Originally titled “Trophic Cascade - Grizzly”
This should not be taken as an environmentalist text. They, through the years and manifestations, have provided the language in common use, necessary to discuss the natural world. This is especially true when speaking of the human - wilderness/nature interface, sanitized by linguistics. The urban/wildland interface is far too reductionist. Nuance is lost. However, I think this term, environmentalism, is rightfully understood to be corrupt and at least slightly, if not directly, complicit in its own lack of respect and seriousness. We all know that crazy environmentalist - I have been one of those crazy environmentalists. Maybe I remain so. Damn treehuggers.
That said, I agree with the cause, and many of the ideas and concepts, when the knowledge and influence is executed in a truly helpful manner. But the poetry! The ideological discourse! The intelligence and eloquence of the environmental scholars! I lost no sleep being in their company. The ignorance of the uneducated is great, both in the environmental movement, and in whatever we believe to be the opposition. So we can utilize the epistemology of the environmental and conservation movements and leave behind the practical execution of these baggage-ridden relics.
Ecology is the language of both environmentalism and conservationism. We can continue to utilize the same and not feel guilty. I also think a definition of terms and full disclosure is necessary, so biases are made apparent, and a fuller argument can manifest. The key differences between these two methodologies are largely aesthetic, and as a result, political.
In my experience, the most striking, and perhaps most significant difference is that of the end goal. In other words, the potential outcome of an adaptation of their philosophy, in a manner sufficient to change the dominant paradigm. Environmentalism, a romantic, radical revolution, which, if adopted, by theory and text, would provide for a utopian society, wherein we save ourselves from ourselves, and the world is all the better for our efforts. Allegedly. This is to say, of course, that human impact on the planet, both good and bad, even hedging toward good, can have a vast impact on our potential future society. This system of thought is well reflected by the masters of the environmental writers.
Those such as Thoreau, Muir, Cooke, Williams, and Lee (in later work), have the great fortune to see success in the goals of the environmental movement, which seems incredibly naive and profound all at once. The arrogance of humanity to deceive ourselves into assuming we know the answer, and can fix our worst transgressions, is astounding. Once we solve global warming, as we will inevitably have to, by hook or by crook, another crisis shall emerge, ad infinitum, until the whole thing goes absolutely to shit, naturally. Would we be having these conversations if climate change were not our generation’s, maybe our millenium’s most important task?
Pre-Common Era, the questions were of origins, from a Eurocentric perspective. We told great stories through poetry, prose, and societal structure, to come to grips with emerging from the true dark ages, those of before the written word. That worldview went as far as it could. The heavens became the new realm of exploration, and that occurred through churches, mosques, and other religious devilry. Their divinations expanded the story as far as possible.
The task fell to the natural scientists working to uncover the rationale behind the mysterious forces. Their work continues, and as a result, for the first time in our species’ history, we have the potential to apply the tools left by the previous generation of thinkers to pro-actively address problems, as we understand them. We now have the tools to effectively deal with continual world crises. As soon as climate change is solved, if we survive that pre-ponderous insult to rational and critical thinking, a new crisis will emerge to become the forefront of thought, whether it be about (finally) addressing global hunger, or (finally) addressing religious dogma, or whether it is something mundane as an asteroid. Regardless, if we do not do something about the current issues now, we will be destroying, every day the machine moves on, an irreplaceable portion of our history and future.
JFL