I think that nature works through cycles, based on competition and cooperation, that exist at multiple scales within time and space. I think that modern human society lives in a way that, in any scale relevant to us, is fundamentally not cyclical--we have raw materials and we have wastes, and, except in rare instances, they don't support the complexity of life that nature's cycles (at comparable scale) do. Environmentalism, then, is trying to bring modern human society back into working in the same kind of cyclical way as the rest of nature.

FWIW, I'm happy to have this criticized, as I'm still figuring it out for myself.

I have nothing in particular worthwhile to say about it. But I like it!

grist.org

In my view (also still working on it), "environmentalism" is about cultivating a greater awareness and understanding of life.  It's about seeing a bigger picture beyond the details of one's own life, beyond the details of one's culture and one's species.  I don't think the concept of "nature" is particularly necessary in a definition of environmentalism.  It's about peripheral vision.  People who call themselves environmentalists most often find themselves arguing against those that can't see beyond their own immediate gain ...

Frequently asked technical questions about Grist's newsletters and website.

Or a great way to scam stupid humans. Right, Captain?

a liberal in redsville

1. nature's cycles also include cataclysmic events so i don't think we won't to bring ourselves back into "balance" with those

2. defense of ecosystems from man-made intrusions means collective suicide because there is no society that has ever not had major impacts on ecosystems

here's my def:

Environmentalism is the belief that the non-human world both provides tremendous benefits to humans that are often not taken into account and has intrinsic value above and beyond the use value of humans. Environmentalists try to make sure that prices in the economy reflect the true cost of the pollution and environmental degradation that accompany all goods and services, encourage government provision and protection of environmental public goods, and try to enact policies that reflect an appreciation for the diversity of the non-human world. Not perfect, but hey, what is?

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Hmmmmm, now that I read what I just wrote, I'm more confused about whether my own beliefs fall into a form of "preservationism", in regards to old growth ecosystems. I'll have to think about it some more.

OK, I thought about it some more and I've decided that I want to temporarily preserve old growth stands, through thinning projects, until more stands take on those old growth characteristics and ecosystem values we all so cherish.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

I'd use the semantics strategically to reverse the separation that has been such a hindrance to "environmental" action.

Environmentalists are outsiders to mainstream American society.

Because Economist -- which tells where his priorities are -- criticized other posts, I'll criticize his.  Your points are both wrong.

1. The "cataclysmic events" you refer to are not only natural, they're necessary in order to have life as we know it.  For example, hurricanes move warmer air to cooler areas.  Without these "cataclysmic events" we wouldn't be here.  So, we do want to be in balance with those events.  As a Native American once said, all natural disasters are due to the ignorance of white men.  What he meant is that people need to organize their living within how nature works: don't live in flood plains or close to volcanoes, don't build things
that earthquakes or tornadoes will knock down, etc.

2. Your statement that "there is no society that has ever not had major impacts on ecosystems" is totally false.  In fact, only civilizations have had major negative impacts on ecosystems.  Hunter/gatherer societies have been able to exist in harmony with their ecosystems.

While I'm very willing to work with others with very different points of view, I am a strong supporter of VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/), but that's not a definition of environmentalism.  I think Birdboy nailed the way I'd define the word, though I'd also add restoration where humans have caused ecological harm.

Jeff Hoffman

Because Economist -- which tells where his priorities are -- criticized other posts, I'll criticize his.  Your points are both wrong.

Jeff,

Perhaps you missed the ground rules:

First, some ground rules. Responses can be as short or as long as you like. And as this is intended as an exercise to demonstrate the varying definitions of environmentalism, please refrain from criticizing other Gristmillers comments.

I want everyone to feel welcome to offer their own definitions without the fear of an attack by someone telling them that they are "wrong".

Think of this as a brainstorming session, where there are no bad ideas.

...a social movement which seeks to influence the political process by lobbying, education, activism and setting an example in order to protect natural resources and ecosystems. Some of the issues of concern for the environmental movement are pollution, species extinction, waste reduction, recycling, the threat of global warming and ozone depletion, and genetically engineered crops.

Interesting that most of the responses here focused on environmentalism as a belief structure rather than a social movement.  Personally, while this definition is rather bland, it rings true.

1. So you're saying that we should invite and welcome cataclysmic events like asteroids, tsnaumis, and floods because they're good and help nature to rebalance? tell that to the 200,000 dead in SE Asia

2. So we should go back to being hunter-gatherers in order to avoid ecological impacts? Since I think 99.9% of the world would disagree with this position, it is a non-started if you believe at all in democracy- and by the way, read Jared Diamond's book Collapse because many "primitive" societies trashed ecosystems as well

3. Yes, my definition matched my priorities, which place value on human civilization, which apparently you do not- I also place tremendous value on the non-human world as well

Anyone else with something new to contribute?

The trouble is that this sort of discussion quite often leads to a shouting match between a small number of individuals, which I fear discourages others from joining in. There are thousands of registered Gristmill users, and I would really like to hear from them as well.

The purpose of this particularly thread was not to arrive at one absolute definition of "environmentalism" (as some here obviously believe they possess) but that there is a myriad of definitions and perspectives.

If you want animated discussion, there is plenty of it here in Gristmill. I direct you to:

Environmental ethics

The evolutionary reason for humans?

Truce Almighty

What a green wants: An index-card manifesto (first draft)

These are just a few.

-Oliver Bernstein
Sierra Club