The environmental movement originated in the 1960s in response to contemporary problems stemming from capitalism. My thought is why are people quick to respond to an issue because of impending doom rather than wanting to act in hopes of building a more positive outcome? I just feel that fear is a commonly used tactic that environmentalists use to promote action and that it isn't often enough that environmentalists use positive prompts that enforce ideas of a future that works off of clean energy, less waste, etc.
I get it, sometimes people need to see how these issues impact them directly. But the more we look at our future as one filled with smog and death will reality follow?
English scientist, C.P. Snow , felt that in order to solve the world's looming problems humanities and the sciences must re-marry. In his opinion "the intellectual life of the whole western society," depends on it.
I agree with Snow in the case of environmentalism, as it's arguable that environmental issues are just as much socially threatening as they are physical threatening. The pollution of the world isn't just found in our waterways, but in the minds of those being affected. Social pollution can be just as contaminating.
To raise another question, how do scientists and historians stay subjective if they must consider things beyond the facts?
As we separate humanities and sciences, we are skewing our view of how they effect each other. WIlliam Cronon's, The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature, comes to mind. His belief was that humans separate themselves (theoretically) from the "natural" landscape therefore fleeing responsibility to care for it. Basically, as we separate ourselves from the "other" we are avoiding dealing with it. You could see how this can relate to a lot of different contemporary social issues.
Cronon divides human perception of nature into two categories: the sublime and the frontier. It's pretty simple, the sublime/romantic perception refers to the older biblical viewpoint in which nature is a space of supernatural mystery, maybe even a space in which one may encounter God. As for the frontier viewpoint, nature is something to be conquered as a return to more primitive times and an escape from modern civilization.
In Brian Fagan's, Elixir, he brings us to the aqueducts of Rome, reminiscent of the water systems of the Etruscans. It seems that the Roman's pulled inspiration from a number of civilizations, but the Etruscans used their cuniculi or "rabbit burrows" in order to "carry erosive streams underground, to drain marshlands, to irrigate fields, and to water cities," (178).
Sure both the Roman and Chinese are historically known for their remarkably advanced water systems, but at the same time we need to think about what history is praising… Agriculture can be the most damaging and transformative to landscapes and that's where the water was going. How can something so helpful and astonishing be so detrimental?
△
English scientist, C.P. Snow , felt that in order to solve the world's looming problems humanities and the sciences must re-marry. In his opinion "the intellectual life of the whole western society," depends on it.
I agree with Snow in the case of environmentalism, as it's arguable that environmental issues are just as much socially threatening as they are physical threatening. The pollution of the world isn't just found in our waterways, but in the minds of those being affected. Social pollution can be just as contaminating.
To raise another question, how do scientists and historians stay subjective if they must consider things beyond the facts?
As we separate humanities and sciences, we are skewing our view of how they effect each other. WIlliam Cronon's, The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature, comes to mind. His belief was that humans separate themselves (theoretically) from the "natural" landscape therefore fleeing responsibility to care for it. Basically, as we separate ourselves from the "other" we are avoiding dealing with it. You could see how this can relate to a lot of different contemporary social issues.
Cronon divides human perception of nature into two categories: the sublime and the frontier. It's pretty simple, the sublime/romantic perception refers to the older biblical viewpoint in which nature is a space of supernatural mystery, maybe even a space in which one may encounter God. As for the frontier viewpoint, nature is something to be conquered as a return to more primitive times and an escape from modern civilization.
In Brian Fagan's, Elixir, he brings us to the aqueducts of Rome, reminiscent of the water systems of the Etruscans. It seems that the Roman's pulled inspiration from a number of civilizations, but the Etruscans used their cuniculi or "rabbit burrows" in order to "carry erosive streams underground, to drain marshlands, to irrigate fields, and to water cities," (178).
Sure both the Roman and Chinese are historically known for their remarkably advanced water systems, but at the same time we need to think about what history is praising… Agriculture can be the most damaging and transformative to landscapes and that's where the water was going. How can something so helpful and astonishing be so detrimental?
△