LoL, I probably misread. It happens from time to time.
Who doesn't? Also, I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
I think when you start making assumptions about other peoples subconscious, you often start getting into trouble.
True enough. But then again, that's a lot of what sociology does, along with history. While I only chose Psych. & Soc. for my second major (or first, I'm not actually sure if ancient Greek and Latin was my first or secondary major, but it doesn't really matter) for reasons that had nothing to do with an interest in sociology, some of it did and still does interest me. Every worldview is partly a construct of the individual, but is also based on a socio-cultural history that individual may not even be aware of. For example, Bertrand Russell wondered why China didn't develop science (meaning an empirical approach to hypothesis testing through an increasing "stock" of shared experimental methods and paradigms). All civilizations have invented tools (some more complex than others), and some developed philosophies that approach modern science in certain ways. Yet this kind of rudimentary science, which one finds in e.g., ancient Greece, is pretty rare. Russell never thought that perhaps in order for a culture to develop experimental methods and procedures for exploring and understanding the world, it might be that the culture has to believe the world is understandable. In other words, if a culture views the universe as cyclical, unchanging, or otherwise evolving in a way humans have zero control over, and/or if there is a cultural belief that there is no order, rhyme, or reason behind anything, then perhaps science cannot develop.
The point is that while you are correct to point out how speculative such inquiry into unconscious aspects of an individual's worldview are (especially as much of the "evidence" for my belief expressed here is anecdotal evidence from personal conversations, blog posts, forums online or in the real world, etc.), it's quite possible to provide meaningful explanations on shared worldviews based on history and enough interactions.
I guess I don't see that implicit belief.
I would imagine the social circles you are a part of would tend to include people like you (i.e., educated, well-informed, etc.). In my experience and from what I have read, most individuals who are passionate about the environment don't have a background similar to yours.
I do hear people talk about how we are "disconnected" from nature but this doesn't mean we are not a part of nature. It means that most people don't understand how they fit into the natural world. They don't understand their food supply or if their water is actually safe to drink.
I was using the "disconnected" example more to illustrate a view of nature itself (rather than our membership in it) which is idyllic and unrealistic.
The majority is a very diverse body around the world. No doubt there are environmentalists who believe as you think they do... what I dispute is your extrapolating from those people to the "majority". Environmentalism isn't limited to any single demographic.
I agree it isn't limited to any single demographic. However, neither are the beliefs I'm talking about. There are specific demographics in which these views are overrepresented (e.g., the many neopagan groups), but from more radical feminist ideology (where in certain circles the earth is symbolic of feminine power through it's ability to create and nurture life) to neomarxism and so forth, members of these groups who are environmentalists also tend to intersect when it comes to the view I'm describing.
I haven't conducted a single study, let alone the number it would take to start putting together an empirically based picture. But from this forum to blogs to popular books to interactions with environmental groups, I've found it more common than not.
It's a nice "just so" story that environmentalism grew out of idealism and growing reverence for nature... and many of the remembered names from the early movement are those idealists... but the people who actually got things accomplished, were pragmatists. Sadly these people, like Gifford Pinchot and George Perkins Marsh who published one of the most influential books on land preservation in history: Man and Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action are all but forgotten.
That's sort of my point. There were plenty of other factors and certainly pragmatic views as something as complex as modern environmentalism evolved, but while some were influential, they usually failed to make a widescale impression on social understanding or conceptions of nature.
I started looking into this issue (indirectly at first) researching modern feminist trends and the their history, the effects on western cultures as they moved away from christianity and sought to replace it (e.g., the reviving, combining, and/or reconstructing "ancient" practices, the rejection of Freud's neglect of "the spritiual" by his disciples, the change in literature, etc), and similar forays into the history of the development common modern worldviews.
This particular"just so" story is, like all others, simplistic, but I'm not the first to apply it to the evolution of movements from the 19th century onwards.
Perhaps a study of ecology and ecological dynamics would help?
Not so far. Granted, my studies of climate science are focused more on atmospheric dynamics, but I have looked into ecology as well. Apart from my interest in the environment, I look to earth sciences because the approach to neural activity has only recently involved incorporating and focusing on a dynamical systems research, and there are still to many neuroscientists who are rooted in classical cog. sci. views. The environment is filled with incredibly intricate and complex systems.
Talk to environmentalists from Africa, Latin and South America or anywhere else and you find very different things. Heck, even in Europe there is a significantly different view, mostly owing to a profoundly different history with the land.
I've spent a lot of time talking to environmentalists in Europe, but I never realized until now that I have neglected many important regions (South America and Africa being two).
I think much of the issue here comes down to your understanding of the terms "chaotic" and "balanced" and how they relate to ecological dynamics. When ecologists/biologists use the term "balanced" they don't mean a system that never varies or changes... but one that generally operates within certain ranges of variables. Predators and prey will have a "balanced" relationship with prey generally outnumbering predators but overall numbers of both will vary from season to season and predator numbers respond to prey numbers but lag behind. Outside of stochastic events and outside influences this system will remain in "balance" perpetually.
wa:do
That's the problem with so many current models, of everything from a neuron to predator/prey. Take predator/prey models. They are, of course, of necessity simplifications. But they are pretty accurate barring "outside events." The problem is that putting together a bunch of such models (not just predator/prey) doesn't a globally balanced system make. Stochastic events are perpetually occuring, from random gene mutations to extreme weather. I look at what we know of the history of the earth and I see constant fluctuations everywhere, often extreme. Yes, there is a certain amount of stability, or we wouldn't be here. But the driving forces behind life involve competitive interactions, which in turn result in evolution, change, and adaption, not just of species but of eco-systems. Although sometimes things don't really change for tens of millions of years (look at the shark), I don't think that's the norm.
Our planet is powered by a battery which is itself dynamically fluctuating. The life which is supported by this battery is constantly bombarded not simply by things like volcanoes or cosmic rays, but by species constantly trying to survive through adaption to their environment, only for another species (or several) to adapt in ways which change that environment.
Balanced? Even as you defined the term, I think it only works on local models over a quite limited timescale. There is, however, a certain order in this chaos.
