Which Perspective is More Persuasive, “Light Green” Environmentalism or “Dark Green” Ecologism?

There has lately been a pressing need to create a healthy climate. It has resulted in the development of more sophisticated methods of mitigating environmental degradation. It is apparent that environmentalists have addressed this topic in a number of ways. The various environmental policies have been labeled as various shades of green. In this situation, the different colors of green reflect a distinction between environmentalists who take a more balanced path to a greener world and others who have taken a hardline stand. The difference in approach towards a greener environment has led to the creation of a new environmental spectrum, normally described as either "light green" or "dark green" ecologism. For instance, the "dark green" ecologists have taken a more radical perspective, perhaps which could be described as the hardline tactic towards a greener environment. On the other hand, “light green” conservationists desire a more consumer or lifestyle focused method of ecological conservation. As much as these two approaches stem from the same motivation, the results of each perspective vary.

There is an acceptable belief embedded in the world, which propagates that human life and all associated activities and implications are in direct relation to environmental conservation. However, political movements tend to promote the idea that humans ought to use environmental resources to meet their needs, for instance, power generation. Such ideologies are also held by different cultural and religious groups worldwide. The resources in the universe are considered as a part of the world and are a reward to humanity. In other words, it is a common belief that nature and all it has to offer are a present to human life as opposed to having an independent purpose. It is this concept that inspired the idea of environmentalism (Pak, 2016). Therefore, it is important to emphasise that the motivation behind the initial green world movements was not to protect the environment, as it is an independent entity of its own; rather it is seen as a resource, which should be exploited by humans. Regardless, it should be done in a controlled, sustainable process because otherwise, the world will become inhospitable. Furthermore, the resources are scarce and may not be available for future groups if they are not used responsibly by the present generation. On that note, it is clear that when humans first started the journey to protect the environment, they began to conserve something they considered their property. Humanity felt entitled to exploit the resources and did not regard nature to have a purpose beyond the dependence and provision for people. Since then, the concept became wildly accepted in the world and had not been questioned until recently in the late eighties (Linch 2016).

Ecologism is a concept, which was initiated in the early eighties. It is considered the political science beliefs of people who are trying to achieve a deep green or dark green future. The idea is based on the motivation that more consideration should be placed on how the world would have functioned in the absence of humans as opposed to the status quo. It is essential to focus on how much better the ecosphere would have been if people did not excessively use the resources. Ecologism is, therefore, an actively promoted concept that should be taken into account. The environment and its well-being independent of human presence should be given more importance as an active stakeholder when political, economic, and social decisions. The choices made can then be considered to have significant impacts on nature (Brown 2013). The idea is different from the conventional environmental belief because it advocates for the ecosystem to bear next to no damage at the human expense (Nepal 2012). On the contrary, traditional conservational dogmas emphasise on not damaging the biosphere actively, by minimising wastage of resources and pollution.

By the end of the 1970s, ecologism managed to gain much more support from the public. The backing was fueled by the environmental movements in the early 1900s. Furthermore, three main theoretical developments have been attributed to the profound approval. First, there was a lot of emphases laid on the principles dictated by ecology, which managed to encourage people to come up with concepts about interconnectedness as well as holism. The importance enforced balance that managed to surpass a concern for the environment that limited itself to a motivation of sheer human dependency, which is now called environmentalism. Ecology is hence what provides a view and a basis for eco centrism. Ecologism is an approach that tries to ensure that the drive to preserve and protect the environment is more important than the material human gains. This point of view is uniquely fully embraced by deep ecologists. To some extent, this perception is what removed people from the center of the universe and changed the belief that humanity is the only entity that needs to be taken into account when formulating environmental policies. It replaced the ideology with several other dogmas.

Second, there was a growing understanding of the fact that the threat to the ecosystem has had a crucial philosophical aspect to itself in the form of anthropocentrism. The risk is the humanity-centered prejudice that is embedded in the system. It made the grounds for age old ethical thinking and philosophical belief and hence called upon policy makers and environmentalists to expand on their definition of what morality covered and what it needed to be taken into account. The third movement was the emergence of the so-called deep ecology, which embraces a fully eco centric way of life. In addition, it rejects anthropocentrism, that is, the belief that human needs and interests are to be prioritized over moral or philosophical benefits. Furthermore, the notion contrasts the ecocentric view of doing things. Deep ecology gives birth to a form of ecological thinking that cannot be incorporated into the existing ideologies that take most of the attention. Therefore, developing a dogma and a social movement, which regarded the environment as an individual construct independent of the stakeholders involved and others of its kind, was important.

Ecologism is a partisan concept within the politics of identity as opposed to the politics of materialism, which was a motivation behind the many earlier social movements. Therefore, it is perhaps a very different form of ideology to be recognized widely and for people to support. Ecologism is also a philosophy and a concept, which is more in line with the idea of politics of sensibilities. The politics of sensibilities works by attempting to reprogram people and reform their relationships with the resources they utilize. It also revamps people’s appreciation of other entities, such as the world, natural resources, scenic beauty, and others. Ecologism works by first motivating people to change and transform the way individuals think and conduct their activities. The emphasis, in this case, is to alter human being’s moral definition. By doing so, it expands the range of people’s ethical responsibilities. To increase understanding of how ecologism motivates individuals to modify their moral description, it is important to evaluate other three categories of the concept, for instance, the modern, social, and deep ecology (Nyegaard 1992).

The first kind is modernist ecology, which is a form of shallow ecologism of sorts. It is the category that relies upon the fact that it is undeniable that there needs to be a logical limit to any development. It means that, if an individual repeatedly works to protect the environment, then on some level in the spirit of the subjective definition of sustainable growth, he or she is likely to have to restrict the prosperity and development brought forth and made possible by the introduction of an industrial society. Modernist ecology is the form of ecologism that is a compromise between the conventional definition of ecology and capitalism. Therefore, modern ecologism only works to extend a person’s morality to a modest bound in favor of ecology. In addition, the concept is often heavily dismissed by the radical ecologists as a category, which is overly compromised. Ecological modernization is influenced by the concepts brought forth by modern liberalism, which is the practice of what can be called a reformed type of anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism encourages people to take into account both long-term as well as the short-term implications of exploiting the ecosystem. The idea is to find a healthy balance between the consumers' interest as well as the benefit of the resources being used.

The concept of modernist ecology is seconded by the theory of intergenerational altruism. According to this philosophy, the current generation is charged with securing the future. In other words, the present group of human beings has a duty to make choices on behalf of the forthcoming population. This argument has been influenced by the notion that within the society, there is a balanced relationship between the living and the past and the future generation. However, most modernist ecologists favor state intervention, which is based on the view that the environmental degradation caused by human beings is an externality or a social cost; hence, it needs to be recognized by the market. Based on this interpretation, people following the course have also been known to call for the establishment of a green state, which is an enforced authoritarian state. Others have been advocating for the formation of a so-called green capitalist form of government. A consumerist form of state relies on many market forces to reform a tilt towards more ecologically reluctant production and consumption trends (Freeland 2017).

The second category is social ecology. Its concepts are comparable to the ideologies of ecological socialism, which requires that capitalistic notions oppose ecology while socialist dogma supports it. For example, it draws its inspirations from the fact that the concept of private property convinces humans that they have dominion over the environment. The notion of the market economy has managed to successfully make nature into a resource that can be monetized. The idea considers resources as a property that can be bought and sold and has no other value. Furthermore, the system inculcates materialism and hence promotes constant growth. It has led humanity to believe that they are entitled to use, abuse, and own resources naturally provided to them. This ideology has resulted in a lot of the natural and environmental destruction that humans have witnessed over the years. In the initial period, there was undoubtedly great support for social ecologism. However, as dictated by very frequent admonishing environmental records of several states, socialists were gaining more recognition. At the same time, eco-socialism quickly started losing its attractiveness and support (Whiteside 1995).

The last category of sustainable development is deep ecology. It emphasises the need for a significant change in the way humans think about the world and the assumptions humanity have with regard to the environment. Specifically, it demands an approach, which necessarily says that people need to step away from the capitalistic thinking that is inculcated into the system. Instead, humans should reform their perspective of how things and the universe works. Deep environmentalism advocates for a radical change that bring together all anthropocentric ideas and assumptions, replacing them with a sense of interconnectedness, which is the central theme of all types of deep ecologies. Such eco centric need for change has encouraged deep conservationists to extend moral thinking in some different directions that support their philosophies. Deep ecologists create awareness of the broad sense and knowledge of morality.

The cost benefit analysis of deep conservationism tends to favor strong sustainability. The analysis does not only translate to reforming the ways of current development to hinder environmental destruction, but also to fully stop the nature of growth for the sake of the environment. In addition, it advocates for the use of the motivation of protecting the resources as a way to reduce the growing environmental footprint of the current generation. Finally, deep ecologists have re-evaluated the meaning of personal gain and the nature of selfish happiness. Therefore, through the propagation of ideas such as the only fully sensible species, human beings have been shown on the receiving end of all the resources' transaction of the world. Hence, humanity is not perceived as just another object, which has to share the natural resources with future generations and the other entities present.

Ever since the creations of the distinctive categories of environmentalism, there are people who have stuck with the conventional definition when it comes to ecological sustainability. This group of individuals is not ready to compromise technological innovation entirely for the sake of environmental preservation. The movement is normally regarded as the light green ecologism. The first sub category of ecologism dictates that people have a responsibility to protect the resources of the world. Conserving the wealth of the universe, in this case, is crucial because they are in a limited quantity. For instance, when it comes to the environment, unsustainable use of certain resources might further destroy people's surrounding through the massive amount of pollution. Given that it takes longer to replace degraded parts of the globe, there is fear that the future generation might face huge problems if the current trend continues. This form of environmentalism has gained considerable support simply because it still places humanity at the center of its equation. In other words, the theory enables individuals within the society to see themselves as primary stakeholders. For instance, human beings will be most affected should there be any loss due to environmental degradation. As a result, this viewpoint has managed to gain more support from the society. The light green standpoint is different from other forms of ecologism, for instance, the deep green movement. For instance, when it comes to the dark green movement, the people are not only the primary stakeholders, but they also share the same responsibility with other entities. It is widely believed that the dark green movement has failed to gain more support because it emphasises the need to engage the society as a whole when it comes to environmental conservation.

The universe operates in a manner, which allows for co dependencies between the different entities of the world. The underlying ideology is that the biosphere works in a way that the past and present generations have a responsibility to provide or at least to ensure a level playing field for the ones who will come in the future. The only reason why the people in the current world have any natural resources is that the previous generations used them sustainably. Therefore, it is obvious that there is a cycle of responsibility in the manner in which the ecosystem operates. Furthermore, the balance in the environment has been maintained through symbiotic relationships, without which, there would be a general sense of altruism missing. In the absence of altruism, the universe would degrade quite rapidly.

It is indeed obvious that it is high time humanity stepped back and observed the damage that has been made in the environment, in light of development and industrialization. It is also essential to understand that perhaps we are too far down the path of technological advancement to go back completely. Perhaps, it is true that the technological progress and industrial development is intrinsic to the growth of the world, as humanity knows it. Hence, it is very crucial to be more tactful in the manner in which the earth's resources are being used. Humanity needs to develop strategies that will enhance the more sustainable use of natural resources. An approach, which ensures more care for the next generations, is necessary. Likewise, it is important not to ignore the place for humans in the universe. While there is a need to change the methods of using resources and the way people work with advancements, it is equally imperative not to take an extreme stance on either side. Especially, one that is so radical such that it is impossible to enact, and will perhaps have the green environment movement lose more support than anything else does. On that note, it is paramount to understand that as much as ecologism will never manage to raise the same amount of backing that any other environmental movement would, an entirely moderate approach is, at the same time, not ideal either. Hence, changing the notion of human beings, the only significant entity in the universe, becomes very important. In addition, shifting the stakeholder spectrum towards other shareholders to have more regard for the environment, its resources, and the entire biosphere is equally essential. However, an abrupt change towards ecologism is perhaps an impractical route to take. On the other hand, the one approach, which is most likely to be persuasive, given the status quo, is environmentalism.



References

Brown, J., and Dillard, J., 2013. Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the “death of Environmentalism” debates. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), pp.1-18.

Freeland, C.A., Dodd, J., Letts, P., Dos Santos, M.F., Stear, N.H., Cray, W.D., Friedell, D., Westenberg, A., Taylor, P.C., Lopes, D.M., and Hagberg, G.L., 2017. Call for Papers: Special Issue on the Good, the Beautiful, the Green: Environmentalism and Aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 75(3).

Linch, A., 2016. Engaging Nature: Environmentalism and the Political Theory Canon. Environmental Ethics, 38(2), pp.253-256.

Nepal, P., 2012. Ecopolitics and ideology: Relocating green themes in modern ideological thinking. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 65(4), 603-619.

Nyegaard, I., 1992. Morality and the environment. RSA Journal, 140(5429), 367-367. Pak, C., 2016. Terraforming: Ecopolitical Transformations and Environmentalism in Science Fiction, p. 263, Liverpool University Press.

Whiteside, K.H., 1995. The resurgence of ecological, political thought in France. French Politics and Society, pp.43-58.