2.3. Changes in environmental thinking

The previous chapter was about conceptions of nature and the human, and the historical transformation of those conceptions. This chapter is focused on environments. Different conceptions of ‘nature’ and ‘human’ affect how material environments are perceived and treated. In this chapter, our goal is to understand the ways in which environments have been characterised, valued and studied in different fields. The chapter's brief overview of environmental conservation pays particular attention to how anthropocentric and nature-centric perspectives have gained different emphases over time. We will also ask how the aesthetic valuing of environments is associated with environmental issues and environmental conservation.

“Nature” and “environment” gain different meanings in different fields. In many situations, they are mutually overlapping terms that refer to material reality. When slightly simplified, they can be said to differ from each other in two ways:

1.  “Environment” covers a wider area than “nature”: in addition to natural environments, it also includes other environments, such as constructed environment, media environment and social environment.
2.  “Environment” always surrounds a being and its meanings are constructed in relation to this being. For example, a willow tit has its habitat, and a businessman has his business environment. Therefore, environments are always connected to lived relations and activities, and consequentially, “environment” is a very practical term. “Nature” doesn’t necessarily require such meanings but can be understood, for example, as an eternal and unchanging ideal state or characteristic that is present in the being itself (e.g., “human nature”).

The term “environment” has also been criticised for producing too many differences. Environment refers to something surrounding the experiencer, placing them at the centre. According to thinkers who emphasise a more radical ecological continuity, the objective should instead be to conceptualise and understand humanity and nature as inseparable.

The alternative conceptualisations proposed by thinkers who criticise “nature” and “environment” emphasise reciprocity, continuity, and interconnectivity. For example, according to phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty, humans constantly produce environments for themselves, and at the same time, environments shape and define them. In other words, humans constantly interact with their environment. The environment must also be considered as a relation between a being and the things that surround it, instead of something predetermined. Philosopher Susanna Lindberg (2020, 242) states: “The human is a relationship that is active and also often in collision with its natural and cultural environment.” This sort of thinking emphasises the activity of humans as living organisms in their environment, and in this regard it aligns with the prevailing conceptions in the field of ecology.

Even though the concepts of nature and environment are problematic in many ways, in practice and in research they are still useful and sometimes even necessary. Even from an everyday practical perspective, it is always worth asking for what these multifaceted concepts are meant by and used for.

Multidisciplinary environmental research

Nature and environment have been understood as the research subjects of natural scientists since the creation of modern natural science. However, modern environmental research is multidisciplinary. In the 1960s and 1970s, when the state of the environment became a universal concern, an increasing number of social scientists and humanists also began studying the environment. 

Environmental research therefore deals with, among other things, what can be considered a favourable, useful or pleasing environment for humans or other species, and how changes in the status of the environment affect the viability of the environment from the perspective of different species. In Finnish environmental research, recent subjects have included, for example, the changes in the meanings attached to swamps and forests, and the views on what is considered good forest management. In the 1960s, it was thought that swamps should primarily be drained to increase the area of productive forests and fields, and swamps were considered dangerous and unhealthy environments. In the 21st century, the environmental perspective has influenced the public opinion: now, drained swamps are being slowly restored to their original state so they can act as carbon sinks and preserve biodiversity. In both ways of thinking, the benefits gained by humans are important, but in the latter reasoning, the well-being of humans is considered to depend on the well-being of ecosystems, including swamp ecosystems. The changes in the valuation of swamps are linked to increasing knowledge, which has brought about changes in the conceptions of what is important for the well-being of humans or other species. The valuations significantly affect the states of the habitats of other species and their possibilities to live species-typical lives.

Natural scientific environmental research produces, for example, knowledge about the changes in the state of the environment, and of the significance of these changes for different species and ecosystems. There is a strong connection between the increase in scientific knowledge and the formation of the environmental movement: the received knowledge has awakened a wide concern for the state of the environment as well as demands for changes in environmental practices. Natural scientific knowledge is the most important basis for claiming, for example, that the actions of humans cause climate change and biodiversity loss. However, interpreting these changes as a problem is a human-based process. As environmental philosopher Markku Oksanen has stated, environmental issues only become problems as they are noticed and defined. Defining something as a problem can be suggested either by a civil society or a scientific community.

Social scientific environmental research examines above all the connection between human activity and the changes in the environment, and, to some extent, the effects of these changes on humans (some effects are studied in the field of health sciences, for example). A natural scientific answer to something like why the extinction rate has accelerated is only a small part of the answer, that is, its ecological component. For instance, the black rhinoceros can be considered critically endangered because its populations have dwindled and become fragmented due to hunting. In order to do something about the issue, it is at least as important to know why it has happened from the perspective of human activity: why are black rhinoceros hunted, and why doesn’t the communication on the criticality of the matter convince the locals to act differently? The reasons can be linked to a necessity brought on by extreme poverty, in which case the locals are ready to do whatever it takes to earn a livelihood. On the other hand, it can be linked to markets through which it is possible to gain immense income from the horns of black rhinoceros. Therefore, from the hunter's perspective, it is about their own livelihood or in a worst-case scenario, ensuring the survival of their own family. On the other hand there is a culture in which the horns are considered desirable collectibles among the wealthy.

More extensively, the question regarding climate change is: what are the societal, political, social, and economic reasons, i.e., the “root causes” for climate change, and what are the characteristics of a society that hinder reducing emissions? Or what effects do different attempts to solve problems have and why? Why, for instance, certain political actions succeed in reducing emissions while others do not lead anywhere or only produce undesirable and surprising side effects? One example of this is the Yellow Vest Protests movement that began in France in 2018. Planned increases in fuel taxes caused exceptionally wide protests throughout the country time and time again, and the planned increases were judged as unjust and to unfairly aimed at rural populations and the working class. For instance, knowledge of the factors affecting the acceptability of political measures is important for environmental measures, so emission reductions can be politically promoted in a situation where not every citizen considers climate change their greatest concern.

Social sciences also study how environmental thinking is constructed and how it influences the activity of humans: What prevailing manners of speech, hierarchies of values and, e.g., power relationships or inequalities make the transformation towards a more sustainable direction more difficult? In social scientific environmental research, the environment is in relation to the human and vice versa: the human appears as one agent in the complicated network of interrelations, as a part of socio-ecological processes, and understanding the nature and consequences of these processes is an important part of societal development. Social sciences also conduct a great deal of research on inequality and good life, from environmental perspectives as well.

As for environmental research in the humanities, it has placed particular emphasis on environmental issues and how experiencing them can be specific to cultures and fields of science. The editors of the book Monitieteinen ympäristötutkimus, Karoliina Lummaa, Timo Vuorisalo and Mia Rönkä (2012, 16) state the following in the introduction of the book:

From this perspective, the environmental problem is understood as an environmental change caused by humans, which in turn is perceived as harmful by humans. We will now go into the details of the aforementioned conception.

Image. Swamp landscape Several dead woods rising from the ground, fog in the background.  (Image by Sergei Spas, free to use under Pixabay License.)

Environmental conservation - protecting the human or nature?

Even though the practice of conserving nature and the environment can be traced back to the 19th century, the earliest form of organised environmental conservation in Finland and many other countries is waste management. Particularly as cities grew, it became important to take care of the healthiness of humans’ living environments, so the health boards of cities became organising the collection and management of waste. For example, the increase in the number of water closets caused the contamination and pollution of coastal waters, which led to cities and municipalities beginning to control and organise toilet networks and sewage treatment systems. The measurements and investigations conducted by health boards have subsequently extended into regional and national environmental research programs whose aims today are to secure a healthy habitat for both humans and other species. The practical challenges of waste management have also led to the creation of Finland's first environmental laws, such as the Water Act of 1962. Many general questions of social politics can also be considered to be environmental questions. If, for example, one thinks about how adequate nutrition, living conditions and livelihood are ensured for all of the citizens of a nation, one must simultaneously consider how a nation and its people act in natural and built environments. Environmental questions are therefore thoroughly societal.

In many reviews of environmental history, the beginning of modern environmental protection is placed in the 1960s and 1970s, in the time of the so-called environmental awakening, during which the overall idea of environmental protection grew into a concern for the future of the entire planet. What is considered a turning point, is when protection was first focused on nature for its own sake, not merely to ensure the well-being of humans. Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring (1962) is often mentioned as a central wake-up call. It depicts the effects of DDT and other pesticides on American ecosystems, especially birds, a great number or which died as a result of poisoning. Environmental researchers Simo Laakkonen and Timo Vuorisalo point out, however, that the modern environmental movement has not actually protected nature only “for its own sake”. Instead, they have concentrated on environmental issues that have been produced, recognised and conceptualised by humans. Therefore, environmental problems are thoroughly societal and intertwined with human life. Thus, environmental problems and environmental protection are linked to the conceptions and ambitions of good life: for example, the purpose of pesticides is to ensure a better life for farmers (through increasing profits) and consumers (through cheaper and more abundant nutrition).

According to Laakkonen and Vuorisalo, it is as though environmental issues are being translated from the field of natural science into cultural, social, economic, and political questions. In that case, their importance is increasingly justified with human reasons, especially health reasons. “The harmful effects of eutrophication are illustrated with cases of poisoning, the dangers of ozone depletion are indicated through the increase in skin cancer, and the significance of biodiversity is emphasised as presenting rainforests as the pharmacies of humankind. The destructiveness of climate change is dramatised through the threats to low-lying coastal and island areas and the spreading of famines and epidemics.” (Laakkonen & Vuorisalo 2012, 127.)

The need for protecting “pristine nature” has also often been justified by, for example, the responsibility to enable current and future human generations to have an experiential connection with non-human nature. Perspectives that emphasise “nature in itself” or, say, other species’ rights to life and well-being tend to easily drown in the ebb and flow of decision-making and public discourse.

From the perspective of planetary well-being, it is important to understand how the anthropocentric world view and culture have influenced both the conceptualisation of environmental problems and the aspirations to solve them. The important issue here is that traditionally climate changes have only been considered harmful when they affect the well-being of humans. Consequently, we have been too slow to react to changes in natural environments, which are harmful towards other species and ecosystems. For example, the extensive loss in the number of insects wouldn’t even have been noticed were it not for the reduction in the number of pollinators for humans’ farms, and patches of plastic waste may freely form in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. As is often brought up in contemporary discussion on climate change and biodiversity loss, these changes will also eventually cause suffering for humans as well.

Climate change and aesthetics

Aesthetics is an area of philosophy focused on questions of beauty, art and sensory experience. Environmental aesthetics approaches these subjects especially through the lens of lived environments. Global environmental issues are rarely considered in terms of aesthetics, but environmental aesthetics researchers remind us that the surrounding world has always been perceived on aesthetic bases. Protecting nature has also meant protecting beauty, often culturally formed and nationally important beauty, such as national landscapes or symbolically important animals. Aesthetic values have changed over the course of history: for example, in 18th century Europe, mountains were not yet considered in any way aesthetically pleasing. Understanding mountains as majestic and intriguing landscapes, and climbing them as a meaningful pastime, developed in the 19th century through Romantic thinking. At the same time, national landscapes, many of which emphasised national landscapes, were sought out and portrayed. An important Finnish example is Koli, as portrayed by Akseli Gallen-Kallela and Eero Järnefelt.

Aesthetic choices on, for example, living, travelling, and clothing may cause major environmental effects. The environmental impact of aesthetically motivated activity has been described with the concept of aesthetic footprint, developed by Ossi Naukkarinen, a researcher in aesthetics: in a globalised world, the choices people make, such as buying a new piece of clothing, cause aesthetic environmental effects at least in two places. The consumer purchasing the clothing only causes minor changes in the aesthetic environment of their immediate surroundings, but the production of the clothing may manifest itself in major aesthetic, material, and ecological changes in the country of production, including, for example, the appearance of a cotton field or a factory in a landscape. When understood as a superficial phenomenon, aesthetics, such as products that are harmful towards the environment but veiled in beautiful packaging and promotions, may also hide the structures and environmental history behind environmental problems.

Aesthetic preferences also influence biodiversity loss. Especially in built environments, people tend to make aesthetic choices that reduce the diversity of species. These may include, for example, the preference for gardens to have tidy lawns and exotic ornamental plants which cannot be utilised by local insects, as well as the removal of decaying wood and thickets that are important habitats for many species and also important for the life and structure of soil. In his book Second Nature, author Michael Pollan writes about the cultural history of lawns and proposes that the popularity of tidy lawns is based on their status as symbols of the middle class. Due to the global environmental crisis, many civic movements and research projects have attempted to deliberately change the aesthetic conceptions related to gardens and yards, for example, by campaigning for pollinator gardens, permaculture gardening and rewilding. Environmental researcher Galina Kallio writes that landscapes produced by such alternative methods are often perceived as messy – but also that experiential knowledge of the methods’ ecological benefits also changes conceptions of the beauty of landscapes. In this way, ecological knowledge and environmental activities may also contribute to aesthetic experience.

Climate change and other modern environmental problems are particularly challenging research subjects for aesthetics because a significant portion of them is beyond the reach of direct human sensory perception. Activity on one side of Earth may have an effect on the other side. Many effects of climate change and other environmental problems remain distant in the global north. In that case, aesthetics must be studied in relation to, for example, knowledge, emotions, attitudes, and social status. According to philosopher Emily Brady, negative aesthetics is needed to address the negative effects of climate change in the aesthetic experiences of humans. Habitat loss and biodiversity loss affect the broader environmental conceptions and attitudes of humans. On the other hand, phenomena that have generally been considered beautiful, such as sunny summer days, have also become questionable. Philosopher Mădălina Diaconu, who has studied the aesthetics of weather, states that weather that was previously perceived as pleasant and beautiful may now be seen as an uncomfortable sign of global warming and a reminder of our deteriorating living conditions.

Would you like to comment something on this section? Voluntary.