Ecologically Speaking

If you were to go to the glossary of my Ecology textbook, you would find that in natural science ecology is typically defined as the study of the interactions and relationships between the biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) components of an ecosystem. For me, the most important and the most widely applicable part of ecology is that it is about understanding interactions, relationships, and connections between different parts of a whole. Using this definition, an ecological way of thinking is one that includes concern for multiple parts, understanding that everything is connected and that one thing is never really just one thing.

A single tree, for example, is its own organism, yet it is also perhaps a habitat both above and under the ground, fuel, a food source for other species, the creator of a microclimate of shade, a shield from the elements, and the list goes on. Your phone is indeed a tool with which to send and receive phone calls; however today’s smartphones are also for sending and receiving emails and text messages to various people; accessing social media platforms; and storing music, videos, and photos. In addition, there are a number of materials that go into making cell phones, and huge political and social implications surrounding the acquisition, processing, and the eventual disposal of those materials. An ecological approach to thinking about a cell phone includes thinking about all of the possible inputs, like materials and labor, and outputs, like toxic waste, as well as the system of the cell phone itself, like the networks accessed through the device.

For me, thinking about things ecologically is not simply about thinking “green.” Rather, it is really about thinking about how one product or action is not isolated; each individual thing is a part of a much larger system. In the words of John Muir, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” This is really how I think about ecology. An ecological way of thinking relies on being open and willing to think about how each thing relates to everything else in some way, in understanding the interactions between individual components of the system. In natural science, this means studying how biotic and abiotic parts of an ecosystem function together. Outside of science though, we can think about supply chains and how societies interact with resources and other societies…the list can really extend far beyond the realm of natural science!  — Karen Obertubbesing

An ecological view sees nothing in isolation and everything in an infinite network of interconnections. An ecological view recognizes the limitations of knowledge, perception, and experience; an ecological view acknowledges that words, concepts, and ideas are all models, not reality itself; evaluates models according to their congruence with the ongoing experience of reality; and draws on models from all disciplines in creating an assembly of knowledge and techniques for addressing a given problem. An ecological view attempts to understand the system with a wide enough view that a frame can be drawn around each problem to include the important relationships and exclude less important ones, while acknowledging the inherent incomplete nature of the area within the frame.

An ecological view is valuable in building an understanding about the world from existing knowledge, and in directing epistemological efforts towards questions that are likely to enhance this understanding. An ecological view is an antidote to disciplinary ideology by explicitly embracing the multifaceted nature of human understanding: no one facet can provide a sufficient basis on which to attempt to build a complete understanding The facet simply contributes some of the building materials for this structure.

An ecological view is wider and more shallow that a particular view. The broad thinker knows something about everything and everything about nothing. Ecological thinking on its own can only provide structure, not substance, to the discussion of a problem. The automotive ecologist, while taking a broader view, knows much less about the functioning of the car than the automotive engineer—would be more likely able to give a lecture on the social significance cars, but less likely, I suspect, to construct a car from a pile of raw materials. — Adam Riggen

Ecology demands that we alter our worldview to consider all aspects of a concept, and all of the interconnected relationships in our environments. In a sense, the values of ecology are the opposite of the values of academia. The academy wants students to pick a subject and specialize, specialize, specialize. The ultimate goal of academic is to become an “expert” in an obscure topic. A professor can be lauded for being the world’s foremost expert on South American economic policy in the World War II era, or the premier scholar on Marcel Proust’s unpublished works. Specialization, by its nature, ignores the rest of the subjects available in this wide world. I don’t mean to suggest that there is no value in being the number one Proust scholar, but what does endlessly studying the writings of one author tell its student about the intricate relationships of the world?

Consider the demographics of politicians in the U.S. Most Senators, Congressmen, and Governors studied law and government prior to running for office. In other industrialized societies, it is common practice for doctors, natural scientists, and social scientists—rather than only political scientists—to occupy the legislature. Thus, political decisions are made considering a wide variety of factors, and the democratic legislature is more representative of the diverse array of occupations in the general population. In a sense, the demographics of American politicians versus those in European countries—the classic example being that Angela Merkel, the leader of Germany, is a physicist by training—represent an anti-ecological political worldview. The partisanship and inability to pass decent social policy in the United States is a mark of the damages of anti-ecological thinking and specialization. One must understand the entire world, and all of the relationships within it, if they are going to affect positive change in it. Therefore, adopting an ecological worldview is vital to the very sustainability and survival of our society.

In a world of specialization, how can students come to a holistic understanding of all of the intermingling parts that make up planet Earth? In my opinion, the solution is to adopt an ecological worldview. Students educated via an ecological frame will have a wide understanding of all subjects, rather than an intense specialization into one. This will allow them to become better informed citizens and benefit the society as a whole. I believe that my Environmental Studies education at UVM is a great example of a holistic education with an ecological worldview. Through the lens of Environmental Studies, I have had the opportunity to study natural history, economics, religion, social movements, politics, and more. Having an understanding of all these subjects allows me to better understand the environment as a whole. — Sophia Hoffacker

An ecological view of the world is one that integrates a variety of ways of thinking. To think ecologically, you must approach every issue as if it had infinite facets, and be willing to explore each one until you are able to see the entire picture. This way of thinking would absolutely alter our perception of the world in that it would deepen our understanding of issues facing us and perhaps allow us to make wiser choices. For example, choosing a university to attend. With the deadlines for college decisions quickly approaching, many of my friends and family who have applied to college will be forced to make choices by early summer as to which institution they want to belong to for the next four years. When choosing a college, you would want to consider every aspect – it’s a very important decision! Thinking ecologically in making a college decision, that is taking every single factor into account, would certainly maximize both confidence in and happiness with their choices in the long run. Perhaps this view would even contribute to a more sustainable collegiate system in the long run: rather than making irresponsible and uninformed choices that can result in dropping out or unhappiness at school, an ecologically-made decision would help contribute to satisfaction at school. The rest would be up to you, of course. — Shelbi Burns

Stemming from biology, ecology looks at ecosystems and their ability to be successful. Ecologists look at every part of an ecosystem to begin to understand the complex relationships between each species, and how interconnected every member of a ecosystem is. An ecologist can look at an ecosystem and predict just how a drought will impact the local population of deer, or the affects of the introduction of an invasive species (such as the zebra muscle in Lake Champlain) can drastically change the landscape of an ecosystem. The study of these relationships is not limited isolated ecosystems that are read about in science textbooks. An ecological view of the world is a view that looks at the connections between every aspect of our existence. Ecology challenges us to see past what is in front of us, and look at how everything is influenced by everything around it. This can be a hard concept to grasp, as at it requires the synthesis of every relationship between every factor on this earth. It’s a vast ideology, and one that cannot be simplified, as simplification would cause some of the main meaning to be lost.

The most common example of this dangerous simplification is when one assumes that ecology only occurs in the natural world. This completely eliminates humans from the established web of connections, and in turn, removes us from the ecosystem that supports our very life. This separation has lead to the establishment of a rather dangerous relationship with out ecosystem, in which we take what we need without thought towards the earth’s overall health. The belief that humans have mastered the earth and that the earth exists only to support our lives and wellbeing is a shortsighted opinion. Yet, as shown by the numerous disastrous affects of global warming, affects that impact ecosystems in ways they are not adapted to deal with, it is clear that humans have worked under this Been acting under this presumed state of ownership of the earth for some time, and have finally stretched the limits of our earth’s capacity. In order to have a truly ecological view of the world we are surrounded by, we need to include some form of the human existence and it’s impacts into the equation. We cannot fall back onto our old habits of removing humans from the system and disregarding the waste that humans create. We instead must find to establish equilibrium between humans and all other aspects in the system again, because without it, the ecosystem will not be able to continue to survive.  — Ziggy Chesley

To employ an ecological view about the world one is essentially removing oneself from its current situation in time and thinking about a given situation holistically. In order to use this ecological view to look at the world one must think about how all systems are interconnected, complex, and amazing. This alters our perception of the world because we are no longer at the center of it all. In the minds of most people we think about the ways in which natural and man-made systems directly affect us and if they don’t then we most likely don’t think about them. An ecological view takes an entirely different approach and thinks about things in such a large scale that reminds us that every input, output, feedback, and disturbance impacts every organism regardless of whether or not we can see or feel it. In this way of thinking a relationship develops where humans are thinking about the ways in which systems function and the ways in which we can learn from and mimic those naturally occurring systems. We also can more accurately perceive the ways in which we have and are continuing to impact and alter those systems.

Right now as I am from Boston and returning home for “spring” break I cannot help but be fixated on the amount of snow that has and continues to bombard my home. Boston is also in the news right now as it is a potential candidate for the 2024 Olympic Summer games. Both of these issues, which are seemingly disconnected, make me think of all of the implications that come with hosting an international event. For this reason I propose an ecology of the Olympics. Before delving into a discussion about a potential 2024 Olympic Games in Boston I will first give a recap of what is going on in the city currently. Right now we have broken records in both temperature and snow fall. In many places we have surpassed 80 inches of snow, which has not had a chance to melt at all and is continuing to fall. Due to the incredible amount of snow government officials have allowed for the dumping of snow into Boston Harbor and other places along the shore in Quincy. This is going to have huge implications on the water when everything melts and will only work to exacerbate the positive feedback loops occurring in regards to climate change. This information is necessary for the ecology of Olympics because in a constantly changing climate due to human activities we need to begin evaluating our current situation when attempting to plan for events almost a decade into the future. The Olympics are not a small event either so planners need to think about where stadiums can be built, where people can stay during the event, how people will get around during the event, and surrounding all of these questions is the larger one of how to do so sustainably. No matter where the Olympics are held, even though Boston is my home and I am more directly concerned about a sustainable future for this city, we need people that are looking at all aspects of the system. We need to ensure that this event will not inhibit further climate change, specifically in terms of frequency and intensity of weather events. If Boston does host the summer Olympic games in 2024 I hope it is done so in a way that allows for economic growth yet doesn’t lead to continued record breaking temperatures and snow fall because we can’t keep functioning with eight feet of snow every winter!   — Rose Thackeray

The difference I see between an ecological view of the world and simply a view of the world is the awareness that any understanding of this life is ecological. Humans, after all, possess the innate capability to integrate knowledge, to correlate experience with norm and fact, to—through connection with others—understand that even the “otherness” of the world possesses a lens to look back with questioning eyes at what we deem familiar. It is the harnessing of this awareness, and the insistent use of its vocabulary, that constitutes an ecological view.

An ecological view of the world teaches us that flossing is good for your heart and that wildfire (even accepting human connotation of a decidedly neutral natural phenomenon) isn’t always “bad.” It insists in the understanding of racism as a socio-politically motivated system of oppression, and it reminds us that the traffic pattern downtown will alter the forms of movement around it. To think ecologically, in short, is to make connection—though not always and not limited to connection made linearly. Ecology as a mentality encompasses patterns made in straight, correlation or causation lines, but also incorporates circles, zigzags, backtracking, and dotted what-if’s. Ecology is a web and its practice as a way of knowing is the exploration and utilization of its intricacies.

In thinking about the complexity of ecology, I see a possible challenge emerging from the reality that we cannot know everything, nor can we predict exactly where our actions in this web of the world will take us, and our climate. How, then, to create positive change and minimize risk of accidental misunderstandings of the systems around us and their survival? An ecological view, of course—but taken with the understanding that there is no one status quo to preserve or understand. There are many—infinite. We live in a world of constant motion, and an ecological view of it must also accept (though not be defeated by) the fact that the unknown will always exist in one form or another. Ecology, in the face of invisible fact, simply seeks to understand what is seen through as many lenses as possible.

For, in ecological thought, the unknown should not be reason for paralysis—what good is that. Better, I think, to incorporate with an aspiring ecological view a desire to do good work, and the motivation to make it stick. In humanity I see too much—to much beauty, too much struggle, too much double entendre, too much love and too much art—to believe any one of us is singular in our understanding of the world, or at least in our potential understanding of the world. Thus, none of us possess a view—we live in the many interpretations and understandings of the world around us, and again, the only divide between that an ecological perspective is the awareness that such complexity exists and should be embraced.

An ecological perspective dives in to the messiness that is life. It instructs us, instead of calling for the cleanup of the absolute chaos that comes with the process and attempted understanding of existence, to lean in to an awareness of one’s view, to engage in mindfulness that this view is both multifold and incomplete, but capable of greatness nonetheless.  — Rebecca Potter

An ecological view of the world looks at all the connections and interactions that make the world what we know it to be. This perspective would focus on not only the actual “world”, but also all the factors that affect the world and help shape it. Our relationship with the world would change if we took on this perspective because we would not judge things off of just their physical appearance, which we tend to do most of the time. Instead, we would study objects or concepts by looking at them as if they were the sum of all of their interactions and connections with the outside world. This would be harder to record or observe, but it would lead to a greater level of understanding than simply using our eyes to tell us information about something or someone. An ecological view would change our entire mindset and how we process information.

For example, a non-ecological way to describe a ski resort would be listing off what it directly consists of, skiers, lifts, snow, etc. This kind of assessment you can make with your eyes. However, looking at something from an ecological perspective means that you have to take a step back and look at the big picture. Instead of focusing on what the ski resort looks like, you ask questions like “why does it look that way?” and “what other unseen factors have helped shape this ski resort?” You have to think about what forces are acting upon the ski resort and what influences the ski resort is having on other factors. By using an ecological lens, we are able to understand connections that normally no one would think to look for.  — Sarah Perlee

If you ask most people what they think ‘ecology’ is, you’ll probably get a response that it has something to do with the plants and animals in the environment. While this definition is not wrong, it doesn’t quite assess the broad scope of environments that ecology can be applied to. The phrase ‘the environment’ has a certain connotation implying that it must be a natural space. Fields of industrial ecology and sustainable automobility prove that the space of the environment can be more than a natural setting. An ecological view can be applied to any system.

Think of ecology like a lens to view the world through; it assesses the connectedness of many aspects of our world. For example, in a natural ecosystem energy is flowing between organisms so one way to view ecology is through the way that one plant in the environment and it’s energy consumption/production effects the other organisms in its environment (think food web). The ecological mindset can be broken down into a few simple pieces:

• A subject
  • This is any thing that interacts with other things, e.g. a worker in a large corporation
• The environment you’re choosing to look at
  • Just like in photography, framing the subject is key. To learn more about the subject, we must choose the realm where they are interacting, e.g. the office building of that worker
• The other organisms and entities being interacted with
  • This is the species, non-living things, and resources within that environment, e.g. in the case of the office worker, this could be coworkers, the patrons of the company, the water in the water cooler, or a stapler

We can take these simple concepts and break down most any environment to try to find more information about the place and the organisms/things within that place. The most important things to look for would be influences and interactions. For example, we might be looking at the office building and trying to figure out why a floor of the building uses 300 sheets of paper per week. We must look at what the paper is used for, which workers are printing what, if there is a suggested cap of paper, how the office manager distributes supplies, what the customers are demanding be sent on paper, etc. Containing all these connecting aspects within the frame of an environment is the basis of the ecological lens.

This way of thinking can help us find out new information in ways that integrate multiple factors. The possibilities for applications are endless; our class alone has proposed using it to assess disease outbreaks, the impact of ecotourism, political systems, and Smartphone dating apps. Looking beyond the individual in a connective systems approach can help us better understand the complex world that we live in and with that knowledge do things to improve it.   — SaraJane Harrington

So what is “ecology” anyway? Besides a word we use in rhetoric to sound smarter, or a buzzword enmeshed in “green washing,” simply put, ecology is the study of interactions. Adopting an “ecological view” allows us to come to a higher understanding of these interactions, through the culmination of interdisciplinary knowledge and study. Ecological study is like asking the classic question, “if you could have dinner with anyone past or present, who would it be?” Ecology invites a bunch of different disciplines to the dinner table, all with a unique perspective and base of knowledge. If you were asked to solve a complex problem you wouldn’t simply ask one professional, or look at the issue from one perspective. You would look at the problem from a variety of perspectives, taking into account all relevant dimensions.

Lets take my “Ecology of the School Cafeteria” for example. In order to understand the inner workings of this dynamic space we have to ask a wide variety of questions. We have to ask questions regarding agriculture: how are we getting/growing the food we are serving to students? Questions regarding finance: why is the budget for school lunch what it is? Questions regarding social development: who is sitting with whom and how are they interacting with one another? I could go on and on as ecological study is practically endless.

Then we ask questions as to how the different “branches” of the “Ecology of the school cafeteria” are related. For example, how does the lunch budget affect the agricultural ways in which we are growing our food? How does cafeteria’s endorsement of industrialized agriculture affect student’s relationship towards food? How does the act of buying school lunch create a visible socioeconomic division between students? An ecological perspective reminds us that nothing exists within a vacuum; everything is interconnected.

After investigating and analyzing the school cafeteria from an ecological perspective, we can design the space for optimal sustainability. An environment that is socially sustainable optimizes social capital between organisms. In order to increase social capital in the school cafeteria, we have to implement strategies (whether they be long tables where everyone sits, tables in which everyone faces outwards, or assigned seats) that create an inclusive environment in which the student body is not divided based on race, ethnicity, gender, or the bizarre adolescent hierarchy of popularity.

Public school should be a haven for students from their sometimes-strenuous home lives. However, the school cafeteria continues to be yet another example of economically disadvantaged people not adequately being served by our government. The current New York City public school lunch is priced at a dollar and seventy-five cents. $1.75 for a whole meal in 2015? That seems unheard of. After taking a bite of this meal, one can easily see why it costs so little to produce. Our school lunch program is supporting unsustainable industrialized agriculture, and creating a perverse relationship between student and food. Millions of children across the country depend on these free or discounted meals; delicious and healthy food should not be a luxury for the poor and a staple of the rich. The “Ecology of School Cafeterias” will seek out economically viable options for sustainably grown, good quality food for students. This could be seen in the form of a school run community garden, sponsored membership in Community Shared Agriculture (CSA) program and donations of fresh produce from more well-to-do parents, etc.

Michelle Obama has tried her hand at improving public school lunches through her “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.” However, her efforts have solely revolved around nutritional food standards. As we can see from the “Ecology of School Cafeterias,” the issues that exist within this space are complex and multidimensional. I would urge policy makers to adopt an ecological viewpoint when trying to solve such problems. While the mantra of the school cafeteria is, “you can’t sit with us;” I believe the only way to combat this complex problem is to invite our ecological dinner party to the lunchroom table.

— Camilla Petronio