Scientific, rhetorical and lifestyle use of the terms ‘ecology’ and ‘environment’ in reference to the ‘ecosystem crisis’

Abstract

I examined 100 publications in the humanities to see how the terms derived from the natural sciences, ecology, environment and ecosystem, were used. Many showed little understanding of the traditional meaning of ecology (study of interactions of organisms with their environment plus the knowledge so gained) although environment (overall conditions that impinge on organisms) was consistent with the natural sciences. Word combinations that included ecological, environmental or eco- often could not be interpreted literally (e.g., environmental culture). There is no obvious ‘ecological crisis’ (a crisis in or about ecology) nor (just) an ‘environmental crisis’ (its scope is too limited). However, there may be ‘crises’ within ecosystems: malfunctioning of spatially discrete entities composed of three elements: abiotic environment, biotic components, and agents of change. Fittingly, the planet was the focus of most sociological studies on the ‘ecosystem crisis’. Non-scientific uses included subjectifying ecology as representing the objects and processes actually under study and thence treating the term rhetorically (e.g., ecological catastrophe). Others view ecology as a belief system about nature and one’s place in it (e.g. ‘deep ecology’). As a personal world view, deep ecology and ‘ecotopia’ might be more aptly termed, ‘ecoism’. It should be a simple matter to replace ‘ecological/environmental crisis’ by the more apt ‘ecosystem crisis’, or more precise, ‘ecosystem health crisis’, or more objective, ‘ecosystem malfunctioning’. Interdisciplinary studies are a challenge but consistency in the meaning of technical terms derived from the parent discipline is an essential first step in promoting communication between the various disciplines.