Society in Science

by Random Student

The history and development of the field of ecology has reflected changes in economic theory, political and social evolution, and technological advancement. Ecology serves as our source of knowledge for understanding the way the various elements of nature come together, and serves as our tool in understanding our relationship with nature – and what that relationship should be. Since ecology gained momentum as a recognizable science in the late 19^th century, human society and events outside of science have affected its direction. Thus, these external forces have influenced our understanding of the natural world and how we should approach it.

An example of this phenomenon is that of conservation ecology of the early 20^th century in America. Such conservationists like Gifford Pinchot argued for a progressive approach to nature – one where man must manage, control, and regulate nature to maximize its productivity. But how and why did the direction of ecology take this turn? American society was responsible. Ecological historian, Donald Worster, remarked, “conservation was a major expression of the Progressive political movement (Worster, 262).” The Progressive Era in America featured political reform, increased regulation in the private sector, and support for renewed moral awareness. Trust busting, political accountability, and Prohibition were a result. But the Progressive period also included “efficient management of natural resources in the public domain (Worster, 262).” In an era of cleaning up politics and purifying American values, Pinchot in 1910 described his “Principles of Conservation” as “development, preservation, and the common good…(for) the development of resources, and the prevention of waste and loss, the protection of the public interests, by foresight, prudence, and ordinary business and home-making virtues (Pinchot, Principles, 3).” Conservationists like Pinchot aimed to apply the principles of human society to nature, hoping that the same reforms of society could reform and “fix” nature to make it more efficient public, and lasting. It seems that the conservation movement and ecology theory of the early 19^th century would never have existed without the dominating Progressive ideology.

Since the conservation movement, ecology has evolved. With technological advancement and two World Wars, ecologists lacked cohesion and disagreed as to what ecology stood for and what matters it should address. More recently, ecologists returned to the Darwinian conclusions that nature is not an efficient, self-regulating mechanical economy, but rather a chaotic, random, unpredictable unbalance. What is the next phase in ecology’s evolution? Will human events and outside institutions continue to skew its conclusions? Rarely has science and society changed roles – where science has fundamentally changed the direction of human society. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution certainly transformed centuries of human purpose and direction. The splitting of atoms and the invention of nuclear weapons too affected public and economic policy. What the field of ecology must do now is join evolution and the A-bomb and convince society of the impending threat of global climate change. Will the political, economic, and social mindsets and values of today’s world curb the hard science and evidence of climate change before it is too late? Just as animals deemed as “varmints” and “predators” were victims of the conservation movement, will the ecosystems of our planet be the victims of our ignorance and delay? Pinchot hoped to preserve our natural resources for the benefit of many; we must now preserve the planet for the benefit of all.