable vs dynamic. The stable side of the spectrum has a more classic approach to environmental thinking. They believe Earth’s ecosystems tend toward stability and balance among the animals and plants that comprise them. Any abrupt change detected in the ecosystem is some form of human disturbance. While the more contemporary way of thinking would be the dynamic pole. Those aligned with the dynamic pole believe that the Earth’s ecosystems actually tend more toward dynamism and change than equilibrium and stability. They believe Ecosystems are dynamic and have long experienced change, whether or not humans have impacted them. 

In some important cases, classic and contemporary thought may be found underlying either pole, via differing approaches bundled in their respective themes. Axes such as Change, Social Scale and Spatial Scale are part of the small/big Action theme. This means another way to think about the scale of action is based on the premise that big problems call for big solutions. You can break down themes into several combinations of two poles, incremental/radical and low/high priority. Based on this separation, the two dominant beliefs are that solving environmental issues step by step is a good way to build environmental solutions or that radical change is necessary, and taking small steps to solve environmental problems could distract humans from the imperative for more radical change. The low priority role is the needs of poor and nonwhite populations being adequately addressed by environmentalists today; they don’t require greater priority or the high priority pole. The most important need in environmentalism today according to contemporaries is to diversify the movement beyond white, middle-class participants. Classic and Contemporary thought can have different concepts and many ways to think about environmental issues, each with different axes and poles

In some important cases, classic and contemporary thought may be found underlying either pole, via differing approaches bundled in their respective themes. Axes such as Change, Social Scale and Spatial Scale are part of the small/big Action theme. This means another way to think about the scale of action is based on the premise that big problems call for big solutions. You can break down themes into several combinations of two poles, incremental/radical and low/high priority. Based on this separation, the two dominant beliefs are that solving environmental issues step by step is a good way to build environmental solutions or that radical change is necessary, and taking small steps to solve environmental problems could distract humans from the imperative for more radical change. The low priority role is the needs of poor and nonwhite populations being adequately addressed by environmentalists today; they don’t require greater priority or the high priority pole. The most important need in environmentalism today according to contemporaries is to diversify the movement beyond white, middle-class participants. Classic and Contemporary thought can have different concepts and many ways to think about environmental issues, each with different axes and poles

Example

Since the 1700s, the federal government has been putting land aside solely for the purpose of conserving these areas as wilderness. Today in the United States, nearly 30% of the total land mass is owned by the public, funded by the taxpayer, and managed by the federal government. Public lands are key in ensuring that the roughly 640 million acres of wilderness are preserved (Congressional Research Service). 

Not only are public lands key to the entire conservation movement, they are also critical to outdoor recreation. The outdoor recreation industry generates 7.6 million american jobs as well as 887 billion dollars in consumer spending (Outdoor Industry Association). Without public land, this industry would not be able to exist. 

When the idea of public land was first introduced, classic environmental thought suggested  that we should protect these wild places by setting large amounts of land aside for conservation. By banning humans from exploiting land for their own personal gain, there is no way to cause any harm to the areas. In the early days of conservation, the only reason that people decided to protect these places was because they care about the non-human world for its own sake. A contemporary point of view says that we should value these wild places not just for the sake of the non-human world, but also for the resources and ecosystem services that they provide for humans. Public land doesn’t just ensure that the land itself will be protected, but also huge amounts of clean air and water. The clean water found on public lands alone is worth 7.2 billion dollars a year (U.S. Forest Service).

This begs the question, why has a system that has benefited the American people since its founding come under attack in recent years? The Trump administration has worked to deliberately move public land into private hands. The administration is focusing on the value of the resources found on public lands rather than long term effects that removing them will have. On numerous occasions, Trump has removed the wilderness designation of land across America to open these areas up to oil and gas drilling as well as heavy metal mining. The short lived economic benefits of removing these resources will be nothing compared to what it will cost the taxpayers when these protected areas are no longer wild. Trump has succeeded in shrinking Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument and the Arctic National Wildlife refuge is next on his list (Nordhaus 2018). Opening this area to oil and gas drilling will forever change the migratory route of the porcupine and threaten the livelihood of the Gwich’in Indigenous people (Fountain, Plumer 2020).

 The way that the current administration has handled public land is a perfect example of how contemporary environmental thought can be manipulated to benefit private groups. Contemporary thought teaches that we should not set aside huge plots of land for conservation, but rather we should allow industries to use these lands. On paper this should incentives private groups to conserve the lands for their own benefit. This can create loopholes that allow private groups to use all of our shared resources.

Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument (Wikimedia Commons)

Assessment 

Within our team, we all share similar thoughts in regard to classic and contemporary environmentalism and where we fall on the spectrum of it. We are all somewhat central, thinking that both classic and contemporary are important when thinking of the future of the planet and the protection of the environment. A mix of different ideologies and perspectives is the only way our team believes we can properly approach the impending, and already present, environmental crises.

While we are all in the middle, we do lean more towards contemporary thought. This is for a few reasons; firstly, because of its emphasis on technology based solutions, which we all agree are vital in order to achieve environmental stability. Technology is part of life, with new advancements being made frequently, so it wouldn’t make sense if we were to ignore it as a useful tool. We think that finding a way to blend technology and nature together would lead to people being much more capable of maintaining the environment. Our second reason for leaning more towards contemporary is we feel it is important to be optimistic about the future. If one gets too caught up in the pessimism that classic thought displays, it could be hard to think there is anything that can be done at all. Being optimistic is one important motivator of trying to change the current fate of humanity and the planet. Lastly, we lean more towards contemporary because of how it involves many opinions and ideas on how to approach the crises, which as stated above is something important to our group.

However we also recognize the importance of classic thought, and the stability it provides in this time of liquid modernity. In a time of such uncertainty it is good to be able to fall back to solid modernity occasionally. We believe that hard truths and facts are important, which contemporary thought doesn’t necessarily provide, while classic does. We also recognize that there are circumstances in which developing-technology and nature shouldn’t be blended, because of the unknown risks it can display. Innovation is important, but solving problems, not creating them, is critical. 

Overall, we believe that a blend of both contemporary and classic thought is what we need when looking to the future of our planet. 

References

  • DeFries, Ruth S. et al. 2012. “Planetary Opportunities: A Social Contract for Global Change Science to Contribute to a Sustainable Future.” BioScience 62 (6): 603–6. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.11.
  • Latour, Bruno. 2011. “Love Your Monsters.” In Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene, edited by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. Oakland, CA: Breakthrough Institute.
  • Meadows, Donella, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows. 2004. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
  • Smil, Vaclav. 2005. “Limits to Growth Revisited: A Review Essay.” Population & Development Review 31 (1): 157–64.
  • Steffen, Will, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena M. Bennett, Reinette Biggs, et al. 2015. “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet.” Science 347 (6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.