The Nature of Sustainability: A Human-Nature Hybridity
Environmentalism is not a new concept. It is a social movement or philosophy that aims to protect and improve the health of the environment. While humans have accepted this view of environmentalism for living in the Holocene epoch, political environmentalist Paul Wapner proposes a renewed definition of environmentalism that has emerged in the Anthropocene epoch. Wapner sees the Anthropocene as an epoch of human geological influence, where humans have inflicted a signature on the earth leaving it “independent of human experience” (2). That is to say, humans have embedded themselves into the earth systems, resulting in a new form of nature that is not autonomous, but rather defined by a hybrid human-nature relationship. This concept of a human-nature hybridity is the foundation for Wapner’s argument of an environmentalism that embraces the post-nature age and calls for a “more sustainable, just and ecologically healthy” (15) future.
Although Wapner concludes his article by emphasizing an environmentalism that requires human action in the form of sustainable development, his argument falls short by failing to define both sustainability and sustainable development in the Anthropocene. Society defines sustainability as the ability to maintain the health and balance of nature which directly contradicts Wapner’s proposal for a hybridized world. This contradiction poses the question of how Wapner’s renewed environmentalism
Anthropocene is a term used to describe earth’s history including when humans dominated a majority of natural processes globally. Anthropocence was a term used throughout the article to discuss the impact humankind had on the environment that caused many changes that had a negative impact over many years. Another term used was anthrones, the human footprint, which describes how much human kind has made lasting impassions on the earth. These terms have made me come to the realization anthropology operates at the crossroads of social and physical sciences, along with humanities to examine the diversity of humankind across many cultures and time.
In the book, Future Of Life (2002), Edward O. Wilson, satirizes and jokes about how childish and unsophisticated arguments are such as those between the People-First Critics and Environmentalist. The results of this book is to showcase how these arguments lead to nowhere and Wilson presents this information by satirically mocking both sides of the argument with exaggeration, sarcasm and hyperboles.
In the book The Future of Life, author Edward O. Wilson highlights the ineffective nature of the debates between the two side of environmentalism. He achieves this by pointing out parallels and similarities of the language between two sides in the satirical piece.
Rachel Carson’s Man and the Stream of time possesses enlightening perspectives of nature that have been marinating in her mind for ten years. Her writing reflects upon the effects that man has on nature and the role he plays in the ever changing environment. Her sole observation is that it is man’s nature to want to conquer the world, but nature is not one to be conquered. The writer affirms that nature is an entity that must be dignified, Like English poet Francis Thompson said, “Thou canst not stir a flower without troubling of a star.” Most environmentalist would agree that nature is not stationary, we cut the trees now today, its not just the trees that disappear ten years from now. As humanity advances, we create a multitude of
Environmentalism can spark interest and discussion from opposing attitudes about the subject. Scientist Edward O. Wilson, author of The Future of Life, creates the argument of unproductive nature in environmentalism discussions. In this persuasive piece of writing, Wilson explores the stereotypical views between people-first critics and environmentalists in their aimless approach to the resolution of issues. The author uses unprofessional slang to successfully poke fun at these problems and present satire in his argument.
Environmental history explores a variety of topics in order to connect nature to humans. In doing so, a new history emerges. As this history unveils itself, it becomes evident that throughout time, humans have taken it upon themselves to improve the nonhuman world for their own gains. Numerous scholars have contemplated this idea, and while they do not all agree on the meaning or the means of improvement upon the land, it remains a constant theme. By exploring the theme of improvement to land, a clear path forms. The idea of improvement in environmental history creates artificial agency for humans, as well as revealing that improvement cannot happen without having an adverse effect on humans.
In “The Changing Nature of Nature: Environmental Politics in the Anthropocene” environmental politician Paul Wapner depicts the human impacts on nature, and their significant intervention in ecosystem dynamics. His research outlines the “end of nature” (Wapner, 37) and aims to put emphasis on the beginning of the Anthropocene, suggesting that we are finally realizing that nature is not merely a material object. With this in mind, Wapner argues that the ways in which we protect nature should be significantly different, this, justifying his study. In order to form an argument, Wapner begins by summarizing a general piece of academic research, and through this is then able to provide an organized overview of the logic of his argument. The alternation
“Environmental wackos” and “anti-environmentalists”, according to Edward O. Wilson’s The Future of Life, both have a hidden agenda. He claims that these hidden agendas are rooted in personal interest and ideas which only benefit them and not the people, nor the environment. Through the use of absurdity and irony with a sarcastic tone, Wilson satirizes these agendas that make the environmentalists and people-first critics unproductive.
In The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson, Wilson, a contemporary scientist, illustrates the unproductive nature of environmentalists and the people-firsts or anti-environmentalists. Wilson also identifies the parallels of each group and their unexpected similarities. He satirizes the language that each group would typically use against the other. It is concluded that people in today’s world are all too literal. When everything said is taken to heart, it is difficult for the real issues to ever be resolved.
Defining the Anthropocene Through Reason In the article “Defining the Anthropocene,” geologists Lewis and Maslin constrain the plausible start dates of the Anthropocene to reveal the importance of human actions on nature. Before Lewis and Maslin, several scientists, environmentalists, and historians had written on the history and the future impact of the Anthropocene; however, none had concluded on a start date to this new epoch of human-nature interaction. Through a geologists perspective Lewis and Maslin aim to define the beginning of the Anthropocene through geological evidence.
Ecomodernist’s believe that modernization is the major tool to resolving environmental issues. Ecomodernist’s feel as though society needs to always progress and that humanity cannot ever slow down or else development would stop completely. Ecomodernist’s view modernity as the human separation from mastery over nature (Taylor). This perspective stresses the idea of using our technological and
One of the most vigorously debated topics is the issue of sustainability. These include climate change, overpopulation, pollution, and ignorance to the damage being done to the environment. The climate that all living things have come to rely upon is changing because of global warming. Today, sustainability has become a focal point and a significant part of life. Sustainability is defined as the ability to meet current environmental, ecological, economics, social and cultural needs without risking the ability of future generations to meet those same needs. What does the Best American Science Wtg. 2014 teach us about sustainability, and what makes the paradigm shift to a sustainable planet? These different authors explain with example how sustainability can be achieved and also the different points of views that exist. “TV as birth control,” by Fred Pearce, “Why the brain prefers paper,” by Ferris Jabrs, “Bringing them back to life,” by Carl Zimmer and “A race to save the orange by altering its DNA”, by Amy Harmon’s – reveals that cultural sustainability involves efforts to preserve the actual and evasive cultural elements of sociality such as heritage, educational opportunities and public policies, in way that promote environmental, economic and social sustainability.
White’s thesis in The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis states that in order to confront the expanding environmental crises, humans must begin to analyze and alter their treatment and attitudes towards nature. The slow destruction of the environment derives from the Western scientific and technological advancements made since the Medieval time period. “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them” (RON p.7). Technology and science alone will not be able to save humans until we adjust the way of thinking and suppress the old ideas of humans power above nature. Instead, we need to learn how to think of ourselves as being
In a chilling recollection of mankind’s current misdeeds towards the environment in “The End of Nature,” McKibben’s call for action is one paramount to the survival of the human race. In essence, McKibben argues that the futures of both nature and ourselves are delicately yet undeniably interconnected. Furthermore, he urges that “we” (ALL humans) are the deciding chip in said bond. By doing so, McKibben implies that action must be situated if we are to expect any change in such bleak a situation. This argument can clearly be found when McKibben speaks out on a myriad of environmental issues in the past, present, and future. McKibben begins to accustom readers to a pattern in which human ignorance juts out from past environmental experiences.
Environmental issues have been a cause of a lot of debate in the recent past. Governments and nongovernmental organizations have been in constant consultations on how to help protect the environment. Apparently, as a result of man’s many actions, the natural environment is getting torn apart so quickly that the coming generations will not enjoy this kind of environment, unless a